Evaluations of Accounting Journal and Department Quality.

Richard P. Weber; W. C. Stevenson

doi:10.2308/tar-4491994

July 1, 1981The Accounting Review

Evaluations of Accounting Journal and Department Quality.

View at Publisher

Ask AI

Bookmark

Share

Key Points

The aim is to identify and clarify assumptions in ranking accounting journals and departments based on perceived quality.
Analyzed previous studies on accounting journal rankings.
Assessed journal quality evaluations for relevance.
Considered publication frequencies in leading journals.
Revealed questionable assumptions in earlier evaluations.
Provided a framework for more effective department assessment.
Identified discrepancies in perceived versus actual journal quality.

Ask about this paper

Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.

Implication

Evaluates journal quality in accounting, suggesting improvements to department assessments based on publications.

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Over the past few years, several articles appearing in The Accounting Review have dealt with ranking journals based on "perceived quality" and accounting departments based on publications in "leading" journals. This paper identifies some questionable assumptions underlying earlier studies and provides journal quality evaluations which may be used in discriminating among accounting departments.

Discussion

No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.

Cite This Study

Weber et al. (1981) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69ba43584e9516ffd37a4810 https://doi.org/10.2308/tar-4491994

View at Publisher

Ask AI

Bookmark

Share

Evaluations of Accounting Journal and Department Quality.

Key Points

Ask about this paper

Implication

Abstract

Discussion

Cite This Study

Evaluations of Accounting Journal and Department Quality.

Key Points

Ask about this paper

Implication

Abstract

Discussion

Cite This Study

Keep reading

Keep reading