Accounting Academics Perceptions of 12 Research Journals

Abstract

This paper reports perceptions of over 1,000 accounting faculty regarding 12 accounting journals (including the traditional Top 3/6), specifically in: (1) how open they are to diverse topic areas, (2) how open they are to diverse research methodologies, (3) how effectively they produce new and useful knowledge for academics, and (4) how effectively they produce new and useful knowledge for non-academic stakeholders. We find that the traditional Top 3/6 journals do not lead the academy along these four dimensions; in fact, some are viewed as the worst performers in these areas. We also report perceptions of how each journal is currently valued and how each journal should be valued when evaluating faculty on research productivity. We find that the traditional Top 6 journals are and should be weighted as elite journals, but the other six journals should receive greater weighting.