Ranking Accounting Ph.D. Programs and Faculties Using Social Science Research Network Downloads

  • Lawrence D. Brown
  • Indrarini Laksmana
Article

Abstract

We rank accounting Ph.D. programs and accounting faculties based on downloads individuals' working papers posted to the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) receive. We retain 185 individuals included in Accounting Faculty Directory 2002–2003 (Hasselback, 2002) whose work has been most heavily downloaded as of August 21, 2002. We rank Ph.D. programs (faculties) both adjusting and not adjusting for program (faculty) size. We provide rankings both without regards to when individuals graduated and for individuals graduating during three consecutive sub-periods: pre-1982, 1982–1991 and 1992–2001. We first provide rankings without regards to teaching or research area. After dichotomizing individuals into those whose teaching/research area is financial versus non-financial we provide additional rankings focusing on non-financial research areas.

downloads accounting Ph.D. program rankings accounting faculty rankings social science research network 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bazley, J. D. and L. A. Nikolai, “A Comparison of Published Accounting Research and Qualities of Accounting Faculty and Doctoral Programs.” The Accounting Review 51(July), 605-610 (1976).Google Scholar
  2. Brown, L. D., “Ranking Journals Using Social Science Research Network Downloads.” Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 20(May), 291-307 (2003).Google Scholar
  3. Brown, L. D. and J. C. Gardner, “Applying Citation Analysis to Evaluate the Research Contributions of Accounting Faculty and Doctoral Programs.” The Accounting Review 50(April), 262-277 (1985).Google Scholar
  4. Bublitz B. and R. Kee, “Measures of Research Productivity.” Issues in Accounting Education 39-60 (1984).Google Scholar
  5. Carpenter, C. G., L. D. Crumbley and R. H. Strawser, “A New Ranking of Accounting Faculties and Doctoral Programs.” Journal of Accountancy (June), 90-94 (1974).Google Scholar
  6. Christensen, A. L., C. A. Finger and C. K. Latham, “New Accounting Scholars' Publications in Accounting and Nonaccounting Journals.” Issues in Accounting Education 17(August), 233-251 (2002).Google Scholar
  7. Croom, D. L., “Dangers in the Use of the Science Citation Index.” Nature 227(5263), 1173 (1970).Google Scholar
  8. Edge, D., “Quantitative Measures of Communication in Science: A Critical Review.” History of Science 17, 102-134 (1979).Google Scholar
  9. Hasselback, J. R., Accounting Faculty Directory 2002–2003, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 2002.Google Scholar
  10. Hasselback, J. R. and A. Reinstein, “A Proposal for Measuring Scholarly Productivity of Accounting Faculty.” Issues in Accounting Education 10(Fall), 269-306 (1996).Google Scholar
  11. Jacobs, F. A., A. L. Hartgraves and L. H. Beard, “Publication Productivity of Doctoral Alumni: A Time-Adjusted Model.” The Accounting Review 51(January), 179-187 (1986).Google Scholar
  12. MacRoberts, M. H. and B. R. MacRoberts, “Problems of Citation Analysis: A Critical Review.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science 40(5), 342-349 (1989).Google Scholar
  13. Pinkowitz, L., “Research Dissemination and Impact: Evidence from Web Site Downloads.” Journal of Finance 57(February), 485-499 (2002).Google Scholar
  14. Trieschmann, J. S., A. R. Dennis, G. B. Northcraft and A. W. Niemi, Jr., “Serving Multiple Constituencies in Business Schools: MBA Program versus Research Performance.” Academy of Management Journal 43(6), 1130-1141 (2000).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lawrence D. Brown
    • 1
  • Indrarini Laksmana
    • 2
  1. 1.Georgia State UniversityUSA Tel.:
  2. 2.Georgia State UniversityUSA Tel.:

Personalised recommendations