A market test of the ranking of accounting journals: An Australian perspective

Abstract

Journal ranking studies have generally adopted citation techniques or academic perceptions as the basis for assessing journal quality. They have traditionally been a source of information about potential research outlets, new journals, and an aid to developing a consensus about the relative merit of publications for promotion decisions. The widespread adoption of research based funding formulae in tertiary education has had a significant effect on the access of academic departments to funding. While some authors identify this as a cause for concern it is also a motivation to ensure that there is research to identify appropriate rankings and to investigate their application as part of funding formulae. Since part of the department ranking process relies on the ranking of journals in which staff have published, journal ranking studies have become more significant. This study contributes to the area by applying Zeff’s (1996) suggested approach to rank journals using a market test of library holdings. It provides evidence of an important difference in journal rankings for the Australian region that could significantly influence studies of departmental quality. It also contributes insights into the effect on research programs of increased access to journals through electronic databases, new journals and their levels of acceptance and provides a benchmark for considering individual library holdings.