Productivity in 'Top-Ten' Academic Accounting Journals by Researchers at Canadian Universities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examine the research productivity of academic accountants at Canadian universities for the eleven-year period from 1990-2000. Our analysis is based on the 'top-ten' ranked refereed journals in accounting, auditing and taxation, as documented by Brown and Huefner (1994). We first provide an overview of the importance of publishing in highly ranked accounting journals for individual academics, departments and business faculties. We then provide details of the proportion of articles published in each of these journals by academics from Canadian universities, the type of research published in each journal (auditing, financial accounting, managerial accounting and taxation) and details of editorial board service. Our results indicate that even at the most productive Canadian university (in terms of 'top-ten' publications), faculty members publish (on average) approximately one article every seven years. Six Canadian universities have faculty members with, on average, in excess of one article in 'top-ten' journals every 10 years. We also provide results of analyses that rank each Canadian university after controlling for the relative quality of each journal, using impact factors published by the Social Science Citation Index. In addition, statistics are provided regarding the 15 most productive researchers, in terms of 'top-ten' publications, in the eleven-year period. Finally, in conjunction with the 25th anniversary of the Canadian Academic Accounting Association, we examine the productivity of academic accountants at Canadian universities over the past 25 years by combining our results with those reported by Richardson and Williams (1990).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".