مقایسه انضباط متقابل میزان انتشار مجلات با ردیف علمی بالا: 1997-1999
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|5162||2002||8 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||2705 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Accounting Education, Volume 20, Issue 2, Spring 2002, Pages 123–130
We examine “top-tier” academic journal publications in four major business disciplines (accounting, finance, management, and marketing) during the 1997 through 1999 time period. We document cross-discipline differences with respect to the number of articles published per discipline and the types of institutions that capture these publications. Specifically, the accounting discipline has considerably fewer top-tier articles published relative to other business disciplines. In addition, a significantly higher percentage of accounting top-tier publications are written by authors with top 20 academic affiliation relative to the top-tier publications in other business disciplines. Other cross-discipline differences are also documented.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Our results indicate that top-tier publication rates during the 1997 through 1999 time period are lower in accounting relative to other business disciplines. This relative difference is more pronounced in non-top-40 US academic institutions. As such, accounting faculty, and especially faculty at non-top-40 schools, may be faced with an uneven performance evaluation system. Since top-tier publications are an important criterion for promotion and tenure, faculty research awards, resource allocations, and faculty compensation adjustments, the differences documented in this study suggest that the accounting discipline is at a disadvantage relative to other business disciplines. One potential limitation of our paper is that our sample period, 1997 through 1999, is an anomalous time period. While we cannot rule out this possibility, our 3-year sample period provides a relevant (i.e. recent) and fairly long window to analyze cross-discipline publication comparisons. Another limitation is that we do not examine why the disparities noted in this paper occur. We document that the number of articles in top-tier accounting journals is low relative to other disciplines and that the proportion of top-tier journal slots in accounting captured by authors from top-20 institutions is high relative to other disciplines. One potential explanation for the observed disparities is that accounting faculty at less prestigious institutions are less likely to target their research towards top-tier journals than are their counterparts in other disciplines. However, it does not seem likely that only accounting faculty would exhibit such a self-selection bias. In addition, incentives to publish in top-tier journals within an institution are likely constant across disciplines. Another possible explanation for the observed disparities is that the review process in top-tier accounting journals is more demanding than the review processes in other business disciplines' top-tier journals. If this is true, then like Pogo, “we have met the enemy, and he is us.”