A long-term assessment of research productivity in accounting and finance departments in UK: 1991-2010. Issue 4 (4th March 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: C. Chan, Kam; Chang, Chih-Hsiang; Y. Tong, Jamie; (Frank) Zhang, Feida
• Is Part Of: Managerial finance. Volume 40:Issue 4(2014)
• Page Start: 416
• Page End: 431
• Publication Date: 2014-03-04
• Subjects: Higher education institution -- Research productivity -- Accounting and finance; Corporations -- Finance -- Periodicals; Business enterprises -- Finance -- Periodicals; 658.1505
• DOI: 10.1108/MF-09-2013-0247
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0307-4358

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: – The purpose of this paper is to conduct an assessment of the research productivity of the accounting and finance community in UK higher education institutions (HEIs) during 1991-2010 using 44 high-quality accounting and finance journals. Design/methodology/approach: – The authors follow Chan et al. (2011) to use their 22 finance journals. For accounting journals, the paper includes a set of 24 accounting journals that were used in a global accounting ranking study by Chan et al. (2007). The paper uses the number of coauthors ( n ) and coaffiliations ( M ) to derive the weighted articles as the measurement metric. Findings: – In general, the research output in terms of weighted articles steadily increases during the 20-year period. The University of Manchester, London School of Economics, and London Business School are the top-three HEIs using 44 accounting and finance journals for the full sample. The authors also find that it is a challenge to publish multiple articles. If an author is able to manage five total appearances, he/she is in the top 16 percent among the 1, 447 UK authors. Furthermore, the paper finds that many highly productive authors are able to move to different jobs during the 20-year period. Research limitations/implications: – The assessment of research productivity is, unavoidably, based on a set of selected accounting and finance journals. Hence, no matter what journal screening criteria the paper uses, there is always a subjective element in the process. If other journals or more/less journals were to be included in a similar study, different results may emerge. As a way to extend the value of the research, it would be interesting to obtain broader institutional knowledge, such as the tenure requirements of HEIs in UK, and information on the institutions where faculty members obtained their doctoral degrees, so that the authors can better evaluate the research productivity among accounting and finance community in the UK. Originality/value: – The paper conducts an assessment of the research productivity of accounting and finance community in UK HEIs during 1991-2010 using 44 high-quality accounting and finance journals. The study fills the gap of the extant literature to compliment the assessment of the UK accounting and finance departments in RAEs.