Search results

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the highly cited articles published in Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal (AAAJ), since its inception, to answer three research questions: first, how have scholarly articles published in AAAJ developed? second, what are the focus areas and characteristics of articles in AAAJ, and who are the influential authors? third, who are the emerging next generation scholars and what are the emerging research themes in AAAJ?

A structured literature review (SLR) was used to analyse 126 most cited classic AAAJ articles and 21 additional emerging articles published between 1988 and 2016. Traditional literature reviews can have varied results because of a lack of rigour. The SLR method allows for an examination in detail of the articles, authors, focus areas and pattern of AAAJ publishing over three decades.

The findings show increased diversity in more recent years in theories, methods, origins, focus areas, and where AAAJ articles are cited, which highlights that the interdisciplinary accounting research project is maturing and remaining true to the ideal of being inclusive.

Within this diversity, the analyses show that AAAJ remains focussed on and presents opportunities for impactful accounting research related to social issues, including non-financial corporate reporting/disclosure, public sector accounting, corporate governance and alternative forms of accounting, audit and accountability. Additionally, there is a need for more practice-based research to address the “wicked” problems at the intersection between accounting and society.

This paper presents accounting researchers with an opportunity to develop insightful and publishable studies. Also, it serves as a basis for developing future research agendas in the interdisciplinary accounting field.

Google Scholar Citations (GSC) provides an institutional affiliation link which groups together authors who belong to the same institution. The purpose of this paper is to ascertain whether this feature is able to identify and normalize all the institutions entered by the authors, and whether it is able to assign all researchers to their own institution correctly.

Systematic queries to GSC’s internal search box were performed under two different forms (institution name and institutional e-mail web domain) in September 2015. The whole Spanish academic system (82 institutions) was used as a test. Additionally, specific searches to companies (Google) and world-class universities were performed to identify and classify potential errors in the functioning of the feature.

Although the affiliation tool works well for most institutions, it is unable to detect all existing institutions in the database, and it is not always able to create a unique standardized entry for each institution. Additionally, it also fails to group all the authors who belong to the same institution. A wide variety of errors have been identified and classified.

Even though the analyzed sample is good enough to empirically answer the research questions initially proposed, a more comprehensive study should be performed to calibrate the real volume of the errors.

The discovered affiliation link errors prevent institutions from being able to access the profiles of all their respective authors using the institutions lists offered by GSC. Additionally, it introduces a shortcoming in the navigation features of Google Scholar which may impair web user experience.

Some institutions (mainly universities) are under-represented in the affiliation feature provided by GSC. This fact might jeopardize the visibility of institutions as well as the use of this feature in bibliometric or webometric analyses.

This work proves inconsistencies in the affiliation feature provided by GSC. A whole national university system is systematically analyzed and several queries have been used to reveal errors in its functioning. The completeness of the errors identified and the empirical data examined are the most exhaustive to date regarding this topic. Finally, some recommendations about how to correctly fill in the affiliation data (both for authors and institutions) and how to improve this feature are provided as well.

The purpose of this paper is to show that prior studies on rating hospitality journals primarily used two major assessment categories. The first category gauges experts' perceptions of a journal's quality in terms of prestige. The second category counts objective measures that reflect journal quality in terms of popularity. The purpose of this study is to introduce a new counting method that uses Google Scholar (GS) to evaluate the citation counts of the leading hospitality journals.

The study began with the top hospitality journals in a recent study that rated journals based on perceived quality by hospitality experts. Next the paper examined the popularity, defined as the citations in Google Scholar (GS), of these leading hospitality journals. The collection of 1960 to 2006 GS citation counts was conducted from February to August 2007.

The ranking of GS citation counts for the selected journals generally followed the perceived ratings. The International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management and Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly performed the best in average citations per year. The International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management and International Journal of Hospitality Management received the largest number of average citations per published article.

The major limitations of this study are the mere eight hospitality journals included in the study and GS's proprietary indexing algorithm. Another limitation is the dynamic aspect of GS, which generates unequal findings over time. Still, the research findings help hospitality researchers, educators, practitioners, and students to understand the popularity of the most prestigious hospitality journals.

This paper is a novel attempt that uses GS for ranking popularity of the most prestigious hospitality journals.

The research aim for this study was to compare three citation resources with one another to identify the citation resource with the most representative South African scholarly environmental sciences citation coverage. This paper focuses on the results of the content verification process which measured amongst others the citation counts, multiple copies and inconsistencies encountered across the three citation resources ISI Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar.

The research, the first phase of a longitudinal study, used a comparative research design method with a purposive, non-probability sample. Data from the South African scholarly environmental sciences journals for the year range 2004-2008 (first phase) were extracted from the three citation resources and compared.

It became evident during the verification process that the citation resources retrieved varied results. The total citation counts indicated that ISI Web of Science (WOS) retrieved the most citation results, followed by Google Scholar (GS) and then Scopus. WOS performed the best with total coverage of the journal sample population and also retrieved the most unique items. The investigation into multiple copies indicated that WOS and Scopus retrieved no duplicates, while GS retrieved multiple copies. Scopus delivered the least inconsistencies regarding content verification and content quality compared to the other two citation resources. Additionally, GS also retrieved the most inconsistencies, with WOS retrieving more inconsistencies than Scopus. Examples of these inconsistencies include author spelling and sequence, volume and issue number.

The findings of the study contribute to the understanding of the completeness of citation results retrieved from different citation resources. In addition it will raise awareness amongst academics to check citations of their work.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of new citation‐enhanced databases and to identify issues to be considered when they are used as a data source for performing citation analysis.

The paper reports the limitations of Thomson Scientific's citation indexes and reviews the characteristics of the citation‐enhanced databases Chemical Abstracts, Google Scholar and Scopus.

The study suggests that citation‐enhanced databases need to be examined carefully, with regard to both their potentialities and their limitations for citation analysis.

The paper presents a valuable overview of new citation‐enhanced databases in the context of research evaluation.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the feasibility of automating Google Scholar searching to harvest citation data of monographs for collection analysis.

This study discusses the creation and refinement of a Scraper application programming interface query structure created to match library collection inventories to their Google Scholar listings to retrieve citation counts.

This paper indicates that Google Scholar is a feasible and usable tool for retrieving monograph citation data.

This study shows that Google Scholar citation data can be harvested for monographs in an automated fashion to serve as a source of bibliographic data, something not typically done outside of individual academics and writers tracking their personal academic impact factors.

The purpose of this paper is to review the software and content features of the Google Scholar Metrics (GSM) service launched in April 2012.

The paper reviews GSM, examining the software, browsing, searching and sorting functions, citation matching and content.

The paper reveals that the service can offer a better alternative than the traditional Google Scholar service to discover and judge the standing of journals through the prism of their citedness. GSM could become a potentially useful complementary resource primarily by virtue of its brand recognition, and the convenience of not requiring the installation of additional software, but currently its bibliometric indicators are often inappropriate for decision making in matters of tenure, promotion, grants and accreditation.

The paper provides a good understanding of the GSM service.

The purpose of this paper is to develop a ranking of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic journals.

A revealed preference, also referred to as citation impact, method was utilized. Citation data were obtained from Google Scholar by using Harzing's Publish or Perish tool. The h‐index and the g‐index were employed to develop a ranking list. The revealed preference method was compared to the stated preference approach, also referred to as an expert survey. A comprehensive journal ranking based on the combination of both approaches is presented.

Manual re‐calculation of the indices reported by Publish or Perish had no impact on the ranking list. The revealed preference and stated preference methods correlated very strongly (0.8 on average). According to the final aggregate journal list that combined stated and revealed preference methods, Journal of Knowledge Management and Journal of Intellectual Capital are ranked A+, and The Learning Organization, Knowledge and Process Management, and Knowledge Management Research & Practice are ranked A.

This study was the first of its kind to develop a ranking system for academic journals in the field based on the journals' citation impact metrics. This list is vital for knowledge management and intellectual capital academics for tenure, merit, and promotion decisions. It may also help them achieve recognition among their peers and colleagues from other disciplines.

The proposed ranking list may be fruitfully employed by knowledge management and intellectual capital practitioners, librarians making journal subscription decisions, academics looking for best outlets, and various academic committees.

This paper represents the first documented attempt to develop a ranking of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic journals by using the h‐index and the g‐index that reflect journal citation impact.

This paper aims to examine the “impact” of three leading international auditing journals via citation analysis.

A Google Scholar citation analysis was conducted for the period 2001‐2006 for Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Managerial Auditing Journal, and International Journal of Auditing. The top ten citations from each of these journals were used to analyze relative journal citation frequency, publication topics, and leading authors.

Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory has a statistically significant higher level of average number of citations than the other two journals in this paper. Nine topics accounted for 80 percent of the articles examined. Four individuals are author/co‐author of two papers and three of these individuals published in two of the three journals.

This is the first paper to examine recent citations from these three journals. The research provides a basis for an author to evaluate potential “impact” from a research submission to these three journals.

Ongoing deliberation about how research productivity should be measured is exacerbated by extensive disparity between the number of citations for scholarly works reported by commercial academic search engines and Google Scholar (GS), the premier web crawling service for discovering research citations. Disparities identified in citation comparison studies have also led to disagreement about the value of the higher number of citations for social sciences and business scholarly articles consistently reported by GS. The purpose of this paper is to extend previous database citation comparison studies by manually analyzing a sample of unique GS citations to a leading operations management journal (i.e. citations found only in GS and not the commercial search engines) to reveal just where these additional citations are coming from.

In addition to comparing citation counts for the three databases, unique GS citation data for the sample of journal articles was manually captured and reviewed. The authors’ approach provides a much more in-depth examination of the provenance of GS citations than is found in previous studies.

The findings suggest that concerns about the value of unique GS citations may not be warranted since the document types for the unique GS citing documents identified in the analysis are dominated by familiar scholarly formats. Predominantly authentic and validated journal publications, dissertations, conference papers, and book and book chapters accounted for the large majority of the unique GS citations analyzed.

The study lends further credence to contentions that the use of citations reported in GS is appropriate for evaluating research impact in disciplines where other formats beyond the English-language journal article are valued.

Developing a more informed understanding of the provenance of unique GS citations in the authors’ field is important because many scholars not only aspire to publish in elite journals with high impact factors based on citation counts provided by commercial databases to demonstrate quality, but also report the larger number of citations for their publications that are reported by GS to demonstrate impact. The in-depth manual analysis suggests that GS provides a more nuanced and comprehensive representation of research impact and international scope than the commercial databases.