ACCOUNTING PROGRAM RESEARCH RANKINGS BY TOPICAL AREA AND METHODOLOGY

Joshua G. Coyne Brigham Young University Scott L. Summers Brigham Young University Brady Williams Brigham Young University David A. Wood Brigham Young University 515 TNRB Provo, UT 84602 Telephone: (801) 422-8642 Fax: (801) 422-0621 davidwood@byu.edu

May 2010
We express our thanks to Derek Oler, Mitch Oler, and Chris Skousen for sharing data with us. We thank George Foster, Jeff Hoopes, Robert Jensen, Steve Kachelmeier, Jagan Krishnan, Jeff McMullin, Eric Press, Kari Olsen, Chad Simon, Jason Smith, Nate Stephens, Stanley Veliotis, and participants at the 2008 BYU Accounting Research Symposium for helpful comments and suggestions.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337755

ACCOUNTING PROGRAM RESEARCH RANKINGS BY TOPICAL AREA AND METHODOLOGY

ABSTRACT: This paper makes two novel contributions to ranking accounting research programs constructed from publication counts in top journals (AOS, Auditing, BRIA, CAR, JAE, JAR, JATA, JIS, JMAR, RAST, and TAR). In contrast to previous studies, we recognize the mobility of intellectual assets tied to the human capital of accounting researchers and therefore base our rankings on the researchers' current affiliations, rather than their affiliations at the time of publication. Also, we categorize each article written by topical area (auditing, financial, managerial, accounting information systems, tax, and other) and by methodology (analytical, archival, experimental, and other) and provide separate accounting program rankings by topical area and by methodology. These two innovations provide a rich, centralized information resource for decision-makersboth institutional and individualin choosing how to allocate time, resources, and expertise.

Key Words: Accounting Research Rankings, Accounting Research Methodology, Accounting Research Topical Areas JEL Descriptors: M4, M40, M41, M42, M49 Data Availability: Requests for data may be made to the authors.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337755

INTRODUCTION Some of the most important career decisions made by academic accountants are made in an environment that is distinctly lacking in transparent, reliable, and relevant information. Those deciding where to pursue a Ph.D. or seek employment in accounting academia have traditionally relied on informal inquiries about the reputations of institutions and their faculties, or other measures of quality such as surveys of perceptions and accounting rankings that reduce all accounting topical and methodological research production into a single ranking number. Given that most academic accountants specialize in a particular sub-discipline of accounting, decisions based on overarching reputations, broad surveys, and singular rankings suffer from a lack of specialized, granular information that could better inform decision-makers. We contribute to knowledge in the field of accounting academics by providing granular, quantitative information to these decision-makers. We propose a unique design for measuring the intellectual assets held by accounting research programs that will enhance the current body of ranking literature in two ways. First, we assume that the intellectual assets of a researcher stay with that researcher when moving from institution to institution1. Second, recognizing specialty areas (both topical and methodological) within the accounting disciplinea similar concept currently exists in other business school disciplines (e.g. management)we report rankings by methodology and topical area that allow institutions to be recognized for their expertise in specialty areas. 2

Crediting a publication to the author's current institution allows a universitys research ranking to change based on the addition or loss of a distinguished researcher. Creating rankings in this way measures the impact of the intellectual assets (contributions) of the individual researcher by tying those assets to the present institution rather than ascribing intellectual assets to an entity incapable of reasoninga university. 2 Previous research (cf. Bazley et al. 1975; Andrews and McKenzie 1978; Windall 1981; Zivney and Thomas 1985; Hasselback and Reinstein 1995; Fogarty 1995; Trieschmann et al. 2000; Brown 2003; Chan et al. 2007) has ranked research programs, but not by topicaccounting information systems (AIS)/auditing/financial/managerial/taxor methodology archival/analytical/experimental; We note that Brown and Laksmana (2004) break rankings of Ph.D. programs into two categories, financial and non-financial.

In regards to the second contribution, since the most influential accounting journals publish a disproportionately high number of articles in the financial specialty area (Bonner et al. 2006), parties interested in expertise in other specialty areas may make sub-optimal decisions by relying on ratings heavily influenced by the financial accounting specialty. The creation of accounting research program rankings by specialty area allows universities to compare and contrast their programs with programs that are focusing on the same specialties. It also allows individual academics to recognize pockets of specialty where they might choose to network and it allows future academics to evaluate the depth and breadth of research coming from universities where they might pursue their terminal degree. These rankings significantly increase the amount of available information that could be used by multiple decision-makers, including: Prospective Ph.D. students. Each student or accounting professional that decides to pursue a Ph.D. in accounting is immediately faced with the challenge of finding a university with programs, faculty, and expectations that match the applicants needs, wants, and career goals. This decision is often multifaceted and complex. Providing rankings by topical area and methodology will allow prospective Ph.D. students to better target programs which are best able to support their research interests.3 Ph.D. graduates. Rankings decomposed by discipline and based on current location of human capital will also benefit Ph.D. candidates as they graduate and enter the job market. They will be able to use these rankings to target positions at universities that fit their career goals. This

We note from a survey we conducted of 15 (11 respondents) pre-doctoral students invited to an informational doctoral program meeting by the IS section of the AAA, all potential doctoral students indicated they would consult topical and methodological ranking results, if available, when making their decision about which programs to apply to and to attend. Furthermore, they ranked topical and methodological expertise as the most important criteria of factors in deciding which programs they would apply to and attend (other factors ranked were financial aid, graduation rates, time to graduate, placement, physical location, and overall rankings).

study identifies top programs in each specialty area, which is especially valuable if these programs do not register highly in general ranking studies. Research institutions. Accounting department heads, business school administrators, and university leadership may find these results useful in establishing legitimacyboth internal and external. This study recognizes those schools that have been and are making a concerted effort to specialize and improve their research reputation. A school that has never placed highly in general rankings may be able to use these rankings to demonstrate credibility in certain specialty areas or methodologies. This credibility can help justify internal funding for materials, technology, or additional research and help attract external funding. Also, these rankings could be used as evidence for accreditation purposes of the research production of an institutions faculty. Professional organizations. In July 2008, the AICPA announced the introduction of a $15 million fund designed to send experienced practitioners back to school to get Ph.D.s to help fill the shortage of audit and tax faculty (AICPA 2008). This fund, which is made up of donations from many of the largest accounting firms and many state accounting associations, is designed to send professionals back for audit and tax training in Ph.D. programs. The rankings provided in this paper will highlight programs that specialize in research related to audit and tax. In this way, the effectiveness of the fund could be enhanced by allowing these individuals to target programs where they will get the best audit- and tax-specific training and by helping fund administrators to know where to direct additional funds. This paper proceeds as follows. First, we discuss our sample and then methodology. Next, we present the ranking results with some commentary on how these ranking may be used. Finally, we conclude by discussing the implications of our research and the consequences of

design choices we made in our study. We note that we include an Appendix discussing a companion website that provides additional information that could not be included in the article because of space constraints. SAMPLE DESCRIPTION To create our rankings, we index all peer-reviewed articles in Accounting, Organizations, and Society (AOS); Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Auditing); Behavioral Research in Accounting (BRIA); Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR); Journal of Accounting & Economics (JAE); Journal of Information Systems (JIS); Journal of Accounting Research (JAR); Journal of Management Accounting Research (JMAR); Journal of the American Taxation Association (JATA); Review of Accounting Studies (RAST); and The Accounting Review (TAR).4 We chose these journals because previous research has shown that six of these journals (AOS, CAR, JAE, JAR, RAST, and TAR) are considered the highest rated accounting journals (cf. Glover et al. 2006; Bonner et al. 2006; Lowensohn and Samelson 2006). Studies have also provided evidence that these journals may not provide representative coverage of accounting methodologies and topical areas (Bonner et al. 2006). Using the results of a survey of 517 academics from various American Accounting Association (AAA) sections (Lowensohn and Samelson 2006), we selected the journals perceived to be the best by methodology (behavioral) and topical area (tax, managerial, and AIS). 5 By this process we add BRIA, JATA, JMAR, and JIS. We add Auditing to this list as it is regularly considered to be the top journal for publishing audit research aside from those already mentioned. Including these

We do not include articles that were invited by the editor or conference discussant papers (such as JAR or CAR conference discussion papers) since these articles are not required to go through the peer-review process. Also, we exclude articles written directly to a professional audience and educational cases. 5 Although the survey included the topical areas of government and non-profit, we do not employ these topics in our rankings, so we did not include them in the journal selection process.

additional journals should provide greater coverage of topical areas and methodologies that are not adequately represented in the traditional top six journals. Our rankings do not explicitly recognize top-tier contributions of researchers in supporting disciplines (e.g., finance, economics, psychology, etc). We made this choice because of our interest in identifying top accounting research programs and because of the time intensive nature of creating these rankings. While contributions in the top-tier of supporting journals are important and contribute to the academic prestige of the researcher, we believe they are less relevant to identifying accounting expertise than an evaluation of research published in accounting journals.6 METHODOLOGY To create our rankings, we index all articles published in the aforementioned journals between 1990 and 2009 and categorize them based on topic and methodology. Because of the time-intensive nature involved in creating these rankings, we limit our analysis to a 20-year window, which effectively covers three tenure cycles. We note that authors who were prolific researchers before 1990 but have not continued to actively research since 1990 likely have fewer current intellectual research assets to share with colleagues.7 We categorize each article by methodological category: analytical, archival, experimental, or other; however, our methodological categories are not mutually exclusive. 8 For example, Hodder et al. (2008) employ an experiment as well as archival tests in their paper. We

Glover et al. (2006) examine the publication records of faculty promoted at the top 75 research schools. In unreported analyses, the correlation between publishing in the top 3 accounting journals (TAR, JAR, and JAE) and publishing in other top business journals is 0.86 when considered at the school portfolio level. This suggests that while our results will not provide a complete picture of the articles published by accounting scholars, they are unlikely to be biased by excluding articles published in other top business journals. 7 We explore the importance of currency in more depth later in the paper. 8 Although the decision to allow for multiple methodological and/or topical categorizations per article causes some articles to be counted in multiple rankings, we argue that this more accurately captures the authors' potential to contribute in multiple areas.

categorize this article as both archival and experimental for purposes of our rankings. We define our methodological classifications as follows: Analytical: studies whose analyses and conclusions are based on the act of formally modeling theories or substantiating ideas in mathematical terms. These studies use analytic devices to predict, explain, or give substance to theory. Archival: studies whose analyses and conclusions are based on objective data collected from repositories. Also included are studies in which the researchers, or another third party, collected the research data and in which the data has objective amounts such as net income, sales, fees, etc. (i.e., the researcher creates an objective repository of data). Experimental: studies whose analyses and conclusions are based on data the researcher gathered by administering treatments to subjects. Usually these studies employ random assignment; however, if the researcher selected different populations in an attempt to manipulate a variable (e.g., participants of different experience levels were selected for participation), we also consider these experimental in nature. Other: studies that did not fit into one of the other methodological categories. The methodologies in these studies vary significantly and include such things as surveys, case studies, field studies, simulations, persuasive arguments, etc. Similar to our categorization by methodology, our categorization by topical area allows for multiple categories per article. If an article sheds light on multiple topical areas, it is categorized as providing a contribution to each area (e.g., Prawitt, et al. [2009] examine how internal audit quality [audit] impacts earnings management [financial]). In categorizing articles by topical area, we employ the following definitions:

AIS: studies which address issues related to the systems and the users of systems that collect, store, and generate accounting information. Users are defined broadly to include those involved in collection, storage, or use of accounting information or even the implementation of the system. These systems may be electronic or not. Research streams include, but are not limited to design science, ontological investigations, expert systems, decision aides, support systems, processing assurance, security, controls, system usability, and system performance. Auditing: studies in which the topical content involves an audit topic. These studies vary widely and include, but are not limited to, the study of the audit environmentexternal and internal, auditor decision making, auditor independence, the effects of auditing on the financial reporting process, and auditor fees. Financial: studies that address the topical content of financial accounting, financial markets, and decision making based on financial accounting information. Managerial: studies that examine issues regarding budgeting, compensation, decisionmaking within an enterprise, incentives, and the allocation of resources within an enterprise. Tax: studies that examine issues related to taxpayer decision-making, tax allocations, tax computations, structuring of accounting transactions to meet tax goals, tax incentives, or market reactions to tax disclosures. Other: studies that do not fit into one of the other topical areas. The topical areas in these studies vary significantly and include such things as education, methodologies, law, psychology, history, the accounting profession, work environment, etc. We use data previously categorized by Oler et al. (2009) as a starting point for categorizing articles appearing in AOS, CAR, JAE, JAR, RAST and TAR journals. For this data, one of the authors on this project reviewed each article categorization made by the Oler et al.

(2009) team and made changes as deemed appropriate to fit our categorization scheme. For the other journals, two of the authors on this project categorized each article. All discrepancies in ratings were resolved through discussion. After categorizing each article, we identified the authors current school affiliation by first searching in the 2008 Hasselback directory (Hasselback 2008). We then visited the website of the university listed in the Hasselback directory and verified that the professor was listed as being employed at the institution (this, and the article listings, were last updated in December 2009). If the author was not listed in the Hasselback directory, or if we could not find them on the website of the institution listed by the Hasselback directory, we searched the internet for the author and recorded the authors current university affiliation.9 If professors were listed as holding joint appointments or were listed as visiting scholars, we credited the home school for those publications. We created initial rankings after performing this step; subsequently, for all schools that were listed in the top 50 of any of these initial rankings, we revisited the school's faculty website, verified that the authors listed belong to that school, and searched for any professors listed on the school website that had not been categorized in our database. If we could not find a professors affiliation after performing all these steps, we considered that professor to be no longer employed in academia and, therefore, we gave no credit to any institution for that individual's research. 10 To create our rankings, we gave each author full credit for each article published in these journals (i.e., for coauthored papers, all institutions of the authors received credit for the

To conduct our internet search, we searched for the researchers name or their name and special key words (e.g., accounting, university, etc.). If we found initial evidence of a professor at a university (e.g., a paper listed on SSRN), we then visited that university website to verify the faculty member was employed at the school. If we could not locate a professor on a universitys directory, they were not included in this study. 10 We gave credit to a school for authors outside of accounting departments yet who publish in accounting journals if we could locate them in their current school affiliation web directory as described in the text.

publication and if multiple authors were from the same institution, the institution received credit for each author).11 We then summed the number of total publications for each school by methodology and by topical area. Finally, we ranked schools by the total productivity of the faculty currently at that school.12 We take four additional steps to maximize the usefulness of this data. First, for all rankings we provide the number of distinct professors that contribute to each ranking. Given our methodology, schools that have larger faculties are more likely to be ranked higher because they employ more individuals who have the possibility of publishing articles. However, we do not scale our rankings by faculty size four several reasons. First, our objective is ranking the intellectual assets available at institutions rather than ranking the average productivity of faculty. Further, choosing to scale by faculty size is problematic due to the difficult nature of determining faculty size, especially in specialty areas. Several possible ways to scale the data by size include scaling by the size of the department, number of authors who published the articles, or the number of professors who research in an area (or use that methodology). We noticed as we categorized articles that many schools do not have a separate accounting department or combine the accounting department with finance, information systems, or the entire business school. In addition, many accounting academics work in administrative positions making it difficult to choose whether to include them in the department. These problems make scaling by the count of faculty in the department problematic and subjective. Scaling by the number of authors who published articles in this index is
11

We chose to give each author full credit because we view each author as likely to have increased their intellectual assets by working on the project. We also did not want to introduce noise or bias by attempting to create a subjective weighting scheme of the value of different journal articles. If high quality outcome data becomes available in the future for which reliable and theoretically justified weightings could be created, then future researchers should reexamine these rankings using those weights. However, to our knowledge, we are unaware of a high quality weighting based on empirical data. 12 If we discovered that a professor had retired, was emeritus, or had died we did not include them in the rankings.

problematic in that one person could publish a high number of articles and therefore cause that school to score very highly despite being the only active researcher at the institution. We do not believe this type of ranking would be of greatest usefulness to the accounting academy. Finally, scaling by the number of professors who research in an area is problematic because many researchers research in multiple methodologies and there is no clear way to count the number of professors working in a particular area. The second step we take to make the data useful is to provide three types of consolidated rankings: by topical area, by methodology, and by both topical area and methodology. This consolidation allows for a discussion of which institutions are well-versed or well-rounded in all specialty areas. The consolidated rankings are created by averaging the topical area rankings, the methodology rankings, or both. This is in contrast to consolidated rankings based on total publication counts. Rankings based on total publications introduce weighting problems as some areas are disproportionately represented in journals (Bonner et al. 2006). These rankings recognize schools that are able to do well in all or virtually all methodological and topical areas and are likely of special interest to prospective Ph.D. students who may not know exactly what they will want to research and would like to go to a school that supports broad topical areas and/or broad methodologies. The third step we take is to report rankings based on three different time windowsthe full time window (20 years), the previous 12 years, and the previous 6 years. Providing rankings of shorter windows allows users to infer various trends. For example, if a school is very highly ranked in the full time window but not in the previous 6 year window, it may suggest that the school employs an aging faculty who are winding down their research careers. Conversely, a school that is ranked very highly in the 6 year window but not in the full window may have

10

promising young scholars who are highly productive but have not been employed a sufficient length of time to produce a tremendous quantity of research. Finally, we create a website with additional functionality to increase the usefulness of the rankings (see the Appendix for additional discussion of the website). RESULTS Table 1 presents descriptive statistics of the sample. Panel A shows the percentage of articles by topical area for each different journal. It is apparent that journals have very different tastes in terms of topics of articles published. Of the traditional big 3 accounting journals (TAR, JAR, and JAE), TAR publishes the broadest topical scope of articles. AOS and BRIA are the only non-specialty-topic journals that publish a higher percentage of articles in an area other than financial (AOS publishes more managerial than any other topical area and BRIA publishes more other research and auditing than any other topical area). Also of note is the almost complete lack of publication of AIS research in any journal other than JIS. We note that Table 1 does not consider the quantity of different types of articles submitted to the journals; therefore, we cannot conclude from this table that there is an editorial or reviewer bias against certain topical areas or methodologies. 13 Panel B shows the percentage of articles by methodology for each different journal. With the exception of AOS, BRIA, JIS, and JMAR, archival research is the dominant methodology published. BRIA publishes a higher percentage of experimental research than other methodologies, and JIS, JMAR, and AOS publish a higher percentage of other methodologies than analytical, archival, or experimental. Although these descriptive statistics provide evidence
13

As an example of the importance of considering the rate of submission before determining bias, the 2007 Contemporary Accounting Research Editors Report reveals that only 5 of 258 submissions to the journal were in the area of tax. Thus, even if CAR published all of these articles, it would still show a low percentage of published tax studies in a presentation similar to Table 1. Thus, the results in Table 1 do not necessarily suggest editor/reviewer bias but may be explained by unknown submission rates to the journals.

11

that all research methodologies can be published somewhere, it also shows that specific journals may have defined methodological and/or topical area tastes in terms of research they have published in the past. Panel C of Table 1 shows the percentage of articles by methodology for each topical area. Managerial research has the greatest distribution of methodologies as each methodology is used at least 16 percent of the time in managerial publications. Financial has the least distribution of methodologies as archival is used 76 percent of the time and the next highest used methodology is analytical, used 12 percent of the time. Audit research uses a relatively equal blend of archival, experimental, and other methodologies but lags behind in employing the analytical methodology. Tax is reasonably diverse in terms of methodology as the lowest methodology, other, is used in 10 percent of publications. Finally, AIS uses primarily experimental and other methodologies to address research questions. (Insert Table 1 about here) Table 2 presents rankings based on raw total counts of total articles published. This ranking is comparable to most previous accounting program rankings. The particular institutions that rank highly in this ranking are similar to past studieswhich provides some face validity to the methodology we employ as the results are consistent with past studies. However, one can see how our decision to only credit an institution for faculty currently at the institution influences rankings. For example, the University of Michigan has traditionally been one of the top producers of accounting research; however, in our rankings they appear as only the 18th ranked school in the last 6 years. This is largely due to the loss of key researchers in recent years. Although giving credit to an institution for faculty currently at the institution produces some changes in rankings, the main contribution of this paper is to provide evidence of expertise in

12

particular accounting research topical areas and methodologies, which we do in subsequent tables. By including the total rankings in Table 2, one can compare topical and methodological rankings to this table to get some idea of how well the overall rankings represent each individual topical and methodological area ranking. (Insert Table 2 about here) Table 3 presents the rankings of universities broken down by topical area. We list the top 40 schools for each topical area and present three rankings: rankings over the previous 6, 12, or full year range (rankings are sorted by the 6 year column). We list each topical area alphabetically. There are several interesting things to note from the rankings other than just the rank ordering of the universities. The trend of universities rankings from 6 years to 20 years is valuable information. For example, a school like Florida International in the audit rankings is ranked first over the 6 year window but eighth over the 20-year window. This suggests that Florida International has been very active in the recent past and is the top producer of audit research in the last 6 years. Analyzing the trends of publications also reveals interesting findings when looking at an entire topical areas rankings. For example, the top 10 schools in financial over the 6 year window were all in the top 25 over the full year window. In Managerial and Auditing, four and three schools in the top 10 during the 6 year window were not in the top 25 schools over the full year window. This suggests that there is significant change in rankings for some topical areas relative to the other topical areas. These rankings are also useful to non-US schools. Note in the managerial rankings that 10 of the top 40 schools in the 6 year window are international schools. In the audit rankings, 11

13

of the top 40 schools are international schools. These rankings help to give credibility to these institutions in terms of their ability to produce top quality research in given topical areas. Also of interest in these rankings is the number of faculty whose published articles have contributed to a given ranking. For example, in the managerial rankings, Stanford is rated first over the full year range even though only 5 different authors published managerial articles. The second ranked university, Michigan State, has twice as many authors. This information could be used by potential Ph.D. students (current doctoral students) in targeting which school to attend (work for). Whereas Stanford appears to have fewer researchers publishing managerial research, these researchers are publishing a very high volume of articles. Michigan State, the second ranked school, has more researchers, but they do not appear to be producing at a rate as fast as Stanford. (Insert Table 3 about here) Table 4 is very similar to Table 3 except Table 4 presents rankings by research methodology rather than by topical area. We note that users may benefit from interpreting Table 4 in similar fashion to the way we discussed interpreting Table 3. (Insert Table 4 about here) Table 5 presents three different rankings that provide information about which schools provide the greatest breadth of research expertise. In Table 4 we provide the results of averaging the topical area rankings, averaging the methodology rankings, or averaging the topical area and methodology rankings. Schools that focus on one or two topical areas or on a single methodology will not rank as highly in these rankings. As would be expected, large schools fair particularly well in the breadth rankings. These schools likely have great breadth because their size allows professors to specialize their teaching and thus their research in areas other than financial accounting. As with Table 2, 3, and

14

4, we provide rankings over different time horizons so users can make informed decision using these rankings. (Insert Table 5 about here) CONCLUSIONS This study ranks all accounting research programs by considering publication counts in top accounting journals. These rankings differ from most prior rankings in two important ways. First, we provide separate research rankings by topical area (AIS, auditing, financial, managerial, and tax) and by methodology (analytical, archival, and experimental). Second, we give institutions credit for all research published by professors currently employed at the institution rather than giving institutions credit for publications of faculty who published at the university but no longer work there. These rankings should be useful to decision-makers in multiple settings (e.g., prospective Ph.D. students, doctoral students, faculty, accounting departments, business schools, and universities). This study is not without limitations. We highlight the most important limitations and caution decision-makers to consider how these limitations may impact their decision-making setting. First, using counts to rank accounting research programs treats all articles as making equal contributions to the literature. Counts do not take into consideration level of impact of a particular article. Thus, faculty at an institution that produces few, highly innovative and paradigm-altering articles may not rank as highly in these rankings as an institution that focuses on producing a large quantity of research publications. Whether one of these strategies is better in terms of producing accounting knowledge is debatable, and this research does not provide evidence for either side of this debate.

15

Second, we consider a basket of accounting journals that likely vary in terms of perceived and actual quality. We do not attempt to weight articles published in different journals as being worth more or less than other articles due to the subjective nature of determining weightings. We carefully selected journals, choosing only those of perceived high quality (Lowensohn and Samelson 2006; Herron and Hall 2004; Chan et al. 2009) while balancing this with the publication patterns that previous researchers have noted some journals exhibit (Bonner et al. 2006). Third, we do not explicitly take into account faculty size in determining our rankings; we also employ a methodology that does not explicitly consider an institutions ability to influence researchers ability to publish by having access to such things as more and/or better databases, providing more talented research assistants, decreasing teaching loads, or other similar characteristics that likely improve research productivity. However, our methodology does indirectly capture this ability as the most prolific researchers are likely aware of these institutional advantages and more likely to work at schools that offer these advantages. Finally, by recognizing the mobility of human capital, an excellent research school recently raided of talent may receive a low ranking. It is likely that a school that establishes the culture and financial means to be a top-tier research school will likely be able to attract high quality researchers even if it was recently raided. Thus, some schools may appear low in our rankings because at the time of this study they have not been able to rebuild their faculty. We combat this problem by providing a companion website that provides regular updates of the rankings (see Appendix for more details).

16

Even with the limitations to this research, we view this study as providing an important incremental contribution to the prior research ranking literature. In addition, we believe this study will be highly useful to the academy and the professional community of accountants.

17

REFERENCES Andrews, W. T., and P. B. McKenzie. 1978. Leading accounting departments revisited. The Accounting Review (January): 135-138. Bazley, J. D., and L. A. Nikolai. 1975. A comparison of published accounting research and qualities of accounting faculty and doctoral programs. The Accounting Review (July): 605-610. Bonner, S. E., J. W. Hesford, W. A. Van der Stede, and S. M. Young. 2006. The most influential journals in academic accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society 31: 663-685. Brown, L. D. 2003. Ranking journals using social science research network downloads. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 20 (3): 291-307. _______, and J. C. Gardner. 1985. Applying citation analysis to evaluate the research contributions of accounting faculty and doctoral programs. The Accounting Review 60 (2): 262-277. _______, and I. Laksmana. 2004. Ranking accounting Ph.D. programs and faculties using social science research network downloads. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 22 (3): 249-266. Chan, K. C., C. R. Chen, and L. T. W. Cheng. 2005. Ranking research productivity in accounting for Asia-Pacific universities. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 24: 47-64. _______, _______, and _______. 2007. Global ranking of accounting programmes and the elite effect in accounting research. Accounting & Finance 47 (2): 187-220. _______, _______, and _______. 2009. Ranking accounting journals using dissertation citation analysis: A research note. Accounting Organizations and Society article in press. Contemporary Accounting Research 2007 Editors Report. 2007. Available online at http://www.caaa.ca/CAR/EditorRpt/index.html. Ellison, G. 2002. Evolving standards for academic publishing: A q-r theory. Journal of Political Economy 110 (5): 1053-1079. Fogarty, T. 1995. A ranking to end all rankings: A meta-analysis and critique of studies ranking academic accounting departments. Accounting Perspectives 1: 1-22. Glover, S. M., D. F. Prawitt, and D. A. Wood. 2006. Publication records of faculty promoted at the top 75 accounting research programs. Issues in Accounting Education 21 (3): 195218.

18

Hasselback, J. R. 2008. Accounting Faculty Directory 2008-2009. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. _______, and A. Reinstein. 1995. A proposal for measuring the scholarly productivity of accounting faculty. Issues in Accounting Education (Fall): 269-306. Herron, T. L., and T. W. Hall. 2004. Faculty perceptions of journals: Quality and publishing feasibility. Journal of Accounting Education 22 (3): 175-210. Hodder, L., P. E. Hopkins, and D. A. Wood. 2008. The effects of financial statement and informational complexity on analysts cash flow forecasts. The Accounting Review 83 (4): 915-956. Lowensohn, S., and D. P. Samelson. 2006. An examination of faculty perceptions of academic journal quality within five specialized areas of accounting research. Issues in Accounting Education 21 (3): 219-239. Oler, D. K., M. J. Oler, and C. J. Skousen. 2009. Characterizing accounting research. Working Paper, Indiana University, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Utah State University. Prawitt, D. F., J. L. Smith, and D. A. Wood. 2009. Internal audit quality and earnings management. The Accounting Review 84 (4): 1255-1280. Reinstein, A., and J. R. Hasselback. 1997. A literature review of articles assessing the productivity of accounting faculty. Journal of Accounting Education 15 (3): 425-455. Swanson, E. 2004. Publishing in the majors: A comparison of accounting, finance, management, and marketing. Contemporary Accounting Research 21 (1): 223-255. _______, C. J. Wolfe, and A. Zardkoohi. 2007. Concentration in publishing at top-tier business journals: Evidence and potential explanations. Contemporary Accounting Research 24 (4): 1255-1289. Trieschmann, J. S., A. R. Dennis, G. B. Northcraft, and A. W. Niemi. 2000. Serving multiple constituencies in the business school: MBA program versus research performance. Academy of Management Journal Windall, F. W. 1981. Publishing for a varied public: An empirical study. The Accounting Review (July): 653-658. Zivney, T. L., and A. G. Thomas. 1985. A comprehensive examination of accounting faculty publishing. Issues in Accounting Education (Spring): 1-25.

19

TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics Panel A: Percentage of articles by topical area published in different journals Journal AIS Audit Financial Managerial Tax AOS 1% 13% 16% 39% 2% Auditing 3% 97% 19% 1% 0% BRIA 1% 35% 13% 19% 5% CAR 1% 28% 54% 15% 8% JAE 0% 6% 78% 16% 8% JAR 1% 18% 70% 13% 7% JIS 100% 18% 10% 5% 0% JMAR 0% 1% 1% 98% 1% JATA 0% 1% 28% 4% 96% RAST 0% 6% 79% 16% 4% TAR 1% 21% 58% 18% 10%

Other 33% 13% 37% 12% 5% 3% 0% 3% 7% 0% 6%

Panel B: Percentage of articles by methodology published in different journals Journal AOS Auditing BRIA CAR JAE JAR JIS JMAR JATA RAST TAR Analytical 1% 3% 2% 20% 13% 21% 3% 19% 14% 36% 14% Archival Experimental 10% 13% 38% 33% 1% 59% 52% 18% 83% 1% 64% 13% 12% 39% 16% 16% 53% 21% 62% 3% 63% 21% Other 77% 30% 38% 12% 3% 3% 47% 51% 18% 0% 4%

(Continued on next page)

20

TABLE 1 Continued Panel C: Percentage of articles by methodology per topical area Topical Area AIS Audit Financial Managerial Tax Other Analytical 4% 8% 12% 22% 13% 4% Archival Experimental 12% 36% 32% 38% 76% 7% 22% 16% 58% 19% 22% 16% Other 48% 23% 5% 40% 10% 59%

Panel A and Panel B percentages do not add up to 100 percent as topical area and methodology categorizations are not mutually exclusive (e.g., an article can be both financial and audit or use both experimental and archival methodologies).

21

TABLE 2 Rankings of Accounting Institutions by Raw Total Article Counts

Total 12 Yrs
1 #14 4 #21 6 #22 4 #12 6 #20 9 #16 2 #17 3 #19 11 #14 12 #21 8 #17 17 #16 25 #13 10 #14 14 #11 19 #15 27 #14 14 #15 14 #17 25 #12 29 #11 34 #9 35 #18 52 #9 13 #10 17 #15 21 #14 23 #18 27 #8 23 #13 35 #15 43 #11 48 #10 30 #7 39 #12 19 #17 22 #9 41 #10 45 #13 48 #11

University
Stanford Tx-Austin Chicago U of Washington So Calif Texas A&M Penn M ichigan St Duke Illinois at Urb. Cham. Indiana Bloomington Arizona M IT Penn St Cornell New York U Iowa M ichigan Ohio St M issouri Toronto Fla Internat CUNY-Baruch London Bus No Carol Wisconsin Columbia Ariz St UCLA Northwestern Alberta So Carol Hong Kong Uni. of S&T Berkeley Utah Brigham Young U Bentley Nanyang Tech Florida St Georgia St

6 Yrs
1 #13 2 #16 2 #19 4 #10 5 #13 5 #12 7 #13 7 #13 7 #12 7 #18 11 #14 12 #14 12 #10 14 #12 14 #8 16 #12 16 #13 18 #11 19 #12 19 #10 19 #11 22 #7 22 #13 22 #6 25 #9 25 #10 25 #10 25 #11 25 #7 30 #11 30 #10 30 #10 30 #7 34 #7 34 #9 36 #9 36 #7 36 #7 36 #10 36 #9

All
1 #16 3 #25 9 #26 7 #18 2 #24 8 #23 4 #18 6 #27 21 #15 18 #24 9 #22 20 #17 36 #13 12 #16 14 #13 15 #16 23 #17 21 #16 13 #23 41 #13 29 #16 55 #9 29 #23 55 #10 11 #12 15 #16 19 #14 4 #25 25 #11 17 #20 36 #16 53 #12 67 #11 27 #10 51 #12 24 #19 33 #9 67 #10 53 #16 39 #15

Rankings for the top 40 schools based on the 6 year window are presented. The number of authors who contributed to the rankings are also presented (i.e., number after #). If there were ties at the cutoff amount, the school that is presented was the highest in the 12 year category or if still a tie then the all year category (or if still a tie, alphabetically). Time windows represent all articles published in the previous 6, 12, or 19 years

22

TABLE 3 Rankings of Accounting Institutions by Topical Area

University
Rutgers Florida St No Carol St Cen Fla So Illinois Tx Tech Portland St Cal St Long Bch No Arizona Auburn Tulsa Ghent U Bentley Ariz St M ichigan St Texas A&M Georgia St Arkansas Okla St Tennessee Houston-Cl L No Colo Emory M aastricht Akron Kent St Hawaii-Manoa Queensland M issouri So Florida Kansas Virg Comm Delaware Temple Utah Iowa State Denver U Brock U Cal St Northridge Fla Atlantic

6 Yrs
1 #3 1 #2 3 #3 4 #2 4 #3 4 #3 4 #3 4 #1 4 #2 4 #2 4 #3 4 #3 13 #2 13 #1 13 #2 13 #1 13 #2 13 #1 13 #1 13 #2 13 #2 13 #2 13 #1 13 #2 13 #1 13 #2 13 #1 13 #2 29 #1 29 #1 29 #1 29 #1 29 #1 29 #1 29 #1 29 #1 29 #1 29 #1 29 #1 29 #1

AIS 12 Yrs
2 #4 9 #2 10 #3 4 #2 4 #4 6 #4 10 #3 10 #2 17 #2 17 #2 17 #3 17 #3 1 #4 6 #3 10 #2 10 #1 10 #3 10 #1 26 #1 26 #2 26 #2 26 #2 26 #1 26 #2 26 #1 26 #2 26 #1 26 #2 3 #3 6 #4 17 #3 17 #2 26 #1 26 #2 47 #1 47 #1 47 #1 47 #1 47 #1 47 #1

All
2 #5 9 #3 19 #3 4 #3 5 #6 8 #4 9 #4 19 #2 14 #2 19 #3 28 #3 28 #3 1 #4 3 #5 9 #3 14 #2 14 #3 19 #1 19 #2 28 #3 40 #2 40 #2 40 #1 40 #2 40 #1 40 #2 40 #1 40 #2 5 #3 7 #4 19 #4 28 #2 40 #1 40 #2 14 #1 28 #1 28 #3 40 #2 40 #1 68 #1

University

6 Yrs

Audit 12 Yrs All

2 #5 5 #11 3 #6 11 #7 4 #6 6 #10 7 #2 7 #6 16 #4 21 #3 24 #5 36 #7 36 #2 7 #8 7 #5 13 #6 14 #4 14 #7 21 #4 24 #4 1 #6 12 #4 16 #4 19 #6 19 #4 30 #4 30 #3 36 #4 50 #4 59 #4 24 #5 24 #5 30 #2 30 #4 30 #5 42 #3 50 #3 50 #4 59 #2 59 #4 8 #5 4 #13 3 #6 15 #9 6 #6 9 #11 15 #2 15 #6 10 #9 15 #4 39 #5 32 #9 50 #3 13 #8 13 #5 2 #10 20 #5 24 #7 34 #4 39 #5 5 #9 24 #4 24 #4 6 #9 10 #5 34 #6 50 #3 29 #5 81 #4 100 #4 15 #6 34 #8 29 #5 44 #5 50 #5 58 #5 44 #6 68 #5 12 #3 100 #4

Fla Internat 1 #4 Illinois at Urb. Cham. 2 #9 Northeastern 3 #6 Rutgers 4 #6 Bentley 5 #5 New So Wales 5 #6 M issouri 5 #2 Nanyang Tech 8 #4 Texas A&M 9 #3 Kentucky 9 #3 Queens 9 #4 Fla Atlantic 9 #6 Hong Kong Uni. of S&T 9 #2 Brigham Young U 14 #4 Tennessee 14 #5 Tx-Austin 14 #3 Indiana Indianapolis 14 #2 HongKong PolyTechnic University 14 #4 Temple 14 #3 So Carol 14 #4 Wisconsin 21 #3 Alabama 21 #3 Kansas 21 #3 So Calif 21 #4 Florida 21 #2 Alberta 21 #3 M ass 21 #3 Georgia 21 #4 Auckland 21 #4 Athens 21 #4 Georgia St 31 #4 Indiana Bloomington 31 #3 Toronto 31 #2 Virginia Tech 31 #2 Chinese HK U 31 #2 Auburn 31 #3 No Texas 31 #3 Nat Taiwan U 31 #4 Cornell 31 #2 SUNY-Bingham 31 #3

23

TABLE 3 - Continued
Financial 12 Yrs All
3 #19 1 #12 2 #14 5 #18 7 #10 13 #13 4 #15 6 #14 9 #11 12 #15 14 #12 20 #11 20 #11 29 #8 8 #9 15 #13 10 #10 10 #12 17 #11 23 #9 25 #15 31 #9 15 #15 41 #7 19 #11 35 #9 30 #8 37 #9 17 #7 22 #12 32 #9 32 #10 23 #14 25 #6 37 #5 47 #8 48 #5 32 #8 37 #9 28 #9 5 #21 1 #18 2 #15 5 #20 10 #10 15 #13 3 #17 4 #15 11 #12 8 #19 9 #15 24 #13 24 #13 31 #8 16 #9 13 #16 7 #11 11 #12 16 #14 27 #11 21 #22 32 #13 19 #17 36 #9 14 #11 34 #9 41 #8 45 #10 18 #9 26 #17 20 #15 39 #11 29 #17 21 #7 44 #5 60 #8 64 #5 32 #9 34 #10 28 #10

University
Chicago U of Washington Stanford Tx-Austin Duke M IT Penn New York U Penn St So Calif Texas A&M Iowa Arizona London Bus Cornell Indiana Bloomington No Carol Northwestern M ichigan Toronto CUNY-Baruch Illinois at Urb. Cham. Ohio St Rochester Columbia Wisconsin Utah M issouri UCLA M ichigan St Ariz St Hong Kong Uni. of S&T Harvard Berkeley Yale Lancaster M iami M innesota Houston Georgia

6 Yrs
1 #18 2 #10 3 #13 4 #13 4 #10 6 #10 7 #11 8 #11 9 #9 9 #9 9 #9 9 #11 9 #10 14 #6 15 #6 16 #10 17 #9 17 #10 17 #9 17 #8 17 #11 17 #8 23 #9 23 #7 25 #8 25 #6 27 #6 27 #8 29 #5 29 #7 29 #7 29 #7 33 #8 33 #6 33 #4 33 #8 33 #5 38 #6 38 #7 40 #5

University

6 Yrs

Managerial 12 Yrs All

2 #5 1 #9 5 #8 5 #7 13 #6 17 #5 4 #6 10 #5 13 #6 20 #7 20 #2 5 #6 29 #6 8 #8 10 #4 12 #2 13 #3 17 #7 17 #4 20 #2 26 #6 26 #3 29 #4 29 #4 37 #3 37 #3 37 #2 37 #3 51 #3 51 #3 62 #2 62 #2 3 #7 8 #4 20 #7 29 #3 29 #3 29 #4 37 #5 37 #3 1 #5 2 #10 7 #10 4 #10 29 #6 27 #6 7 #6 10 #7 17 #6 37 #7 40 #2 11 #6 46 #6 4 #8 7 #7 21 #2 6 #4 21 #9 29 #5 14 #3 37 #8 40 #4 29 #5 46 #5 20 #7 40 #4 55 #3 63 #3 78 #3 78 #3 95 #2 95 #2 3 #9 14 #4 21 #9 12 #5 21 #6 46 #4 37 #5 40 #3

Stanford 1 #5 M ichigan St 2 #6 London SchEcon 3 #5 Ohio St 4 #4 Tilburg U 4 #5 UCLA 4 #5 Indiana Bloomington 7 #5 Berkeley 7 #4 Pittsburgh 7 #4 Tx-Austin 7 #6 University of Navarra IESE 7 #2 M ichigan 12 #4 So Carol 13 #5 So Calif 14 #4 M elbourne 14 #3 Rice 14 #1 Temple 14 #2 Penn St 14 #4 M iami 14 #4 M onash U 14 #1 Illinois at Urb. Cham. 14 #4 Emory 14 #2 Duke 14 #2 Georgia St 14 #2 Car Mellon 14 #3 Yale 14 #1 M aastricht 14 #2 Leuven 14 #3 Louisiana Tech 14 #3 M IT 14 #3 Twente 14 #2 M iss St 14 #2 Penn 33 #2 Columbia 33 #1 M anchester 33 #2 Iowa 33 #2 Queens 33 #2 Utah 33 #3 Chicago 33 #3 Warwick 33 #1

24

TABLE 3 - Continued
Tax 12 Yrs
1 #3 5 #2 6 #4 8 #3 2 #8 4 #3 10 #4 11 #3 11 #4 19 #2 19 #1 19 #1 34 #4 2 #5 7 #6 8 #3 11 #7 14 #3 15 #4 15 #3 19 #2 19 #2 28 #4 28 #2 34 #1 34 #3 34 #3 15 #4 19 #4 19 #1 28 #3 34 #2 34 #4 34 #1 44 #3 44 #2 44 #1 58 #2 58 #2 58 #1

University
Arizona Dartmouth Chicago Iowa Texas A&M Tx-Austin Oregon Georgia Geo M ason So Carol U of Washington M ichigan M issouri No Carol Brigham Young U Conn Columbia Virginia Tech Tx Tech Lingnan U Notre Dame Alabama Indiana Bloomington Virg-Grad Idaho State Kansas Laval Cen Fla M ichigan St Houston Florida St Rochester Arkansas Cal Davis Ariz St No Texas Tilburg U Pittsburgh Wyoming M iami

6 Yrs
1 #3 2 #2 3 #3 3 #3 5 #2 5 #2 5 #2 8 #2 8 #2 8 #2 8 #1 8 #1 8 #4 14 #2 14 #3 14 #3 14 #2 14 #3 14 #3 14 #3 14 #2 14 #1 14 #2 14 #2 14 #1 14 #3 14 #3 28 #1 28 #2 28 #1 28 #2 28 #1 28 #2 28 #1 28 #2 28 #2 28 #1 28 #2 28 #2 28 #1

All
2 #3 5 #2 6 #5 16 #4 4 #9 2 #5 11 #4 16 #3 24 #4 24 #4 24 #2 34 #2 53 #4 1 #6 9 #6 8 #3 21 #7 14 #3 16 #5 29 #3 29 #3 34 #3 14 #8 46 #2 40 #1 46 #4 53 #3 34 #4 9 #8 16 #3 40 #4 53 #2 53 #4 53 #1 13 #7 65 #2 65 #1 53 #2 84 #2 84 #1

Rankings for the top 40 schools based on the 6 year window are presented. The number of authors who contributed to the rankings are also presented (i.e., number after #). If there were ties at the cutoff amount, the school that is presented was the highest in the 12 year category or if still a tie then the all year category (or if still a tie, alphabetically). Time windows represent all articles published in the previous 6, 12, or 19 years.

25

TABLE 4 Rankings of Accounting Institutions by Research Methodology

Analytical 12 Yrs All
1 #5 2 #5 4 #4 5 #3 6 #5 13 #2 9 #4 10 #4 10 #3 12 #5 13 #4 2 #5 6 #4 6 #4 16 #4 16 #3 23 #5 23 #3 34 #1 13 #3 23 #4 28 #2 37 #1 16 #2 16 #4 16 #2 23 #4 28 #2 28 #4 28 #3 34 #2 37 #2 37 #2 37 #2 49 #2 49 #2 49 #1 49 #2 21 #2 21 #1 1 #7 4 #5 10 #5 8 #3 6 #6 13 #4 11 #5 6 #7 15 #3 8 #5 18 #5 5 #6 2 #4 2 #6 27 #5 32 #3 38 #5 39 #3 46 #1 11 #5 27 #4 32 #2 58 #1 15 #2 20 #6 22 #3 14 #6 20 #6 32 #4 43 #3 24 #3 27 #3 39 #2 58 #2 46 #2 66 #2 66 #1 66 #2 27 #2 32 #1

University

6 Yrs

University

6 Yrs

Archival 12 Yrs All

3 #16 15 #12 1 #12 2 #14 4 #10 5 #15 6 #10 13 #12 8 #13 16 #13 10 #15 10 #13 34 #6 6 #10 12 #13 14 #12 23 #15 9 #16 20 #8 31 #9 18 #12 22 #9 23 #10 37 #7 17 #12 27 #9 18 #10 20 #17 25 #9 30 #11 25 #10 27 #6 37 #6 36 #9 31 #9 31 #12 35 #5 37 #9 59 #8 51 #9 3 #19 14 #12 1 #13 7 #16 4 #15 5 #18 10 #10 13 #15 5 #17 17 #13 8 #15 10 #14 38 #6 2 #12 16 #14 12 #13 19 #22 9 #20 34 #8 37 #10 22 #13 26 #9 34 #11 39 #9 21 #13 41 #9 17 #11 25 #19 22 #10 34 #12 28 #11 28 #8 60 #6 28 #12 20 #10 27 #12 24 #6 50 #10 50 #11 41 #12

Stanford 1 #4 Ohio St 2 #3 Berkeley 2 #4 Dartmouth 4 #3 UCLA 4 #4 Yale 4 #1 Car Mellon 7 #3 M innesota 7 #3 Indiana Indianapolis 7 #2 Houston 7 #5 Illinois at Urb. Cham. 7 #4 Columbia 12 #2 Penn 12 #4 Northwestern 12 #2 Chicago 12 #4 Tilburg U 12 #2 British Colu 17 #4 Duke 17 #3 Tel Aviv Un 17 #1 Ariz St 20 #1 Purdue West Lafayette 20 #3 Tx-Austin 20 #2 Georgetown 20 #1 Florida 24 #2 Illinios at Chicago 24 #2 Penn St 24 #2 M ichigan 24 #2 Toronto 24 #2 New York U 24 #2 Hong Kong Uni. of S&T 24 #2 CUNY-Baruch 24 #2 Pittsburgh 24 #2 Alberta 24 #1 Princeton 24 #1 Utah 24 #2 Nat Taiwan U 24 #2 Clark U 24 #1 Fla Atlantic 24 #2 Aarhus Universitet 39 #1 Sungkyunkwan University 39 #1

Chicago 1 #15 M IT 2 #10 Stanford 3 #11 Penn 3 #10 U of Washington 3 #7 Texas A&M 3 #12 Duke 3 #10 Arizona 3 #11 So Calif 9 #11 Iowa 10 #13 New York U 11 #11 Penn St 12 #9 London Bus 13 #5 No Carol 14 #9 M ichigan 14 #9 Tx-Austin 14 #9 CUNY-Baruch 14 #12 M ichigan St 18 #9 Fla Internat 18 #6 Hong Kong Uni. of S&T 18 #7 Indiana Bloomington 21 #10 Toronto 21 #9 M issouri 21 #8 Rochester 24 #7 Wisconsin 25 #7 Utah 26 #7 Temple 27 #7 Harvard 27 #10 Columbia 27 #7 Ohio St 27 #9 Northwestern 31 #8 UCLA 31 #5 M iami 31 #6 So M ethodist 34 #7 Georgia 35 #6 Tx-Dallas 35 #6 Berkeley 35 #4 HongKong PolyTechnic University 35 #6 Illinois at Urb. Cham. 35 #7 Geo Wash 40 #7

26

TABLE 4 - Continued
Experimental 12 Yrs All
3 #10 5 #5 2 #8 3 #8 6 #12 8 #6 11 #5 1 #11 7 #5 8 #6 11 #8 13 #6 16 #6 13 #5 10 #3 22 #7 22 #3 26 #3 16 #4 18 #4 26 #4 31 #4 33 #3 15 #4 26 #4 36 #5 36 #3 36 #3 45 #2 19 #6 19 #6 19 #6 22 #4 22 #5 26 #3 26 #3 36 #5 55 #3 55 #3 55 #1 1 #12 3 #6 4 #10 5 #8 7 #13 8 #7 9 #6 6 #11 12 #5 14 #6 2 #10 23 #6 19 #7 12 #7 9 #4 30 #7 34 #3 29 #6 9 #6 27 #4 33 #4 27 #4 47 #4 21 #7 15 #5 43 #5 58 #3 58 #3 67 #2 16 #7 16 #6 16 #7 25 #5 31 #5 36 #3 36 #3 47 #6 34 #6 36 #7 67 #2

University
Tx-Austin Cornell Indiana Bloomington Northeastern Illinois at Urb. Cham. M ichigan St So Carol Brigham Young U Alabama Nanyang Tech Ariz St Emory Georgia St U of Washington Bentley Florida St Kansas Texas A&M Kentucky M ass So Illinois Georgia Tech Auburn Cen Fla Pittsburgh Georgia Leuven York U (Canada) Tilburg U New So Wales Oklahoma Wisconsin Virginia Tech Tx Tech M elbourne M issouri So Florida Iowa State No Carol St Louisiana Tech

6 Yrs
1 #6 1 #5 3 #6 3 #7 5 #6 5 #6 5 #5 8 #6 8 #4 10 #4 10 #4 10 #5 13 #6 14 #3 15 #2 15 #4 15 #3 15 #2 19 #3 19 #3 19 #3 19 #3 19 #3 24 #3 24 #4 24 #4 24 #3 24 #3 24 #2 30 #1 30 #2 30 #3 30 #2 30 #3 30 #1 30 #2 30 #3 30 #2 30 #3 30 #1

Rankings for the top 40 schools based on the 6 year window are presented. The number of authors who contributed to the rankings are also presented (i.e., number after #). If there were ties at the cutoff amount, the school that is presented was the highest in the 12 year category or if still a tie then the all year category (or if still a tie, alphabetically). Time windows represent all articles published in the previous 6, 12, or 19 years.

27

TABLE 5 Rankings of Accounting Institutions by Averaging Rankings of Topical Areas, Research Methodologies, or Topic and Methodology Combined
University Average of Topic 6 Yrs 12 Yrs All
1 #5 4 #6 2 #5 6 #5 3 #5 14 #4 5 #4 7 #4 10 #3 17 #4 9 #3 8 #5 13 #4 18 #6 15 #4 11 #3 12 #4 28 #3 21 #3 30 #2 39 #2 23 #4 37 #2 22 #4 29 #3 24 #3 19 #4 16 #3 45 #2 43 #3 54 #2 20 #4 41 #2 31 #2 42 #2 25 #2 32 #3 52 #2 33 #2 35 #2 1 #6 4 #7 3 #6 8 #6 2 #6 15 #5 7 #4 9 #4 11 #4 20 #4 13 #4 6 #6 17 #4 24 #6 16 #5 10 #3 5 #5 47 #4 19 #3 52 #2 58 #2 22 #4 34 #3 21 #5 26 #3 28 #4 18 #5 12 #4 64 #2 43 #4 63 #2 14 #5 54 #2 37 #3 39 #3 23 #2 36 #4 59 #3 40 #3 32 #3

University

Average of Method 6 Yrs 12 Yrs All

1 #7 2 #7 3 #4 7 #4 5 #5 14 #5 6 #5 4 #5 9 #6 10 #6 10 #2 12 #4 19 #4 13 #4 28 #5 16 #4 20 #4 27 #4 17 #7 32 #3 24 #5 32 #5 38 #4 14 #5 21 #4 35 #2 25 #3 29 #4 34 #3 8 #6 22 #2 55 #3 47 #3 50 #5 22 #4 30 #3 53 #3 30 #5 50 #5 45 #4 1 #8 2 #8 2 #6 12 #4 4 #7 20 #6 6 #6 5 #6 9 #7 8 #7 10 #3 13 #5 18 #5 14 #4 42 #6 16 #5 17 #4 39 #4 23 #7 52 #3 34 #6 46 #6 33 #4 11 #5 21 #4 47 #3 32 #4 40 #4 26 #4 7 #7 22 #3 56 #3 43 #4 61 #6 19 #5 24 #4 60 #3 29 #7 44 #5 57 #4

Texas A&M 1 #3 Tx-Austin 2 #5 M ichigan St 3 #4 Indiana Bloomington 4 #4 So Calif 5 #4 Stanford 6 #4 So Carol 7 #3 M issouri 8 #3 Georgia St 9 #3 Iowa 10 #3 Emory 11 #3 Illinois at Urb. Cham. 12 #4 M ichigan 13 #3 Chicago 13 #5 U of Washington 15 #3 Temple 16 #2 Ariz St 17 #3 M IT 18 #3 Utah 19 #2 M iami 20 #2 Fla Internat 20 #2 Arizona 22 #3 Cornell 23 #2 Penn 24 #3 Toronto 24 #3 No Carol 26 #3 Penn St 27 #3 Wisconsin 28 #2 Richmond 29 #2 HongKong PolyTechnic University 30 #2 Laval 30 #2 Ohio St 32 #3 Rice 33 #1 Queens 34 #2 Pittsburgh 35 #2 Oklahoma 36 #1 Duke 37 #3 Hong Kong Uni. of S&T 38 #2 Alabama 39 #1 M elbourne 40 #2

Tx-Austin 1 #6 Illinois at Urb. Cham. 2 #6 U of Washington 3 #4 Pittsburgh 4 #4 Ariz St 5 #4 Texas A&M 6 #5 Wisconsin 7 #4 Ohio St 8 #4 M ichigan St 9 #5 Indiana Bloomington 10 #5 Florida 11 #2 Alberta 11 #4 Arizona 13 #4 M issouri 14 #3 Stanford 15 #5 Florida St 16 #3 Cornell 16 #3 Georgia 18 #3 Chicago 19 #6 M iami 20 #3 Brigham Young U 21 #4 Penn 21 #5 HongKong PolyTechnic University 23 #3 Duke 24 #4 Georgia St 24 #3 Tilburg U 26 #2 Nanyang Tech 27 #3 Emory 27 #4 Oklahoma 27 #2 So Calif 30 #4 Kansas 30 #2 Fla Atlantic 32 #3 UCLA 33 #3 New York U 33 #4 Penn St 35 #4 Notre Dame 36 #2 Berkeley 36 #3 CUNY-Baruch 38 #5 M ichigan 38 #4 Columbia 40 #3

28

TABLE 5 - Continued
Average of Topic and Method 6 Yrs 12 Yrs All
1 #6 2 #5 3 #6 7 #5 4 #6 6 #4 16 #5 9 #4 5 #5 8 #4 12 #3 13 #4 15 #6 14 #4 11 #4 19 #4 20 #4 32 #3 10 #4 24 #3 34 #2 21 #5 29 #4 22 #3 17 #4 33 #3 25 #3 41 #3 44 #4 23 #4 27 #2 18 #3 43 #3 58 #2 36 #3 28 #3 49 #3 54 #3 56 #3 47 #4 1 #7 4 #6 3 #7 8 #6 6 #7 9 #5 19 #5 11 #4 2 #6 5 #6 12 #4 16 #4 21 #6 17 #4 10 #5 15 #4 22 #5 30 #3 7 #5 29 #4 49 #2 28 #5 25 #4 18 #3 14 #5 41 #4 20 #4 39 #4 59 #4 27 #4 24 #3 13 #4 57 #3 69 #2 37 #4 32 #4 36 #4 61 #3 56 #3 46 #4

University

Tx-Austin 1 #5 Texas A&M 2 #4 M ichigan St 3 #4 Indiana Bloomington 4 #4 Illinois at Urb. Cham. 5 #5 U of Washington 6 #3 Stanford 7 #4 M issouri 8 #3 So Calif 9 #4 Ariz St 9 #3 Georgia St 11 #3 Emory 12 #3 Chicago 13 #6 So Carol 14 #3 Wisconsin 15 #3 Arizona 16 #4 M ichigan 16 #3 Cornell 18 #2 Ohio St 19 #3 Pittsburgh 19 #2 M iami 19 #2 Penn 22 #4 Iowa 23 #4 Utah 24 #3 Penn St 25 #3 Alberta 26 #2 Toronto 27 #3 HongKong PolyTechnic University 28 #3 M IT 29 #3 Duke 30 #3 Oklahoma 31 #2 Temple 32 #2 Nanyang Tech 33 #2 Fla Internat 34 #2 No Carol 35 #3 Florida St 36 #3 Georgia 37 #3 Hong Kong Uni. of S&T 37 #2 UCLA 39 #2 Columbia 40 #2

Rankings for the top 40 schools based on the 6 year window are presented. The number of authors who contributed to the rankings are also presented (i.e., number after #). If there were ties at the cutoff amount, the school that is presented was the highest in the 12 year category or if still a tie then the all year category (or if still a tie, alphabetically). Time windows represent all articles published in the previous 6, 12, or 19 years

29

APPENDIX 1 Description of Companion Website To enhance the usefulness of the descriptive data presented in this paper, we have developed a companion website for this paper. The website is located at http://www.byuaccounting.net/rankings/. The website provides the following: Complete listing of rankings for each ranking presented in this paper (not just top 40 rankings). Rankings of the topical by methodological area crosses (e.g., rankings of auditexperimental, audit-archival, etc.). Periodically updated rankings as new journal issues are published and professors change locations. Ability for users to view all institutions rankings on a single page.

30