Search results

The purpose of this paper is to update and extend Danielson and Heck (2014) to provide additional evidence about the relative quality of a set of 23 high-impact finance journals. In particular, the paper summarizes the research records of all scholars contributing articles to each of the 23 journals from 1970 to 2014, and uses this information to identify journals that publish articles by similar sets of authors, and rank the 23 journals based upon publication activity from 2010 to 2014.

The names of all authors appearing in each of the 23 journals during the 1970 to 2014 period – and the number of appearances by each author – were summarized directly from the journals’ table of contents. From this data, the lifetime (1970-2014) research portfolio of each journal’s average author was quantified for two sub-periods: 1970-2009 and 2010-2014. Using the assumption that a journal’s quality is positively related to its ability to attract submissions from accomplished researchers, this data provides information about the authors’ subjective ranking of finance journals and about how these rankings have changed during the past five years.

The finance literature experienced rapid growth during 2010-2014, with almost 25 percent of all appearances from 1970 to 2014 occurring in the last five years of the period. Based upon publication activity during 2010-2014, the Journal of Finance, the Review of Financial Studies, the Journal of Financial Economics, and the Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis remain the most prestigious finance outlets, followed by the Financial Analysts Journal, the Journal of Financial Markets, Review of Finance, the Journal of Financial Intermediation, Financial Management, and the Journal of Applied Corporate Finance.

The identification of a unique set of the 23 “best” journals in any academic field is an inherently subjective task. Adding journals to (or removing journals from) this population could cause the ranking of some individual journals to shift.

Evidence about the average quality of articles appearing in the leading finance journals is useful when evaluating faculty research records for purposes of tenure, promotion, and merit awards.

This paper seeks to evaluate the research records of scholars contributing articles to the two premier financial education journals – Journal of Financial Education (JFED) and Financial Practice and Education (FPE) – as a means by which to obtain indirect evidence about the quality of the articles appearing in these education journals. The implicit assumption is that authors who publish in the best finance research journals will apply the same standards of excellence and rigor when preparing manuscripts for financial education journals.

The names of all authors appearing in the JFED and FPE during the 1972‐2010 period – and the number of such appearances – were summarized directly from the journals' table of contents. The number of appearances by each author in a set of 23 high‐impact finance journals was identified by reference to the table of contents of these journals.

The majority of the authors appearing in the two education journals have also penned one or more high‐impact article, with an average of over three high‐impact appearances.

The identification of a unique set of the 23 “best” journals in any academic field is an inherently subjective task. The exclusion of additional high‐quality journals from this list (especially those from the related fields of accounting and economics) might short change the research records of some education authors.

Evidence about the average quality of articles appearing in education journals could be useful to university administrators when evaluating faculty research records for purposes of tenure, promotion, and merit awards.

This research uses accounting information to supplement abnormal returns evidence in order to gauge the performance of greenmailed firms. Our results support the management entrenchment hypothesis; target firm earnings are poor relative to industry in the years surrounding the greenmail event, and earnings do not significantly improve as would be expected under the shareholders' interest hypothesis. This result holds after adjusting for greenmail premia net of tax effects. Evidence on investment spending suggests firms that pay greenmail differ substantially from their industries, but in a negative direction. In contrast, the industry‐adjusted earnings of non‐greenmail repurchasing firms are significantly greater than the earnings of greenmailed firms. Together, these results are consistent with the contention that greenmailed firms are not managed in shareholders' interests; they underperform their industry, the poor operating results are not attributable to higher investment outlays associated with a long‐term strategic focus, and performance does not improve. This is consistent with observed negative abnormal returns being attributable to both a lost takeover premium and a lost opportunity for improved corporate performance.

Assessment is at the core of high-quality education. When educators purposefully engage in assessment, the learning experiences and outcomes of all students, especially of students diagnosed with specific learning disabilities (SLDs), are improved. In this chapter, we discuss assessment as unfolding within a framework that includes purposes, processes, and tools of assessment existing in the educational context. We open the chapter with an explanation of this framework. Then, in Part 1, we review the construct of SLD and detail how assessment is used within prominent approaches to diagnosis. In Part 2, we discuss how assessment is used to inform instruction before and after diagnosis. We ground our discussion in a vignette that follows Tess, a student who, at the beginning of third grade, has undiagnosed SLD in the area of reading. We show how educators at Tess's school collaborate in the purposeful use of assessment to inform instruction before and after Tess's diagnosis of SLD, highlighting traditional and innovative assessment techniques along the way.

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) member schools often compare their faculties’ research records to journal lists of their “peer and aspirational” programs. They often survey faculty and administrators’ perceptions of journal quality; number of Social Sciences Citation Index downloads; or “count” the number of faculty publications – but rarely analyze accounting programs’ actual journal quality lists. To examine this issue, we use a survey of national accounting programs. We identify a set of quality-classified journal lists by sampling 38 programs nationwide, varying by mission (e.g., urban or research), degrees granted (e.g., doctoral degrees in accounting), and national ranking (e.g., classified as a Top 75 Research Program) – from which we derive 1,436 data points that classify 359 journals that appear on these 38 programs’ journal lists. We also describe a case study that an accounting program used to revise its old journal list. We also find that while programs generally use generally accepted “bright lines” among the top three categories (A+, A, A−), they tailor their listings from the wide variety of B or C classified journals to create their own sets of acceptable journals in these categories. The study provides guidance and data for accounting programs who wish to develop or revise their own journal lists. While many studies have examined journal rankings, this is the first study to document the use of journal lists by accounting programs with a wide array of missions.

Purpose — To provide an overview of recent research that examined how search engine users evaluate and select Web search results and how alternative search engine interfaces can support Web users' credibility assessment of Web search results.

Design/methodology/approach — As theoretical background, Information Foraging Theory (Pirolli, 2007; Pirolli & Card, 1999) from cognitive science and Prominence-Interpretation-Theory (Fogg, 2003) from communication and persuasion research are presented. Furthermore, a range of recent empirical research that investigated the effects of alternative SERP layouts on searchers' information quality or credibility assessments of search results are reviewed and approaches that aim at automatically classifying search results according to specific genre categories are reported.

Findings — The chapter reports on findings that Web users often rely heavily on the ranking provided by the search engines without paying much attention to the reliability or trustworthiness of the Web pages. Furthermore, the chapter outlines how alternative search engine interfaces that display search results in a format different from a list and/or provide prominent quality-related cues in the SERPs can foster searchers' credibility evaluations.

Research limitations/implications — The reported empirical studies, search engine interfaces, and Web page classification systems are not an exhaustive list.

Originality/value — The chapter provides insights for researchers, search engine developers, educators, and students on how the development and use of alternative search engine interfaces might affect Web users' search and evaluation strategies during Web search as well as their search outcomes in terms of retrieving high-quality, credible information.

Purpose – To offer teacher educators a multi-modal approach to include teaching digital literacy practices to pre-service teachers in order to meet the diverse needs of elementary students.

Approach – The chapter is organized by: a) describing inequities and challenges in teacher education regarding teaching digital literacies; b) presenting concrete practices that help foster digital literacy practices in class classrooms; and c) providing resources and reflective opportunities that support pre-service teachers in critically assessing technology’s affordances and constraints for literacy learning.

Findings – Evidence-based multimodal practices and artifacts used in teacher education classrooms are provided to illustrate how they can foster meaningful experiences with all students across all settings. Similarly, educational scholars in the field of incorporating digital literacies are identified.

Practical Implications – This chapter describes practical examples from the everyday literacies of pre-service teachers and elementary students, including apps, websites, tools, and approaches, that foster meaningful experiences with digital literacies. In addition, practical discussions identify strategies that pre-service teachers can use when their internship experience conflicts with methods course content.

Research limitations/implications – The strategies presented in this chapter are based on research and practice, but they focus on elementary pre-service teachers; however, secondary pre-service teacher educators could make adaptations for their learners.

Originality/value of paper – This chapter provides relevant evidence-based information about preparing pre-service teachers to enact digital literacy practices that help K-12 students to think critically, analyze content, and participate fully in 21st century digital cultures.