WHY DO UK ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE ACADEMICS NOT PUBLISH IN TOP US JOURNALS?

doi:10.1006/bare.2001.0160

The British Accounting Review

Volume 33, Issue 2, June 2001, Pages 223-232

https://doi.org/10.1006/bare.2001.0160 Get rights and content

Abstract

In peer reviews of the quality of academic accounting and finance journals, US journals are consistently perceived to be the most prestigious. UK accounting and finance academics share these perceptions, and yet very few of them ever publish in top US journals. A survey of UK accounting and finance academics was undertaken in an attempt to ascertain why this is so. The respondents perceive that the preference of top US journals for a US focus to published articles, reinforced by a strong element of gatekeeping and the need to be able to network with the US academic community, provide major barriers to entry. As a result, there is a strong belief that efforts to publish in top US journals will be unsuccessful and, therefore, publishing in the UK is seen to be easier.

References (18)

J.R. Doyle et al.
‘Grade inflation in the UK’s 1996 research assessment exercise?’
Omega, International Journal of Management Science
(1998)
W.T. Andrews et al.
‘Leading accounting departments revisited’
The Accounting Review
(1978)
J.J. Benjamin et al.
‘Perceptions of journal quality’
The Accounting Review
(1974)
A. Brinn et al.
‘UK accountants’ perceptions of research journal quality’
Accounting and Business Research
(1996)
L.D. Brown et al.
‘The familiarity with and perceived quality of accounting journals: Views of senior accounting faculty in leading US MBA programs’
Contemporary Accounting Research
(1994)
B. Bublitz et al.
‘Measures of research productivity’
Issues in Accounting Education
(1984)
J.R. Hasselback et al.
‘A proposal for measuring scholarly production of accounting faculty’
Issues in Accounting Education
(1995)
J.L. Heck et al.
‘Six decades of the accounting review: a summary of author and institutional contributors’
The Accounting Review
(1986)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (40)

An analysis of finance journal accessibility: Author inclusivity and journal quality
2022, Journal of Banking and Finance
Citation Excerpt :
These findings are in line with literature suggesting authors in the U.S. dominate publications in the top journals (Chan, Chen, & Steiner, 2002; Raffournier & Schatt, 2010; Chan, Chang, & Chen, 2011; Karolyi, 2011; Schwert, 2021). At first glance, these results support the perception of authors from outside of the U.S. that significant barriers to entry into U.S. finance journals exist (Brinn et al., 2001; Chan et al., 2004; Chan et al., 2014), and, in general, that it is easier to publish “at home” (Kalaitzidakis, et. al., 1999; Brinn et al., 2001; Chan et al., 2004; Chan et al., 2014); however, this finding may also be related to the fact that more top ranked finance programs, which require more publications in elite journals, are more geographically concentrated in North America, proportionally. To address this issue, we conduct a regression analysis controlling for quality.
Existing literature suggests that publication space within and across disciplines is unevenly spaced and that “home bias” and “barriers to entry” negatively impact publication potential, possibly limiting journal accessibility and author inclusivity. We investigate these issues within the field of finance, while considering journal quality, adding another dimension to the literature. Among the quality finance journals included in our study, we find little evidence against inclusiveness with respect to the average number of authors per paper or the percentage of unique authors; however, our analysis indicates that geographical diversity differs among the journals. Consistent with the higher proportion of top finance programs in the U.S., Tier 1 journals exhibit a higher authorship concentration in North America, relating journal quality and geographical diversity. Yet, Tier 2 journals demonstrate a broader regional representation than Tier 3 journals, indicating that geographical inclusivity is not driven exclusively by journal quality. Finally, our results consistently suggest that JBF is the most geographically inclusive journal among the 17 quality finance journals in our study.
‘Leveling the playing field’ when ranking accounting-education authors
2019, Journal of Accounting Education
Citation Excerpt :
Since the Journal of Accounting Case Research ceased publication, the journals in A1 and A3 are the main outlets for case studies (Table 9). Brinn’s, Jones, and Pendlebury (2001, p. 228) finding that accounting academics from the United Kingdom perceived gatekeeping by journals based in the United States. Jackling, Natoli, Nuryanah, and Ekanayake (2013, p. 19) noted that Accounting Education was launched in 1992 due to the “limited opportunities for publication of accounting education research for non-USA academics.”
This research employs two methods to ‘level the playing field’ when ranking accounting-education authors from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom, and the United States using their publication counts in 13 accounting-education journals. The first method groups the authors so that junior, mid-level, and senior faculties are only ranked within their experience group. The second method standardizes the publication counts by the number of years since each author’s PHD/DBA graduation or their first accounting-education publication whichever occurred earlier. We also adjust each author’s publications using a computed measure of journal quality. In addition to our rankings using the standardized publication data by faculty group, we provide data indicating the distribution of accounting-education publications in the 13 journals for each faculty and country group. Colleagues can use the data in this research as a benchmark in the merit, promotion and/or tenure processes; external reviewers can also use the data. Finally, we note significant differences in the publishing patterns between the authors from Canada and the United States and the authors from Australia, New Zealand, the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom.
Reflections on some of the formative years of the British Accounting Review: Thoughts of ducklings and swans
2018, British Accounting Review
Citation Excerpt :
Whilst this may be normal, as they both also note, this emphasis is all too often accompanied by a tribalism (Bonner et al.’s term) that leads to fragmentation in the discipline and the increasing phenomenon of groups of scholars unable (and/or unwilling) to talk to one another. Sub-disciplines develop and “schools” wedded to particular methods, methodologies or theories become increasingly isolated from one another, (see, for example, Wakefield, 2008; Brinn, Jones, & Pendlebury, 2001). This is a matter to which we will return.
Between 1978 and 2004 we were engaged in a variety of editorial roles with the British Accounting Review, its forerunner (The AUTA Review) and (what became) The British Accounting Review Research Register. This was a period of considerable change for both the journal and the Association. In this short essay, we look back on those 26 years, describing (as we see it) the changes and the reasons for them and indulge in a little reflection on some of the positives and negatives that have flowed around the journal over this period and up to the present.
Topics and trends in finance research: What is published, who publishes it and what gets cited?
2018, British Accounting Review
Citation Excerpt :
This situation is similar to, but arguably even worse than, that in accounting, where few UK-based academics publish in the top field journals, all of which are edited in the US (Brown et al., 2007). A survey of UK accounting and finance scholars conducted by Brinn, Jones, and Pendlebury (2001) confirmed the widespread belief that while the top US journals are considered to be the most prestigious of all, UK-based researchers are at a significant disadvantage due to their reduced ability to network, parochialism and a lack of interest in non-US research and gatekeeping by these journal editors. Our final piece of analysis concerns a comparison of the average impact factors for each ABS list quality level in finance compared with other sub-fields.
In this study we provide a detailed examination of the subject matter of finance research and its institutional features as it has evolved over the past two decades. Drawing on novel approaches from data science, we examine the content of more than 30,000 published papers. Overall, we find a striking lack of diversity in the topics investigated and the methodological approaches used. Almost all finance research is conducted using techniques from economics and mathematics, with virtually no use made of qualitative methods or interdisciplinary approaches. Looking at the developments of the discipline over time, we document an increase in the volume of corporate finance research and a variation in the topics covered following the financial crisis, although these changes appear to be reactive and trivial rather than paradigm shifts. We also provide a cartography of research in finance and its citation-based impact by the location of authors. Leading finance research is concentrated in elite US institutions, and has a disproportionately strong citation-based impact. Compared with other business and management sub-fields, citations in finance are heavily skewed towards the top journals as the latter generate almost twice as much impact as the lower rated outlets.
Drivers of citations: An analysis of publications in “top” accounting journals
2018, Critical Perspectives on Accounting
Citation Excerpt :
Van Campenhout and Van Caneghem (2010) investigated whether articles published in the European Accounting Review (EAR) were cited for their objective contribution or for the characteristics of their authors, with the results suggesting that an article’s contribution is more important than its authors’ characteristics. These results are inconsistent, however, with previous findings that accounting research has distinct characteristics, such as a stronger national orientation (Brinn, Jones, & Pendlebury, 2001; Jones & Roberts, 2005; Lukka & Kasanen, 1996), a greater hierarchical nature than other major business fields (Swanson, 2004), or control by an “elite“ circle of researchers (Lee, 1997; Lee, 1999). These characteristics of accounting cast doubt on the applicability of Van Campenhout and Van Caneghem’s (2010) results to a broader sample of journals, including U.S. accounting journals.
Citation counts are increasingly used to assess the impact and quality of articles, journals, researchers, and research institutions. At the same time, there is an ongoing debate about their usefulness as a performance measure. To understand the actual drivers of this measure in the accounting literature, we empirically investigated which factors affect the citation rates of publications in five “top“ journals of the field using a three-step regression to accommodate different theoretical perspectives on citations. Our results show that citation behavior is influenced by both article and author characteristics, suggesting that not only the universalistic but also the particularistic perspective on science is associated with citation behavior in the accounting field. Contrary to previous studies, we identify several particularistic variables as significant, relating to the visibility and position of researchers in the scientific system and to how they promote their research. In addition, the strong effects of the universalistic variables of subject area and research method point to the possibility that the use of citation counts for evaluating performance might create a bias in favor of certain types of research. Overall, our results should urge caution against the uncritical use of citation counts as an indicator of quality and a performance measure.
Accounting research: A critical view of the present situation and prospects
2011, Revista de Contabilidad-Spanish Accounting Review
In this study we critically review the internal procedures of the accounting community for generating and disseminating knowledge. We contend that academic journals on accounting research are scarce, publish few articles and apply high rejection rates, and the review process is lengthy and expensive. Additionally, an academic elite has unparalleled predominance in comparison to other business disciplines, reflected in an unusual share of published articles with authors affiliated to a small number of academic institutions, and the predominance of certain topics and methodologies. The discipline does not allow the collaborative, iterative and flexible features of innovative knowledge communities. The discipline's internal procedures favour restriction, control, slowness, and expiration, rather than participation, speed and renewal. They are ill suited for advancing knowledge and bode badly for successful research. As a result, accounting academics present low research performance and the discipline is facing steady decline. More importantly, the discipline is handicapped in producing innovative knowledge able to contribute to critical research and long term social well-being.
We also focus on the Spanish institutional situation, arguing that Spanish requirements for reaching tenured positions are difficult for accountants to meet.
We highlight the need to raise awareness of the problem and change the procedures.
En este estudio hacemos una revisión crítica de los procedimientos vigentes en la comunidad académica contable para la generación de conocimiento y su publicación. Exponemos que hay pocas revistas académicas para publicar la investigación contable, que éstas publican pocos artículos, aplican elevadas tasas de rechazo y el proceso de revisión es lento y costoso. Además, hay un predominio de una elite académica sin precedentes en otras disciplinas de empresa, lo cual se refleja en un mayor porcentaje de artículos pertenecientes a autores afiliados a un pequeño número de instituciones académicas, y el predominio de ciertos temas y metodologías. La disciplina no presenta los rasgos de colaboración, interactividad y flexibilidad propios de las comunidades dinámicas e innovadoras en la producción de conocimiento. El funcionamiento de la disciplina está más orientado al control que al avance del conocimiento. Los procedimientos seguidos en la disciplina no son los más apropiados para favorecer el éxito en la investigación. En consecuencia, los académicos contables presentan poca producción investigadora y tienen dificultades para desarrollar con éxito una carrera investigadora. Lo que es aún más importante, la disciplina ofrece pocas posibilidades de generar investigación crítica en cuestiones sociales y medioambientales.
Este trabajo analiza también la situación institucional en España, aduciendo que los requisitos exigidos para alcanzar posiciones de estabilidad académica son difíciles de conseguir para los académicos que se dedican a la contabilidad.
Ponemos de relieve la necesidad de tomar conciencia del problema, como primer paso para cambiar el funcionamiento de la disciplina.

View all citing articles on Scopus

^☆: The authors would like to acknowledge their grateful thanks to the 134 UK accounting academics who responded to our questionnaire.

View full text

Regular ArticlesWHY DO UK ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE ACADEMICS NOT PUBLISH IN TOP US JOURNALS?☆

Abstract

Omega, International Journal of Management Science

‘Leading accounting departments revisited’

The Accounting Review

‘Perceptions of journal quality’

The Accounting Review

‘UK accountants’ perceptions of research journal quality’

Accounting and Business Research

‘The familiarity with and perceived quality of accounting journals: Views of senior accounting faculty in leading US MBA programs’

Contemporary Accounting Research

‘Measures of research productivity’

Issues in Accounting Education

‘A proposal for measuring scholarly production of accounting faculty’

Issues in Accounting Education

‘Six decades of the accounting review: a summary of author and institutional contributors’

The Accounting Review

Regular Articles
WHY DO UK ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE ACADEMICS NOT PUBLISH IN TOP US JOURNALS?☆