Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine the ten highly ranked journals in finance, and identify the most published authors, most cited articles, top publishing countries, top publishing universities, top publication years and the most discussed topics using keywords.

Using the services of the Web of Science™ (WoS), all the available data about each journal’s published articles were extracted. A total of 6,029 articles containing 23,521 keywords and 208,905 cited references were analysed.

Results indicate that Viscusi, Chemmanur and Statman are the most published authors. The most cited article is Fama and French’s (1993) article – Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds – with 522 citations. The most cited author is Eugene Fama with 2,848 citations followed by Michael Jensen with 1,367 citations. USA and England contributed more articles than any other country, where US University of California System ranked first. “Information”, “risk” and “market” were the most discussed topics. Findings from this study reveal not only the popular authors, articles and topics in the scholarly finance literature, but also the lesser-known areas of research, which may need attention.

It is the first large-scale citation analysis study of its kind, representing data from 178 years of combined publication history.

Pay, tenure and promotion decisions are frequently based upon inferences regarding the value of faculty research. Meanwhile, departmental, college and university reputations are frequently based on perceptions regarding the quality of research being produced by its faculty. Making correct inferences requires accurate measurement of research quality, which is often based upon the journal through which results are shared. This research expands upon the research found elsewhere through its detailed investigation of leading journals in two business disciplines, including examination of four different citation-based measures and four journal characteristics which are exogenous to the quality of any individual piece of research. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

This study assists in the development of an accurate perspective regarding research quality, by studying the popular Journal Citation Reports (JCR) impact factor. A further expansion on the past literature is consideration of three newer journal quality metrics: SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) and percentage of articles cited. Top-tier journals in finance and information systems are compared to evaluate the consistency of these measures across disciplines. Differences in journal characteristics and their impact on citation-rate based measures of quality are also examined. The potential impact of discipline-based variation in acceptance rate, issue frequency, the time since journal inception and total reviewers are put forth as additional potential exogenous factors that may impact the perception of journal quality. t-Tests are employed for discipline comparisons, while correlation and multiple regression are used for journal characteristic analysis.

There is a significant difference in the JCR impact measures of high-quality finance journals vs high-quality information systems journals, which are correlated with a variety of journal-specific factors including the journal’s acceptance rate and frequency of issue. Information systems journals domination of finance journals persists whether one considers mean, median, minimum or maximum impact factors. SJR measures for finance journals are consistently higher than information systems journals, though the SJR value of any individual journal can be quite volatile. By comparison, the SNIP metric rates premier information systems journals higher. Over 12 percent more of the articles in leading information systems journals are cited during the initial three years.

Logical extensions of this research include examining journals in other business disciplines. One could also evaluate quality measures reaction to variation in journal characteristics (i.e. changes in acceptance rates). Furthermore, one could include other measures of journal quality, including the recently released CiteScore metric. Such research will build on the present research and improve the accuracy of research quality assessment.

To the extent that citation-based research measures and journal-specific factors vary across disciplines as demonstrated by our investigation, discipline-specific traits should be considered adjusted for, when making inferences about the long-term value of recently published research. For instance, finance faculty publishing in journals with JCR readings of 2.0 are in journals that are 53 percent above the discipline’s average, while information systems faculty publishing in journals with JCR readings of 2.0 are in journals that are 18 percent below the discipline’s average. Furthermore, discipline-specific differences in journal characteristics, leading to differences in citation-based quality measures, should be considered when making inferences about the long-term value of recently published research in the process of making recommendations regarding salary adjustments, retention and promotion.

Quantity and quality of research are two hallmarks of leading research institutions. Assessing research quality is very problematic because its definition has changed from being based on review process (i.e. blind refereed), to acceptance rates, to impact factors. Furthermore, the impact factor construct has been a lightning rod of controversy as researchers, administrators and journals themselves argue over which metric to employ. This research is attempting to assess how impact factors and journal characteristics may influence the impact factors, and how these interactions vary business discipline. The research is especially important and relevant to the authors which separately chair departments including finance and information systems faculty, and therefore are in roles requiring assessment of faculty research productivity including quality.

This study is a detailed analysis of bibliographic aspects of the top-tier journals in two quantitative business areas. In addition to the popular JCR, SJR and SNIP measures of performance, the analysis studies the seldom-examined percentage of the article cited metric. A deeper understanding of citation-based measures is obtained though the evaluation of changes in how journals have been rated on these metrics over time. The research shows that there are discipline-related systematic differences in both citation-based research measures and journal-specific factors and that these discipline-specific traits should be considered when making inferences about the long-term value of recently published research. Furthermore, discipline-specific difference in journal characteristics, leading to differences in citation-based quality measures, should be considered when making personnel and remuneration decisions.

The purpose of this paper is report the importance of research publications for the tenure promotion and for faculty in accounting, finance, and information system (IS) areas, developing valid criteria for the assessment of quality in related journals is necessary.

Existing rankings are usually based on a survey among faculty members, while ignoring the chairs' critical role in tenure evaluation. This paper uses department chairs' responses to a survey asking to assess relative journal quality, and hence provides quantitative standards to measure research productivity. The rankings are primarily obtained by the familiarity‐rank position index method. Different sets of rankings for the decision‐makers in universities, with various requirements for research are provide.

It is found that the rankings in accounting and finance areas are consistent with the prior research, but the rankings in the IS have changed significantly. This difference to the rapid growth in the field of IS is attributed. The robustness check also corroborates the ranking lists.

In addition, this paper reports not only a comprehensive ranking list including most journals in accounting, finance, and IS areas, but also separate rankings in each field.

The purpose of this paper is to review studies on ranking in finance journals, which have grown substantially in recent decades.

This paper depicts the trend and development of ranking studies in finance area, describes the regional work and lists the studies which focus on specific journal. This paper discusses some important and possible issues of ranking studies in finance in the future and makes some conclusions.

First, the authors find that the assessing method has changed from counting number to citation-based method. Second, the authors sort the ranking studies which focus on the research and publication quality based on regional area. Finally, in specific journal ranking studies, the authors can find how a journal reputation has changed, better or worse.

This paper reviews the ranking studies in finance area and particularly focusses on three parts. Because of the importance of ranking studies in research quality assessing, a series of issues are raised to improve the assessing objectiveness of journal ranking.

Prior studies in citation-based journal rankings tend to be static to compare across journals. One journal may be judged better in citations than other journals at some points in time but not at the others. The assumption that the citation distribution is normally distributed and that the citation observations are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) may not be appropriate. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This study uses a stochastic dominance (SD) analysis, which overcomes the dynamic nature of changes in citation over time. The SD method proposed by Linton, Maasoumi, and Whang (hereafter LMW, 2005) does not require the data to be i.i.d. We use the LMW method to compare the relative ranking of 23 finance journals using citations for all articles from them during 1990-2010.

The study indicates that the citation distribution changes over time. Thus a SD analysis is a better approach for a comparison of journal ranking. The findings unambiguously place JF, JFE, RFS, JFQA, and JFI in the top five spots of the finance journal ranking. The “near-top” journals, such as JBF, JCF, and FM, are not clear cut in the SD analysis.

The results confirm that ranking for the lower ranked journals may change over time especially, but the top three journals appear to be robust across methods and over time.

The results of SD analysis provides more convincing evidence on finance journal ranking and could be useful to rank academic institutions, faculty research quality, and help the authors to decide what to read and which journals are influential.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a complementary analysis of finance journals that are often being overlooked in prior studies. Specifically, the authors examine the Australian Business Dean Council’s (ABDC’s) C-ranked journals in terms of their authors’ affiliations with US colleges, US colleges with Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) accreditations, and US colleges with AACSB doctoral program accreditations.

A list of C-ranked journals is downloaded from the ABDC’s website. Full-text articles of these journals are downloaded from library databases for the five-year period of 2009-2013. Author affiliations are collected from the corresponding articles. Journal histories, journal editor locations, Cabell’s journal rankings, and acceptance rates are collected from the ABDC’s database, Cabell’s Directory, journal websites, and library databases. The final sample consists of 28 finance journals.

The authors find that these journals have a substantial number and percentage of authors from US colleges. Among the US authors, about 92 percent of them are from AACSB accredited schools and most of them are from AACSB accredited schools with doctoral programs. The findings support the notion that these journals are important publication outlets for US researchers. The authors also find that journals with longer histories and US-based editors have a higher percentage of US authors. In addition, journals with better Cabell’s journal rankings and higher rejection rates have higher percentage of US authors from AACSB accredited schools with doctoral programs.

C-ranked journals are often neglected in prior studies on journal characteristics because they are less well-known and less likely to be cited. However, these journals constitute as many as half of all finance journals in the ABDC database and can be important publication outlets for finance researchers. This study contributes to the literature by examining the author characteristics of these journals, namely, the proportions of authors who come from US colleges and authors who come from AACSB accredited US programs. Such an analysis will provide valuable insight into the value of these journals.

The purpose of this study is to provide quantitative information on the growth of Islamic finance literature. The study focused on publishing trends, countries producing research on Islamic finance, key authors, major contributing organizations, authorship patterns, keywords and articles with the highest citations.

Bibliometric analysis is applied to analyse the growth and publishing trends in Islamic finance literature. The Web of Science (WoS) database was used to extract bibliometric data covering the period 1939–2019 for Islamic finance literature.

The study finds that Islamic finance research has gained remarkable momentum in the literature. However, such growth is largely manifested in Malaysia because of a conducive atmosphere for this type of research. Interestingly, the study finds that the three most productive journals are located in the UK and Malaysia, while Professor M. Kabir Hassan from the University of New Orleans, the USA appears to head the list of authors with 23 publications on Islamic finance.

This study provides up-to-date literature on the current state of Islamic finance in the world; as a result, it supports the development of policies by the Islamic finance industry. The findings of the study also serve as a reference point for Islamic finance training and educational institutions.

Islamic finance is an emerging financial discipline; as such, there is a need for more awareness of this financial system in the world. Muslim-majority countries, especially Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Indonesia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Pakistan and Bahrain, have to include Islamic finance in their curriculum and establish research institutions and research journals. In addition, Arabic language journals should be indexed in WoS and/or Scopus to provide a high-quality publication platform. This study provides a more comprehensive bibliometric analysis on the growth of Islamic finance literature (1939–2019) in the WoS database; most of the prior studies have covered relatively few areas of focus and a lower range of years in some cases.

By providing a critical analysis of a recent literature review concerning environmental, social and governance (ESG) and corporate social responsibility (CSR) research in finance which was published in the Journal of Corporate Finance (Gillan et al., 2021), examining it in the light of several reviews on the same or similar lines of research, this paper aims to serve those who wish to do research in the CSR/ESG/corporate sustainability and the reporting thereof areas in finance.

This note serves to comment on Gillan et al.’s review.

Irrespective of the merits of the review, it should not be used by newcomers to the research on CSR in corporate finance given that it provides a very biased view of it.

This commentary serves the purpose of cautioning those interested in becoming acquainted with CSR-related research in corporate finance that the review on which it focuses should be used only as an entry point, given that it offers an incomplete and biased picture.

This paper offers a bibliometric analysis of the scientific literature on social finance. It provides an overview of the research field by identifying gaps in the existing academic literature and presenting future research directions.

The study uses co-word analysis and visualization mapping techniques.

This study's findings show that the social finance research field comprises five main research clusters and four main research hotspots—impact investing, social entrepreneurship, social impact bonds, and social innovation—which represent the core of this research domain. The authors also identify the researchers and the research institutions that have contributed to the development of social finance. In addition, emerging research areas are mapped and discussed.

Compared with most previous literature reviews, this work provides a more complete and objective analysis of the entire social finance landscape by revealing the trends and evolving dynamics that characterize its development. To this end, clear terminological boundaries have not yet been established in social finance. The field appears immature because only a few researchers have contributed to it, and papers have yet to be published by top finance journals. Finally, the findings of this research provide directions for future studies.

This study aims to provide a comprehensive overview of asset pricing research and identifies the general research trends in the area. The study also aims to provide future direction to the researchers in the area of asset pricing.

The study uses bibliometric analysis techniques to achieve the stated purpose. The study covers 3,007 articles published in the top 50 finance and economics journals, accessed from the Scopus database for a period of 47 years (1973–2020). After initial searching for “asset pricing” as the main keyword in “title, abstract, keywords”, the database yields 6,583 articles. This number further reduces to 3,007 articles when the search is restricted to research and review articles published in the top 50 peer-reviewed journals.

The tabular and pictorial representation obtained from the analysis exhibit that asset pricing is an extensively researched area; however, a sudden rise in the number of publications (242) observed for 2019 demonstrates a growing interest amongst researchers. Further, affiliation statistics indicate that the volume of research is mainly concentrated in the USA and other developed nations; hence it opens vistas for the exploration of risk-return dynamics in the context of emerging markets.

The work presents an exhaustive and comprehensive review along with potential research implications. The present study reconciles various contradictory views of the prior studies under asset pricing such as risk-return trade-off, low-risk anomaly and provides the researchers with potential research gaps.