Voting With Their Feet

Voting with Their Feet: In Which
Journals Do the Most Prolic Finance

Researchers Publish?
Morris G. Danielson and Jean L. Heck
The financial economics literature has experienced rapid growth over the past 40 years, triggering
a dramatic increase in the number of journals. We employ a new method to analyze the current
pecking order of finance journals. Specifically, we analyze the publication records of prolific
authors to provide evidence regarding the perceived quality of a set of 23 high-impact finance
journals. Assuming these scholars target the best research outlets, their publication records can
reveal information about their subjective rankings of the next-best alternatives to the traditional
elite finance journals. The results suggest that prolific authors are most likely to target outlets
that have raised their profile in recent years (e.g., Financial Management and Financial Analysts
Journal) and new specialized finance journals (e.g., Journal of Financial Markets, Journal of
Corporate Finance, and Journal of Financial Intermediation) when publishing outside the set of
elite journals.
The well-known clich e publish or perish has long described life in research universities.
However, as Corbett (1992) notes, the implications of this requirement, for both aspiring and
established academics, have changed dramatically in recent decades, as research benchmarks
for promotion and tenure have skyrocketed. Although most disciplines now have more journals
than during the 1950s and 1960s, competition for slots in the highest quality journals remains
fierce. For example, Danielson and Heck (2010) find that a relatively small number of authors
account for a disproportionate share of the articles in a set of 15 high-impact accounting journals.
1
The changing research landscape has been particularly visible in the field of finance, where the
volume of research has grown exponentially in recent decades. Heck and Cooley (2005) report
that for 72 leading finance journals, the inaugural publication dates (and the cumulative number
of journals in operation by the end of the specified time period) are distributed as follows: prior
to 1960 = 3 (3), 1960-1969 = 4 (7), 1970-1979 = 11 (18), 1980-1989 = 12 (30), 1990-1999 =
40 (70), and 2000-2005 = 2 (72).
2
Weston (1994) notes that many of the ideas that now dominate financial theory and practice
(e.g., portfolio theory, capital budgeting, capital structure, dividend policy, efficient market
The authors thank Raghu Rau (Editor) and an anonymous referee for their constructive comments and suggestions.
Morris G. Danielson is an Associate Professor of Finance in the Haub School of Business at Saint Josephs University
in Philadelphia, PA. Jean L. Heck is an Associate Professor of Finance and the Brian Duperreault Chair for Risk
Management and Insurance in the Haub School of Business at Saint Josephs University in Philadelphia, PA.
1
Danielson and Heck (2010) report that only 13.7% of the authors appearing (at least once) in the set of 15 high-impact
accounting journals have five or more such appearances. However, these authors account for 51.1% of the appearances
across all 15 journals.
2
Bauerlein et al.(2010) find that the number of published articles across all academic disciplines continues to grow at a
3.26% annual rate. In finance, notable new titles established since 2005 include the Quarterly Journal of Finance (2011),
Reviewof Asset Pricing Studies (2011), Critical Finance Review(2012), and Reviewof Corporate Finance Studies (2012).
Financial Management

Spring 2014

pages 1 - 27
2 Financial Management
r
Spring 2014
theory, asset pricing models, option pricing theory, and agency theory) were developed during
the heart of this growth period. As the finance literature branched out in these related, but also
very different directions, new journals were established in specific topical areas (e.g., financial
markets, corporate finance, derivatives). Although authors now have more outlets from which
to choose before submitting a manuscript, it has become increasingly difficult to identify those
finance journals that truly have credibility. This has complicated the task of evaluating the
research portfolios of candidates for tenure, promotion, or merit awards. This process is especially
vulnerable to error when, as is the case at many universities, some of the individuals evaluating
the research portfolios are from other disciplines (e.g., marketing or history professors evaluating
the research of a finance scholar).
In the field of finance, identifying a set of elite journals is a fairly noncontroversial task. The
Journal of Finance (JF), the Journal of Financial Economics (JFE), and the Review of Financial
Studies (RFS) appear at the top of most finance journal ranking lists and dominate the field
in terms of citations (Borokhovich, Bricker, and Simkins, 2000). Historically, the Journal of
Business (JB) and the Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis (JFQA) have rounded out
the set of top tier finance journals. In studies published before the RFS had firmly established
its reputation, the JB and the JFQA typically were ranked in the top four journals specializing in
financial research (Alexander and Mabry, 1994; Zivney and Reichenstein, 1994). In later studies
(Oltheten, Theoharakis, and Travlos, 2005), the JB and the JFQA are listed just behind the top
three finance journals.
It is more difficult to specify the journals that come next. Yet this question is important as a
high-quality manuscript can be rejected by elite journals for a variety of reasons, such as space
constraints or the topic not deemed timely by the journals editorial board. Due to the intense
competition for slots in elite journals, Griffiths and Winters (2005) find that faculty members
at schools outside the top 50 research institutions typically do not have multiple publications (if
any) in the elite finance journals. Thus, it is likely that the vitae of finance professors at most
research universities will include at least some publications outside the top five journals.
Until the mid-1990s, journals classified in the second tier typically included the Financial
Analysts Journal (FAJ), Financial Management (FM), the Financial Review (FR), the Journal of
Applied Corporate Finance (JACF), the Journal of Banking and Finance (JBF), the Journal of
Futures Markets (JFU), the Journal of Financial Research (JFR), and the Journal of Portfolio
Management (JPM). After the top five finance journals, these eight journals, listed alphabetically
here, are the highest ranked, dedicated finance journals (i.e., journals that publish primarily fi-
nance research) in Alexander and Mabry (1994).
3
As specialized journals commenced publishing
during the 1990s (e.g., Journal of Financial Intermediation [JFI], Journal of Financial Markets
[JFM], Journal of Corporate Finance [JCF], Journal of Empirical Finance [JEF], and European
Financial Management [EFM]), at least some evidence suggests that the pecking order of finance
journals began to change. For example, Chan, Fok, and Pan (2000) rank the JEF and the JFI just
behind the JFQA using citation data from 1997 to 1998. Similarly, survey results in Oltheten et
al. (2005) suggest that many of the new journals had established high-quality reputations by the
early 2000s.
Given that most researchers will never publish in an elite journal, or will, at most, publish one
or two elite articles, gaining a better understanding of the perceived quality of the next-best
finance journals can help aspiring (and established) researchers make informed decisions about
3
Zivney and Reichenstein (1994) report a similar list of the next eight dedicated finance journals. However, their list
includes the Journal of Business Finance and Accounting (JBFA) and omits JACF.
Danielson & Heck
r
Voting with Their Feet 3
where to submit articles that cannot be placed in an elite journal. To provide such evidence, this
paper breaks from traditional journal ranking methods (e.g., citation analysis or surveys) and
focuses on the behavior of the most prolific financial researchers. In particular, which outlets are
these scholars most likely to target when publishing outside the set of elite journals? And, how
have these preferences shifted over time, as the population of high-quality finance journals has
expanded?
To analyze the publication activity of prolific authors, we first summarize appearances by
individual author, from 1970 to 2009, in the set of 23 dedicated finance journals with the highest
worldwide ranking in Oltheten et al. (2005). We then identify two sets of prolific authors: 1)
individuals with five or more career publications across all 23 journals and 2) scholars with five
or more career publications in the set of five elite finance journals (JF, JFE, RFS, JFQA, and JB).
Finally, we calculate the percentage of the appearances in each of the 23 journals from 1970 to
2009, and in various sample subperiods, attributed to each set of prolific authors. This method can
identify shifts in the publication preferences of prolific authors across time, and can differentiate
between the behaviors of the two sets of prolific authors.
The results reveal that many of the traditional (i.e., established before 1990) nonelite journals
experienced noticeable declines in the percentage of appearances by prolific authors as the
expanding population of finance journals during the 1980s and 1990s spread the research output
of prolific authors across more outlets. The most noteworthy exceptions to this trend are FM and
the FAJ, both of which benefited from evolving editorial policies that now give preference to
rigorous, empirical papers. Depending upon howprolific authors are identified (e.g., publications
across all 23 journals vs. publications in the elite five), the current ranking of finance journals,
based on the implicit votes cast by the 1990-2009 publication decisions of prolific authors, differs.
Several of the newer second tier journals (e.g., JFI and RF) rank noticeably higher when prolific
authors are identified using only appearances in the five elite journals. When the prolific author
definition is broadened to include appearances in all 23 journals, the ranking of several of the
older second tier journals (e.g., JFR and FR) improve. Thus, the publication preferences of or
publication opportunities available to different subsets of prolific authors may not be the same.
Excluding the JB, which published its last issue in 2006, and averaging the results from the
two sets of prolific authors, the 10 highest ranked finance outlets now include the four surviving
elite journals (in order, RFS, JF, JFE, and JFQA) followed by FM, the JFM, the FAJ, the JCF, the
JACF, and the JFI. Thus, prolific authors are more likely to target outlets that have raised their
profile in recent years (e.g., FM and FAJ) and new, specialized finance journals (e.g., JFM, JCF,
and JFI) when publishing outside the set of elite journals.
I. Assessing Finance Journal Quality
Because quality matters, most successful researchers in finance (as well as in other fields)
strive to publish articles in elite journals, despite the long odds (Griffiths and Winters, 2005).
Although some financial researchers successfully place articles in elite accounting, economics,
or management journals, this is not an easy path to navigate either. Publishing in elite journals in
these related disciplines can be just as competitive as it is in finance (Danielson and Heck, 2010),
and finding topics that straddle the line between finance and one of these fields is no small task.
Therefore, it is likely that some high-quality financial research manuscripts will not find a home
in any elite journal (either in finance or a related field). When this happens, what are the next
best research outlets in the field of finance?
r
Spring 2014
A. Surveys and Citation Data
Traditionally, journal quality has been assessed using survey results (Coe and Weinstock, 1983;
Borde, Cheney, and Madura, 1999; Oltheten et al., 2005; Currie and Pandher, 2011) or citation
data (Mabry and Sharplin, 1985; Alexander and Mabry, 1994; Zivney and Reichenstein, 1994;
Borokhovich et al., 2000; Chan et al., 2000; Borokhovich, Lee, and Simkins, 2011).
4
However, the
effectiveness of these approaches decreases as one progresses down the pecking order of journals.
For example, some finance journal surveys (Oltheten et al., 2005) cover journal populations that
also include elite accounting and economics journals. The presence of elite journals from related
fields diverts votes from the second tier finance journals, reducing the ability of a survey to
distinguish between the nonelite finance outlets.
The ability of citation counts to reveal differences in journal quality also declines outside the
set of elite journals. An article appearing in a second tier journal can be cited less frequently
than an article of equal quality appearing in an elite journal due to snobbery, as some authors
may try to limit the number of nonelite journal articles appearing on a reference list. At the
same time, citation counts of articles appearing in some journals can be artificially inflated
if an editor asks authors of conditionally accepted papers to consider adding references to
articles previously published by that journal (Wilhite and Fong, 2012). Citation counts of nonelite
journals can be especially susceptible to such manipulation, as the author pools at these journals
typically will include less experienced researchers, who are unlikely to balk at such requests to
add gratuitous references. Since nonelite journals have lower citation counts to begin with, the
relative ranking of these journals can be influenced by this process.
B. An Alternative Ranking Approach
In contrast to these traditional approaches, this paper assesses journal quality through the
publication decisions of prolific finance authors. In particular, which journals do these scholars
target when they cannot place a manuscript in an elite journal? The publication records of
successful researchers can shed light on journal quality for two reasons. First, authors who
publish frequently do so because they write excellent papers. The inclusion of articles by these
individuals will contribute positively to the overall quality of a journal. In addition, prolific
authors are actively involved in the research community and have educated opinions about the
relative, and evolving, quality of various journals. Assuming these authors submit articles to the
best possible outlet (based on their estimates of the probability of acceptance and the payoff
from acceptance given the career incentives the particular researcher faces), their publication
records will reveal information about their subjective ranking of journals.
We acknowledge that research quantity does not necessarily imply research quality. Indeed,
quantity and quality can act as substitutes. For example, an article by an author with few lifetime
publications can make a significant contribution to the literature. It is also true that some authors
publish numerous articles in lower level journals, with no noticeable impact on the literature.
However, it is difficult for a researcher to secure multiple appearances in the best academic
journals unless the individual continues to produce high-quality work.
To implement this approach, we define two sets of finance journals: 1) the elite five and
2) a population of the 18 next best finance journals. Together, these 23 journals comprise
our population of high-impact finance journals. We identify prolific authors based on lifetime
appearances in all 23 of these journals and, separately, by appearances within just the set of five
elite journals. We then calculate the percentage of appearances in each individual journal by the
4
As an exception, Tanner (2000) evaluates journals using information about referee quality.
Danielson & Heck
r
two sets of prolific authors. We interpret the ranking of journals by prolific author appearances as
evidence about the authors subjective opinions about relative journal quality. We are primarily
interested in the ranking of the 18 nonelite journals.
Our approach is similar to that in Chen and Huang (2007), who assess journal quality based on
the percentage of appearances by authors affiliated with the top 20 (or 80) research institutions.
In contrast, we track appearances by individual prolific authors, defined as scholars whose career
research output exceeds specific benchmarks. Thus, each researcher classified as prolific in
this study retains that status throughout his/her entire career, even if the individuals university
affiliation changes. In addition, the population of prolific authors in this study includes successful
scholars who may never have been affiliated with an elite university. Perhaps the most important
difference between this study and Chen and Huang (2007) is that we provide information about
how publication trends have evolved over the past 40 years in response to the ever increasing
number of high-quality outlets available to financial researchers.
II. Data
This study documents the publication preferences of those scholars who compiled the most
impressive research records in the field of finance from 1970 to 2009. This section identifies how
we selected the 23 finance journals evaluated in this paper, how we defined the sets of prolific
authors, and how we calculated the percentage of journal content contributed by these authors.
A. The 23 High-Impact Journals
Because there are now well over 200 finance journals, it is not practical to evaluate the rel-
ative quality of every finance journal, nor would it be informative to select prolific authors
based on publication activity across such a wide range of journal quality. Indeed, Cabells Di-
rectory of Publishing Opportunities (accessed online during July 2012) listed 144 journal titles
that include the word Finance and another 69 titles that include the word Financial. There
are also finance journals that do not include either of these words in their title (e.g., Journal
of Portfolio Management and Journal of Derivatives). We first narrow this population to the
top 40 journals that publish finance-related research using the worldwide ranking in Oltheten
et al. (2005). We reduced this list to 23 by omitting 17 journals that primarily publish articles in
accounting or economics. We exclude these titles from our set of high-impact finance journals
for two reasons. First, because our goal is to determine where prolific finance authors publish
when they cannot place an article in an elite journal (in either finance or a related field), we
exclude elite accounting and economics journals. In addition, the journal evaluation method em-
ployed in this study creates a bias against journals that specialize outside the field of finance. In
particular, we use the percentage of appearances in a journal by prolific finance authors as an
indicator of journal quality. If this percentage is low simply because a journal publishes very few
finance-related articles, the method employed in this study would understate the quality of that
journal.
5
5
For example, if we were to include journals from related fields (e.g., accounting or economics) in the set of next best
finance journals, we might find that several second tier finance journals contain a greater percentage of prolific finance
author content than do the elite journals from the related fields. If so, this result would probably say more about the
quantity of finance content in the nonfinance journals than about the quality of such content (i.e., the content of elite
economics journals is likely dominated by contributions from prolific economists and the content of the elite accounting
journals is likely dominated by contributions from prolific accounting researchers, limiting the number of finance pages
these journals can publish).
r
Spring 2014
A couple of the excluded titles, notably the Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking (JMCB),
the Journal of International Money and Finance (JIMF), and the Journal of Monetary Economics
(JME), publish a substantial amount of banking-related research and arguably could have been
included in our set of high-impact finance journals. However, these journals also publish studies
in areas (e.g., international macroeconomics, monetary policy, etc.) that are traditionally under-
represented in the mainstream finance journals, potentially limiting the percentage of journal
content from prolific finance authors. Although similar arguments could be made for excluding
the JBF, the results in Alexander and Mabry (1994) reveal that articles published in the JBF are
more likely to be cited in the JF, the JFE, the RFS, and the JFQA than are articles in the JMCB,
the JME, and the JIMF. This result suggests that the JBF has historically published content that
is closer to mainstream finance than the JMCB, the JME, and the JIMF. Thus, we include the
JBF in our set of high-impact finance journals.
6
The 23 high-impact finance journals include five elite finance journals, nine second tier journals
established prior to 1990, and nine second tier journals established in 1990 or thereafter. The
Appendix contains a complete list of these journals, including the year in which each journal
started and the acronym used to reference each journal in this paper.
7
The importance of the
23 titles in our set of high-impact journals is confirmed by Keloharju (2008), who used 22 of
these journals (excluding the Journal of Applied Corporate Finance) in a sample of 29 influential
finance journals from which the 300 most cited articles in finance were identified. The seven
outlets classified as finance journals in Keloharjus (2008) study, but excluded here, include the
JMCB, the JIMF, the JME, the International Reviewof Finance, the Journal of Financial Services
Research, the Journal of Multinational Financial Management, and Finance and Stochastics.
Although all seven of these journals were included in Keloharjus (2008) initial journal sample,
only three of these journals, the JMCB, the JME, and Finance and Stochastics, published at least
one of the 300 most cited articles in finance.
B. The Prolic Authors
To identify prolific authors, we collected, from journal table of contents, author information
for all articles and notes published by the 23 high-impact journals from 1970 to 2009. We credit
authors with one appearance for each article published in these journals, regardless of the number
of coauthors on the article.
8
Comments, abstracts, and book reviews are excluded from the
analysis. Because the inaugural year of 18 of the 23 journals occurs after 1970, the study includes
6
Due to the volume of economics research in JMCB, JIMF, JME, and JBF, these journals are included in some economics
journal ranking studies, such as Engemann and Wall (2009), who ranked journals based upon the (adjusted) number of
times a journal was cited in seven leading general interest economics journals. JBF ranks lower in the Engemann and Wall
(2009) study than do JME, JMCB, and JIMF. Combined with the results in Alexander and Mabry (1994), these results
suggest that the historical content of JBF has been skewed more toward finance, whereas the content of JME, JMCB, and
JIMF has been skewed more toward economics.
7
In 2004, the European Financial Review was renamed Review of Finance. This journal is listed using its old name in the
Oltheten et al. (2005) study and is listed as Review of Finance here. However, we include all publications in this journal
from its inception as the European Finance Review in 1997 (through 2009) in the data set.
8
Most articles published in the finance literature in recent decades, including articles written by successful researchers
from premier institutions, have two or more authors. Indeed, Fishe (1998) finds that almost 80% of the publications by
full and associate professors at the top 90 research universities are coauthored. In tables summarizing the overall research
records of these individuals, Fishe (1998) reports total article counts, rather than adjusting appearances for the number of
coauthors, presumably because of the importance of a candidates total number of publications in promotion and tenure
decisions. We acknowledge that using unadjusted appearances decreases the weighting of sole authored papers in our
study. To the extent that prolific authors are more likely than other researchers to publish sole authored work, this method
could cause the calculated percentage of journal content attributed to prolific authors to be slightly understated.
Danielson & Heck
r
all articles and notes published by these journals through 2009. Articles and notes published in
the JB, the FAJ, the JF, the FR, and the JFQA prior to 1970 are excluded from the analysis.
To provide information about the publication preferences of authors with varying degrees of
accomplishment, we use two different benchmarks to isolate prolific authors: 1) authors with
five or more appearances in all 23 journals and 2) authors with five or more appearances in the
five elite journals. In addition, the paper reports on the publication records of those authors with
no appearances in the elite five. By looking at these three sets of authors, the results distinguish
between the behavior of the elite of the elite (i.e., authors with multiple publications in the five
elite journals) and the behavior of a broader set of prolific authors (i.e., authors with multiple
publications across the entire set of 23 high-impact journals).
9
C. Evaluating Prolic Author Content
The measure of journal quality used in this paper is the percentage of the total appearances
in a journal during a specified period by prolific authors. We calculate this measure for each
individual journal, for each time period t (t = 1970-2009, 1970-1979, 1990-2009, 2000-2009,
and 10 two-year subperiods from 1980 to 1999), using Equation (1):
%Prolific Author Content
t
=
Appearances in Journal by Prolific Authors
t
Total Journal Appearances
t
. (1)
When calculating the %Prolific Author Content for each period t, we use appearances by those
authors whose research productivity exceeds the prolific author benchmark (i.e., five or more
appearances in the five elite journals; five or more publications in all 23 journals) across the entire
1970-2009 period. We acknowledge that prolific authors could be separately identified within
each subperiod. However, this method would understate prolific author content within the sample
subperiods (assuming that the relevant benchmarks remained at five appearances). For example,
an author with four appearances from 1970 to 1989 and four appearances from 1990 to 2009
would be classified as prolific across the entire 1970-2009 period, but not in any of the sample
subperiods. By identifying prolific authors based on appearances across the entire 1970-2009
period, we make the implicit assumption that the ability of a prolific researcher to identify the
best outlet for a manuscript was present throughout the individuals active research career.
Since we identify prolific authors using appearances from 1970 to 2009, our journal ranking
is based on both articles published before and those published after the individuals reached
the benchmark of five appearances. Given that the career incentives facing a researcher change
over time (e.g., aspiring academics target those journals that will carry the most weight in
tenure decisions during the early career years), individuals might target different journals as their
careers progress. To evaluate this possibility, we report on the career stage of the prolific authors
publishing in the journals during each subperiod. To do this, we identified the graduation year
for 99% of the elite prolific authors and 93% of the authors with five or more appearances across
all 23 journals. For those individuals for whom we could not identify a graduation date and for
those who do not have a Ph.D., we used the date of the authors first publication in the specified
set of journals as a proxy for the graduation date.
10
For each journal, during every subperiod (t)
9
We also analyzed the publication records of two additional sets of prolific authors: 1) those with 10 or more publications
in the five elite journals and 2) those with 10 or more publications in the 23 high-impact journals. These results corroborate
the information reported in this paper.
10
Graduation year data were obtained from the Ohio State University Worldwide Directory of Finance Faculty
(http://fisher.osu.edu/fin/findir), the ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database, the Prentice Hall 2004-2005 Finance
r
Spring 2014
Table I. Distribution of Appearances Across All 23 Journals and the Five Elite
Journals: 1970-2009
This table tabulates the cumulative distribution of appearances by authors across all 23 high-impact journals and across
the five elite journals. The journals included in these populations are listed in the Appendix. The rows of the table list
information for authors who accumulated total appearances, from1970 to 2009 in the specified subset of journals, ranging
from one or more appearance (1+) to 10 or more appearances (10+). Each row lists the total number (and percentage)
of authors reaching the specified productivity benchmark, and the number (and percentage) of appearances attributed
to these authors. For example, the 1+ row reveals that 15,868 (5,840) authors appeared at least once in the set of 23
journals (five elite journals) from 1970 to 2009, and these authors have a total of 47,141 (16,109) appearances in the set
of 23 journals (five elite journals) from 1970 to 2009. The 10+ row indicates that across all 23 journals, only 6.08%
(= 964/15,868) of those authors appearing at least once in the journals accumulated 10+ appearances in these journals,
while for the five elite journals only 4.97% (=290/5,840) of those individuals with at least one appearance in those five
journals accumulated 10+ such appearances.
All 23 Journals Five Elite Journals
Authors Percent of Appearances Percent of Authors Percent of Appearances Percent of
Authors Appearances Authors Appearances
10+ 964 6.08% 17,122 36.32% 290 4.97% 4,610 28.62%
9+ 1,137 7.17% 18,516 39.28% 354 6.06% 5,175 32.12%
8+ 1,356 8.55% 20,268 42.99% 433 7.41% 5,807 36.05%
7+ 1,625 10.24% 22,151 46.99% 548 9.38% 6,612 41.05%
6+ 2,001 12.61% 24,407 51.77% 707 12.11% 7,566 46.97%
5+ 2,499 15.75% 26,363 55.92% 904 15.48% 8,529 52.95%
4+ 3,219 20.29% 29,777 63.17% 1,171 20.05% 9,619 59.71%
3+ 4,401 27.74% 33,323 70.69% 1,633 27.96% 11,005 68.32%
2+ 6,752 42.55% 38,025 80.66% 2,530 43.32% 12,799 79.45%
1+ 15,868 100.00% 47,141 100.00% 5,840 100.00% 16,109 100.00%
analyzed, we calculate the average graduation date by summing the graduation years for the N
prolific author appearances in the journal during that time frame, and dividing this total by N.
This calculation is shown in Equation (2):
Average Graduation Year
t
=
N
a=1
Graduation Year for Author
a
N
. (2)
If the average graduation year is earlier, this signifies that the prolific authors contributing to
a journal are in a more established (later) stage of their careers. The average graduation date
can shed light on the following questions. What type of prolific author, aspiring or established,
is most likely to target each of the 23 journals in this study? In addition, have the demographic
characteristics of the authors appearing in the various journals changed over time?
III. Overall Publication Patterns (1970-2009)
Table I summarizes information about the number of authors and the number of appearances
in the complete set of 23 high-impact finance journals and in the smaller set of five elite finance
Faculty directory, and Internet searches for individual author resumes. Although graduation dates are, on average, ap-
proximately two years earlier than the year of an individuals first publication in these journals, the two dates list authors
in much the same order. The correlation between graduation dates and first publication years is almost 0.95 within the
population of authors with five or more elite appearances, and just under 0.90 within the larger set of individuals with
five or more appearances across all 23 journals.
Danielson & Heck
r
journals. The table separately lists this information for authors reaching benchmarks ranging from
just one article in the specified subset of journals to authors with 10 or more such appearances.
The results in this table highlight the challenges authors face when trying to secure publications
in either set of journals.
Focusing first on the complete set of 23 high-impact journals, it is noteworthy that well over
half of the authors appearing in these journals do so only once (57.45% = 100% to 42.55%).
Approximately 16% of the authors can claim five or more publications in these journals, and
only 6% have accumulated 10 or more appearances. Yet authors with five (10) or more articles
account for almost 56% (over 36%) of the total appearances in these journals. It is not easy to
secure a publication in any of these 23 journals, as prolific authors appear to leave few available
pages for other researchers.
As difficult as it is to publish multiple times in the set of 23 high-impact journals, Table I
suggests that it is even more of an accomplishment to appear in one of the elite five. Of the
15,868 individuals appearing in at least one of the 23 high-impact journals, only 5,840 (36.8%)
have published one or more articles in the set of five elite journals. Within this set of 5,840 elite
authors, only 15.5%have written five or more articles in the elite journals and fewer than 5%have
10 or more appearances. Authors with five (10) or more appearances account for almost 53%
(29%) of the total appearances in the five elite journals. As in the set of 23 high-impact journals,
the content of the elite five is dominated by contributions from a select group of authors.
IV. Contributions by Prolic Authors to Individual High-Impact
Journals
Table II summarizes contributions to each of the 23 high-impact journals, over the entire 1970-
2009 period, by the two sets of prolific authors: 1) authors with five or more appearances in all
23 journals and 2) authors with five or more appearances in the five elite journals. In addition,
the table summarizes contributions to the 18 second tier journals by authors with no appearances
in the elite five. Table II lists the 23 journals in three groups: 1) the elite five, 2) the second tier
journals established before 1990, and 3) the second tier journals established in 1990 or thereafter.
Within each category, the journals are listed by the inaugural publication date, with the oldest
journals listed first.
The results in Table II confirm that the content of the five elite journals has been dominated by
contributions from prolific authors. Almost 68% of the appearances in these journals from 1970
to 2009 were penned by authors with five or more publications across all 23 high-impact journals,
whereas almost 53% were by authors with five or more appearances in the five elite journals.
The JFE has been the most exclusive of the elite five with almost 74% of its appearances by
authors with five or more appearances in the 23 high-impact journals and over 61% by scholars
with five or more elite five publications. The JB has been the most inclusive of the elite journals
with 51.5% of its appearances by individuals with five or more appearances in the 23 high-impact
journals and just over 36% by those with five or more elite five publications. The percentage of
articles in the JB by prolific finance authors is slightly lower than in the other elite journals as the
original mission of the JB was to publish high-quality research fromall business disciplines. Over
time though, the mix of articles in the JB gradually shifted toward topics in financial economics.
The content of the second tier journals as a whole, including both those with inaugural dates
before and after 1990, has also been dominated by contributions from prolific authors. For the
pre-1990 second tier journals, almost 51% of the appearances are by authors with five or more
appearances across all 23 journals. For the post-1990 second tier journals, 47%of the appearances
r
Spring 2014
T
a
b
l
e
I
I
.
A
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
i
n
I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
b
y
P
r
o
l
i
c
A
u
t
h
o
r
s
:
1
9
7
0
-
2
0
0
9
T
h
i
s
t
a
b
l
e
l
i
s
t
s
t
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
a
n
d
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
1
9
7
0
-
2
0
0
9
a
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
i
n
2
3
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
b
y
a
u
t
h
o
r
s
w
h
o
h
a
v
e
:
1
)
f
i
v
e
o
r
m
o
r
e
a
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
a
c
r
o
s
s
a
l
l
2
3
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
,
2
)
f
i
v
e
o
r
m
o
r
e
a
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
f
i
v
e
e
l
i
t
e
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
,
a
n
d
3
)
n
o
a
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
f
i
v
e
e
l
i
t
e
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
T
h
e
t
a
b
l
e
a
l
s
o
l
i
s
t
s
s
u
m
m
a
r
y
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
l
l
2
3
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
,
t
h
e
f
i
v
e
e
l
i
t
e
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
,
t
h
e
n
o
n
e
l
i
t
e
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
1
9
9
0
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
n
o
n
e
l
i
t
e
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
b
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
i
n
1
9
9
0
o
r
t
h
e
r
e
a
f
t
e
r
.
F
o
r
e
x
a
m
p
l
e
,
5
2
.
8
%
(
=
1
,
6
7
9
/
3
,
1
7
7
)
o
f
t
h
e
a
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
A
n
a
l
y
s
t
s
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
a
r
e
b
y
a
u
t
h
o
r
s
w
i
t
h
f
i
v
e
o
r
m
o
r
e
a
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
i
n
a
l
l
2
3
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
,
1
8
.
3
%
(
=
5
8
1
/
3
,
1
7
7
)
a
r
e
b
y
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
w
i
t
h
f
i
v
e
o
r
m
o
r
e
a
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
f
i
v
e
e
l
i
t
e
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
,
a
n
d
5
7
.
5
%
(
=
1
,
8
2
7
/
3
,
1
7
7
)
a
r
e
b
y
a
u
t
h
o
r
s
w
i
t
h
n
o
a
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
f
i
v
e
e
l
i
t
e
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
.
A
l
l
A
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
%
b
y
A
u
t
h
o
r
s
A
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
%
b
y
A
u
t
h
o
r
s
A
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
%
b
y
A
u
t
h
o
r
s
A
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
b
y
A
u
t
h
o
r
s
w
i
t
h
5
+
b
y
A
u
t
h
o
r
s
w
i
t
h
5
+
b
y
A
u
t
h
o
r
s
w
i
t
h
N
o
i
n
t
h
i
s
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
w
i
t
h
5
+
i
n
A
l
l
A
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
w
i
t
h
5
+
i
n
A
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
w
i
t
h
N
o
A
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
2
3
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
i
n
A
l
l
2
3
F
i
v
e
E
l
i
t
e
i
n
F
i
v
e
E
l
i
t
e
A
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
i
n
F
i
v
e
E
l
i
t
e
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
i
n
F
i
v
e
E
l
i
t
e
A
l
l
2
3
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
4
7
,
1
4
1
2
6
,
3
6
3
5
5
.
9
%
1
3
,
5
9
3
2
8
.
8
%
1
7
,
2
4
7
3
6
.
6
%
E
l
i
t
e
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
1
,
9
8
4
1
0
2
2
5
1
.
5
%
7
2
0
3
6
.
3
%
0
0
.
0
%
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
6
,
1
9
9
4
,
2
5
7
6
8
.
7
%
3
,
4
1
6
5
5
.
1
%
0
0
.
0
%
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
a
n
d
Q
u
a
n
t
i
t
a
t
i
v
e
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
2
,
7
9
4
1
,
8
9
4
6
7
.
8
%
1
,
2
7
9
4
5
.
8
%
0
0
.
0
%
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
3
,
2
4
1
2
,
3
8
7
7
3
.
7
%
1
,
9
7
9
6
1
.
1
%
0
0
.
0
%
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
i
e
s
1
,
8
9
1
1
,
3
3
7
7
0
.
7
%
1
,
1
3
5
6
0
.
0
%
0
0
.
0
%
T
o
t
a
l
1
6
,
1
0
9
1
0
,
8
9
7
6
7
.
6
%
8
,
5
2
9
5
2
.
9
%
0
0
.
0
%
O
t
h
e
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
(
p
r
e
-
1
9
9
0
)
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
A
n
a
l
y
s
t
s
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
3
,
1
7
7
1
,
6
7
9
5
2
.
8
%
5
8
1
1
8
.
3
%
1
,
8
2
7
5
7
.
5
%
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
1
,
9
7
6
6
7
7
3
4
.
3
%
2
3
6
1
1
.
9
%
9
7
1
4
9
.
1
%
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
2
,
2
4
5
1
,
3
9
1
6
2
.
0
%
5
8
8
2
6
.
2
%
8
4
4
3
7
.
6
%
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g
3
,
3
0
0
1
,
3
5
6
4
1
.
1
%
1
4
5
4
.
4
%
2
,
4
3
6
7
3
.
8
%
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
P
o
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
2
,
8
4
4
1
,
5
0
0
5
2
.
7
%
5
1
1
1
8
.
0
%
1
,
7
4
9
6
1
.
5
%
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Danielson & Heck
r
T
a
b
l
e
I
I
.
A
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
i
n
I
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
b
y
P
r
o
l
i
c
A
u
t
h
o
r
s
:
1
9
7
0
-
2
0
0
9
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
A
l
l
A
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
%
b
y
A
u
t
h
o
r
s
A
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
%
b
y
A
u
t
h
o
r
s
A
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
%
b
y
A
u
t
h
o
r
s
A
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
b
y
A
u
t
h
o
r
s
w
i
t
h
5
+
b
y
A
u
t
h
o
r
s
w
i
t
h
5
+
b
y
A
u
t
h
o
r
s
w
i
t
h
N
o
i
n
t
h
i
s
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
w
i
t
h
5
+
i
n
A
l
l
A
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
w
i
t
h
5
+
i
n
A
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
w
i
t
h
N
o
A
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
2
3
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
i
n
A
l
l
2
3
F
i
v
e
E
l
i
t
e
i
n
F
i
v
e
E
l
i
t
e
A
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
i
n
F
i
v
e
E
l
i
t
e
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
i
n
F
i
v
e
E
l
i
t
e
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
B
a
n
k
i
n
g
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
5
,
2
0
6
2
,
5
2
1
4
8
.
4
%
8
2
7
1
5
.
9
%
2
,
8
8
6
5
5
.
4
%
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
1
,
8
5
2
1
,
1
9
8
6
4
.
7
%
3
3
0
1
7
.
8
%
7
7
9
4
2
.
1
%
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
F
u
t
u
r
e
s
M
a
r
k
e
t
s
2
,
5
9
1
1
,
3
6
3
5
2
.
6
%
2
2
3
8
.
6
%
1
,
6
3
2
6
3
.
0
%
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
A
p
p
l
i
e
d
C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
1
,
3
5
0
7
3
0
5
4
.
1
%
4
2
0
3
1
.
1
%
6
8
4
5
0
.
7
%
T
o
t
a
l
2
4
,
5
4
1
1
2
,
4
1
5
5
0
.
6
%
3
,
8
6
1
1
5
.
7
%
1
3
,
8
0
8
5
6
.
3
%
O
t
h
e
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
(
1
9
9
0
a
n
d
a
f
t
e
r
)
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
m
e
d
i
a
t
i
o
n
6
0
2
3
2
4
5
3
.
8
%
1
7
0
2
8
.
2
%
2
0
9
3
4
.
7
%
M
a
t
h
e
m
a
t
i
c
a
l
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
8
4
0
2
5
8
3
0
.
7
%
6
7
8
.
0
%
6
1
7
7
3
.
5
%
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
E
m
p
i
r
i
c
a
l
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
9
0
0
3
7
8
4
2
.
0
%
1
3
1
1
4
.
6
%
5
1
6
5
7
.
3
%
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
B
a
s
i
n
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
1
,
0
3
9
4
9
9
4
8
.
0
%
1
5
3
1
4
.
7
%
6
1
5
5
9
.
2
%
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
D
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
s
6
0
7
2
9
1
4
7
.
9
%
1
1
5
1
8
.
9
%
3
5
1
5
7
.
8
%
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
8
4
9
4
6
9
5
5
.
2
%
2
0
5
2
4
.
1
%
3
4
4
4
0
.
5
%
E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
7
5
9
3
4
9
4
6
.
0
%
1
2
2
1
6
.
1
%
4
6
2
6
0
.
9
%
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
F
i
n
a
n
c
e
4
4
7
2
1
8
4
8
.
8
%
1
0
2
2
2
.
8
%
1
8
5
4
1
.
4
%
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
M
a
r
k
e
t
s
4
4
8
2
6
5
5
9
.
2
%
1
3
8
3
0
.
8
%
1
4
0
3
1
.
3
%
T
o
t
a
l
6
,
4
9
1
3
,
0
5
1
4
7
.
0
%
1
,
2
0
3
1
8
.
5
%
3
,
4
3
9
5
3
.
0
%
r
Spring 2014
are by authors with five or more appearances across all 23 journals. However, the second tier
journals have offered publishing opportunities to a broader set of authors than have the five
elite journals. For the pre-1990 journals, less than 16% of the appearances are by scholars with
five or more elite five appearances. For the post-1990 second tier journals, only 18.5% of the
appearances are by authors with five or more elite appearances. Within each set of second tier
journals, over 50%of the appearances are by authors with no appearances in the elite five journals.
Individuals who have never published in an elite finance journal account for less than 40% of the
total appearances in just three of the nonelite journals: FM, JFI, and JFM.
The results in Table II suggest that the two sets of second tier journals (pre- and post-1990) con-
tain similar amounts of prolific author content. However, these statistics can provide a misleading
comparison, as Table II averages publication data across all 40 years. Prior to 1990, articles that
were rejected by the five elite journals were often submitted next to the pre-1990 second tier
journals (with the exception of the JACF, all of the pre-1990 second tier journals were in place
by 1981). As the specialty finance journals began operation during the 1990s, and the pre-1990
journals faced new competition, it is possible that the publication preferences of prolific authors
changed. The next section of the paper investigates this possibility.
V. The Evolution of the Finance Literature
This section documents the evolution of prolific author content in each of the 23 journals from
1970 to 2009. We report on the publication activity of prolific authors within 12 subperiods:
1970-1979, 2000-2009, and 10 two-year periods from 1980 to 1999. For each journal, during
every subperiod analyzed, we report both the percentage of journal content attributed to each
set of prolific authors, calculated using Equation (1), and the average graduation date of those
individuals, calculated using Equation (2).
We do not break the first or last decades into subperiods as the portion of the total appearances
attributed to prolific authors increases progressively from 1970 to 1979 and decreases slightly
from 2000 to 2009 for all (active) sample journals. These patterns occur because we identify
prolific authors based solely on publication activity from 1970 to 2009. This method understates
prolific author content during the early sample years, as individuals with five or more lifetime
publications in the sample journals, but less than five articles after 1970, are not classified as
prolific authors. This method also understates prolific author content during the later sample
years because in any given year, some journal articles (even in the most elite outlets) are penned
by newly minted scholars. Even though some researchers who published their first article from
2000 to 2009 will eventually surpass the benchmarks we use to identify prolific authors, not
all of these individuals had done so by 2009. The effects of these distortions are minimized by
combining the activity from the first and last decades into 10-year subperiods.
A. The Elite Five
Table III reports the prolific author contributions to the five elite journals. Panel A lists the
total number of appearances in each of the five elite journals (and the total appearances in all
23 journals) in each of the 12 subperiods. Panel B (Panel C) analyzes publication activity by
individuals with five or more appearances in the set of all 23 journals (in the five elite journals).
For each subperiod, Panels B and C provide, for each journal and for the 23 journals in total, the
percentage of appearances by the defined set of prolific authors and the average graduation date
of these individuals.
Danielson & Heck
r
T
a
b
l
e
I
I
I
.
C
h
a
n
g
i
n
g
P
u
b
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
P
a
t
t
e
r
n
s
:
1
9
7
0
-
2
0
0
9
(
F
i
v
e
E
l
i
t
e
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
)
T
h
i
s
t
a
b
l
e
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
t
h
e
e
v
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
r
o
l
i
f
i
c
a
u
t
h
o
r
c
o
n
t
e
n
t
i
n
e
a
c
h
o
f
t
h
e
f
i
v
e
e
l
i
t
e
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
f
r
o
m
1
9
7
0
t
o
2
0
0
9
.
T
h
e
t
a
b
l
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
s
o
n
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
o
f
p
r
o
l
i
f
i
c
a
u
t
h
o
r
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
1
2
s
u
b
p
e
r
i
o
d
s
:
1
9
7
0
-
1
9
7
9
,
2
0
0
0
-
2
0
0
9
,
a
n
d
1
0
t
w
o
-
y
e
a
r
p
e
r
i
o
d
s
f
r
o
m
1
9
8
0
t
o
1
9
9
9
.
P
a
n
e
l
A
l
i
s
t
s
t
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
a
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
i
n
e
a
c
h
o
f
t
h
e
f
i
v
e
e
l
i
t
e
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
(
a
n
d
t
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
a
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
i
n
a
l
l
2
3
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
)
i
n
t
h
e
1
2
s
u
b
p
e
r
i
o
d
s
.
P
a
n
e
l
s
B
a
n
d
C
a
n
a
l
y
z
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
b
y
a
u
t
h
o
r
s
w
i
t
h
f
i
v
e
o
r
m
o
r
e
a
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
s
e
t
o
f
a
l
l
2
3
,
a
n
d
b
y
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
w
i
t
h
f
i
v
e
o
r
m
o
r
e
a
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
f
i
v
e
e
l
i
t
e
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
,
r
e
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
.
F
o
r
e
a
c
h
s
u
b
p
e
r
i
o
d
,
P
a
n
e
l
s
B
a
n
d
C
l
i
s
t
,
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
a
n
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
2
3
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
i
n
t
o
t
a
l
,
t
h
e
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
a
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
b
y
t
h
e
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
s
e
t
o
f
p
r
o
l
i
f
i
c
a
u
t
h
o
r
s
a
n
d
(
i
n
p
a
r
e
n
t
h
e
s
e
s
)
t
h
e
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
g
r
a
d
u
a
t
i
o
n
d
a
t
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
.
T
h
e
c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
a
u
t
h
o
r
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
i
n
P
a
n
e
l
s
B
a
n
d
C
w
a
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
c
r
o
s
s
t
h
e
e
n
t
i
r
e
1
9
7
0
-
2
0
0
9
p
e
r
i
o
d
.
A
l
l
2
3
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
J
B
J
F
J
F
Q
A
J
F
E
R
F
S
P
a
n
e
l
A
.
T
o
t
a
l
A
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
b
y
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
a
n
d
b
y
S
u
b
p
e
r
i
o
d
1
9
7
0
-
1
9
7
9
4
,
6
5
4
4
5
8
1
,
2
9
8
7
8
5
1
6
4
1
9
8
0
-
1
9
8
1
1
,
3
9
2
7
9
2
8
8
1
7
6
5
4
1
9
8
2
-
1
9
8
3
1
,
5
7
6
8
1
3
3
8
1
4
6
1
0
1
1
9
8
4
-
1
9
8
5
1
,
6
6
2
9
3
3
4
9
1
1
1
9
4
1
9
8
6
-
1
9
8
7
1
,
7
7
2
1
1
2
2
7
4
1
1
0
1
4
2
1
9
8
8
-
1
9
8
9
1
,
9
8
5
7
4
2
7
2
1
2
0
1
7
2
7
6
1
9
9
0
-
1
9
9
1
2
,
2
6
8
9
9
3
1
2
1
2
2
1
4
1
1
0
5
1
9
9
2
-
1
9
9
3
2
,
5
3
0
8
9
3
1
4
1
2
9
1
1
7
1
0
8
1
9
9
4
-
1
9
9
5
2
,
7
1
3
8
0
2
8
0
1
3
4
1
3
1
1
1
7
1
9
9
6
-
1
9
9
7
3
,
0
2
1
7
2
2
9
0
1
0
5
2
0
2
1
4
7
1
9
9
8
-
1
9
9
9
3
,
0
7
8
7
3
3
2
2
9
8
2
1
5
1
2
2
2
0
0
0
-
2
0
0
9
2
0
,
4
8
3
6
7
4
1
,
8
6
2
7
5
8
1
,
7
0
7
1
,
2
1
5
T
o
t
a
l
4
7
,
1
3
4
1
,
9
8
4
6
,
1
9
9
2
,
7
9
4
3
,
2
4
0
1
,
8
9
0
P
a
n
e
l
B
.
F
i
v
e
o
r
M
o
r
e
A
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
i
n
A
l
l
2
3
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
1
9
7
0
-
1
9
7
9
4
9
.
6
%
(
1
9
7
0
.
1
)
3
6
.
0
%
(
1
9
6
8
.
8
)
5
6
.
5
%
(
1
9
6
9
.
7
)
5
8
.
9
%
(
1
9
7
0
.
0
)
8
4
.
1
%
(
1
9
7
1
.
4
)
1
9
8
0
-
1
9
8
1
5
7
.
0
%
(
1
9
7
3
.
4
)
3
5
.
4
%
(
1
9
7
4
.
0
)
6
3
.
9
%
(
1
9
7
3
.
4
)
7
1
.
6
%
(
1
9
7
3
.
4
)
8
3
.
3
%
(
1
9
7
5
.
8
)
1
9
8
2
-
1
9
8
3
6
2
.
7
%
(
1
9
7
5
.
0
)
3
7
.
0
%
(
1
9
7
5
.
2
)
6
9
.
2
%
(
1
9
7
4
.
0
)
7
0
.
5
%
(
1
9
7
5
.
5
)
8
5
.
1
%
(
1
9
7
6
.
9
)
1
9
8
4
-
1
9
8
5
6
5
.
9
%
(
1
9
7
6
.
0
)
4
9
.
5
%
(
1
9
7
6
.
0
)
7
3
.
1
%
(
1
9
7
5
.
3
)
7
4
.
8
%
(
1
9
7
6
.
8
)
8
9
.
4
%
(
1
9
7
7
.
4
)
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
r
Spring 2014
T
a
b
l
e
I
I
I
.
C
h
a
n
g
i
n
g
P
u
b
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
P
a
t
t
e
r
n
s
:
1
9
7
0
-
2
0
0
9
(
F
i
v
e
E
l
i
t
e
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
)
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
A
l
l
2
3
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
J
B
J
F
J
F
Q
A
J
F
E
R
F
S
P
a
n
e
l
B
.
F
i
v
e
o
r
M
o
r
e
A
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
i
n
A
l
l
2
3
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
1
9
8
6
-
1
9
8
7
6
7
.
8
%
(
1
9
7
7
.
6
)
4
8
.
2
%
(
1
9
7
5
.
6
)
7
9
.
9
%
(
1
9
7
8
.
2
)
8
0
.
0
%
(
1
9
7
8
.
0
)
8
3
.
2
%
(
1
9
7
9
.
4
)
1
9
8
8
-
1
9
8
9
6
6
.
1
%
(
1
9
7
8
.
9
)
5
8
.
1
%
(
1
9
8
0
.
7
)
7
1
.
7
%
(
1
9
7
9
.
4
)
7
7
.
5
%
(
1
9
7
9
.
8
)
8
7
.
8
%
(
1
9
8
0
.
5
)
8
1
.
6
%
(
1
9
8
1
.
2
)
1
9
9
0
-
1
9
9
1
6
4
.
1
%
(
1
9
8
0
.
4
)
6
3
.
6
%
(
1
9
7
9
.
5
)
7
7
.
5
%
(
1
9
8
0
.
7
)
7
8
.
6
%
(
1
9
8
1
.
8
)
8
0
.
1
%
(
1
9
8
2
.
7
)
8
4
.
8
%
(
1
9
8
2
.
9
)
1
9
9
2
-
1
9
9
3
6
5
.
1
%
(
1
9
8
1
.
9
)
5
6
.
2
%
(
1
9
8
0
.
9
)
8
0
.
3
%
(
1
9
8
3
.
3
)
7
6
.
7
%
(
1
9
8
2
.
8
)
7
8
.
6
%
(
1
9
8
3
.
6
)
7
8
.
7
%
(
1
9
8
3
.
0
)
1
9
9
4
-
1
9
9
5
6
4
.
8
%
(
1
9
8
6
.
1
)
7
1
.
3
%
(
1
9
8
4
.
4
)
7
8
.
6
%
(
1
9
8
4
.
5
)
7
0
.
1
%
(
1
9
8
6
.
7
)
8
1
.
7
%
(
1
9
8
4
.
8
)
8
2
.
9
%
(
1
9
8
5
.
0
)
1
9
9
6
-
1
9
9
7
6
3
.
0
%
(
1
9
8
4
.
8
)
6
1
.
1
%
(
1
9
8
3
.
4
)
8
1
.
4
%
(
1
9
8
6
.
1
)
7
0
.
5
%
(
1
9
8
6
.
4
)
8
0
.
2
%
(
1
9
8
5
.
4
)
8
2
.
3
%
(
1
9
8
5
.
9
)
1
9
9
8
-
1
9
9
9
6
0
.
0
%
(
1
9
8
6
.
0
)
4
7
.
9
%
(
1
9
8
3
.
9
)
7
7
.
0
%
(
1
9
8
7
.
6
)
7
3
.
5
%
(
1
9
8
5
.
7
)
8
0
.
0
%
(
1
9
8
7
.
4
)
7
7
.
0
%
(
1
9
8
7
.
8
)
2
0
0
0
-
2
0
0
9
5
1
.
6
%
(
1
9
9
2
.
5
)
6
1
.
0
%
(
1
9
8
9
.
9
)
6
8
.
7
%
(
1
9
9
1
.
0
)
6
9
.
3
%
(
1
9
9
0
.
2
)
6
9
.
0
%
(
1
9
9
1
.
5
)
6
8
.
9
%
(
1
9
9
2
.
1
)
P
a
n
e
l
C
.
F
i
v
e
o
r
M
o
r
e
A
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
i
n
F
i
v
e
E
l
i
t
e
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
1
9
7
0
-
1
9
7
9
3
2
.
3
%
(
1
9
6
9
.
5
)
2
8
.
4
%
(
1
9
6
7
.
9
)
4
3
.
7
%
(
1
9
6
9
.
1
)
4
2
.
7
%
(
1
9
6
9
.
3
)
7
8
.
7
%
(
1
9
7
1
.
6
)
1
9
8
0
-
1
9
8
1
3
1
.
0
%
(
1
9
7
2
.
6
)
2
7
.
8
%
(
1
9
7
3
.
2
)
4
8
.
6
%
(
1
9
7
2
.
9
)
4
8
.
3
%
(
1
9
7
2
.
7
)
7
5
.
9
%
(
1
9
7
5
.
5
)
1
9
8
2
-
1
9
8
3
3
5
.
1
%
(
1
9
7
4
.
3
)
3
3
.
3
%
(
1
9
7
4
.
9
)
5
6
.
2
%
(
1
9
7
3
.
9
)
4
7
.
9
%
(
1
9
7
5
.
1
)
7
4
.
3
%
(
1
9
7
6
.
8
)
1
9
8
4
-
1
9
8
5
3
8
.
1
%
(
1
9
7
5
.
2
)
3
8
.
7
%
(
1
9
7
6
.
0
)
6
1
.
9
%
(
1
9
7
5
.
0
)
5
7
.
7
%
(
1
9
7
5
.
7
)
8
6
.
2
%
(
1
9
7
9
.
3
)
1
9
8
6
-
1
9
8
7
3
6
.
4
%
(
1
9
7
6
.
8
)
4
2
.
0
%
(
1
9
7
5
.
7
)
6
4
.
5
%
(
1
9
7
7
.
7
)
5
9
.
1
%
(
1
9
7
7
.
2
)
7
2
.
7
%
(
1
9
7
9
.
1
)
1
9
8
8
-
1
9
8
9
3
4
.
6
%
(
1
9
7
7
.
9
)
4
3
.
2
%
(
1
9
7
9
.
8
)
5
4
.
8
%
(
1
9
7
8
.
8
)
5
3
.
3
%
(
1
9
7
9
.
0
)
7
8
.
5
%
(
1
9
8
0
.
0
)
7
5
.
3
%
(
1
9
8
1
.
2
)
1
9
9
0
-
1
9
9
1
3
2
.
8
%
(
1
9
7
9
.
5
)
4
6
.
4
%
(
1
9
7
9
.
0
)
6
2
.
8
%
(
1
9
7
9
.
9
)
5
1
.
6
%
(
1
9
8
1
.
0
)
6
5
.
2
%
(
1
9
8
2
.
2
)
8
0
.
0
%
(
1
9
8
2
.
9
)
1
9
9
2
-
1
9
9
3
3
0
.
7
%
(
1
9
8
1
.
0
)
4
6
.
5
%
(
1
9
8
1
.
0
)
6
3
.
6
%
(
1
9
8
2
.
8
)
5
1
.
1
%
(
1
9
8
2
.
0
)
6
5
.
8
%
(
1
9
8
3
.
2
)
7
2
.
2
%
(
1
9
8
2
.
6
)
1
9
9
4
-
1
9
9
5
3
1
.
5
%
(
1
9
8
2
.
3
)
4
8
.
7
%
(
1
9
8
3
.
6
)
6
5
.
3
%
(
1
9
8
6
.
3
)
4
8
.
5
%
(
1
9
8
4
.
7
)
7
1
.
7
%
(
1
9
8
5
.
2
)
7
2
.
6
%
(
1
9
8
2
.
3
)
1
9
9
6
-
1
9
9
7
3
0
.
2
%
(
1
9
8
3
.
3
)
4
7
.
2
%
(
1
9
8
2
.
2
)
6
8
.
9
%
(
1
9
8
5
.
6
)
4
7
.
6
%
(
1
9
8
5
.
3
)
6
6
.
3
%
(
1
9
8
4
.
4
)
6
8
.
7
%
(
1
9
8
5
.
3
)
1
9
9
8
-
1
9
9
9
2
9
.
3
%
(
1
9
8
4
.
5
)
3
5
.
6
%
(
1
9
8
3
.
5
)
6
3
.
3
%
(
1
9
8
7
.
2
)
4
1
.
8
%
(
1
9
8
4
.
5
)
6
2
.
7
%
(
1
9
8
6
.
5
)
6
1
.
4
%
(
1
9
8
7
.
1
)
2
0
0
0
-
2
0
0
9
2
4
.
3
%
(
1
9
8
7
.
9
)
4
0
.
2
%
(
1
9
8
8
.
8
)
5
5
.
5
%
(
1
9
9
0
.
3
)
4
2
.
1
%
(
1
9
8
8
.
3
)
5
4
.
2
%
(
1
9
9
0
.
5
)
5
7
.
0
%
(
1
9
9
1
.
4
)
Danielson & Heck
r
Panel A documents the tremendous growth in the number of articles published in the finance
literature. Across all 23 journals, there were 20,483 appearances from2000 to 2009 (an average of
4,097 every two years =20,483/5) compared to 4,654 appearances from1970 to 1979 (an average
of 931 every two years). The bulk of this increase can be attributed to the advent of new journals.
However, a portion of this increase can be attributed to two other factors. First, over the past
40 years, the frequency of coauthored papers in the finance literature has continued to increase.
For example, the 4,654 appearances from 1970 to 1979 were associated with 3,183 articles, an
average of 1.46 authors per paper. From 2000 to 2009, the 20,489 appearances were spread over
9,656 articles, and average 2.12 authors per paper. In addition, several existing journals have, over
time, increased the number of issues (and articles) published each year. Of the five elite journals,
the JFE and the RFS have followed this strategy. In 1994 and prior years, the JFE published six
or fewer issues a year. From 1995 to 1997, the JFE increased the number of issues each year,
reaching their current schedule of 12 issues a year in 1997. In 2006 and before, the RFS published
four issues each year. In 2007 and 2008, this number increased to six and, in 2009, the journal
started publishing 12 issues each year.
The information in Panels B and C provide a striking picture of the extent to which prolific
authors dominated the content of the JF, the JFQA, the JFE, and the RFS from the early 1980s
to 1999. Authors with five or more publications across all 23 journals accounted for over 70%
of the appearances in both the JF and the JFQA in every subperiod from 1984 to 1999. For the
JFE and the RFS, contributions from such authors exceeded 75% in every subperiod from the
journals inception through 1999 (Panel B). Authors with five or more publications in the five
elite journals typically accounted for over 60% of the appearances in the JF, the JFE, and the
RFS from 1984 to 1999 (Panel C). Although prolific author appearances (as a percentage of total
appearances) in the four surviving elite journals declined slightly from 2000 to 2009 in both
Panels B and C, these percentages will almost certainly increase retroactively in future years,
as some scholars who published their first article during the 2000s will eventually surpass the
prolific author benchmarks.
Although prolific authors account for a large portion of the appearances in the elite journals,
the information in Table III suggests that these journals did not build or maintain their reputations
simply by giving preference to established scholars. In the vast majority of the subperiods in
Table III, in both Panels B and C, the average graduation year for prolific authors appearing in the
four surviving elite journals (JF, JFQA, JFE, and RFS) is approximately equal to or is later than
the average graduation year for prolific authors publishing across all 23 high-impact journals.
This result implies that the elite journals not only publish articles by the luminaries in the field
of finance, they also help to identify and develop the next generation of prolific authors.
B. The Pre-1990 Second Tier Journals
Table IV tracks the evolution of the pre-1990 second tier journals. Panel A reports on the total
number of appearances (by subperiod) for these journals. Panels B and C analyze appearance
activity by prolific authors with five or more publications in all 23 journals and in the five elite
journals, respectively.
Panel A reveals that the average number of appearances per year in most of the traditional
second tier journals has fluctuated within relatively stable ranges across time, even as the overall
number of appearances in the finance literature has exploded. The most notable exception is JBF,
which averaged less than 150 appearances every two years during the 1980s. During the 1990s,
the average number of appearances every two years increased to almost 300 and, since 2000,
this journal has averaged almost 625 appearances every two years (= 3,124/5). The number of
r
Spring 2014
T
a
b
l
e
I
V
.
C
h
a
n
g
i
n
g
P
u
b
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
P
a
t
t
e
r
n
s
:
1
9
8
0
-
2
0
0
9
(
P
r
e
-
1
9
9
0
S
e
c
o
n
d
T
i
e
r
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
)
T
h
i
s
t
a
b
l
e
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
t
h
e
e
v
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
r
o
l
i
f
i
c
a
u
t
h
o
r
c
o
n
t
e
n
t
i
n
e
a
c
h
o
f
t
h
e
n
i
n
e
s
e
c
o
n
d
t
i
e
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
t
h
a
t
b
e
g
a
n
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
1
9
9
0
.
T
h
e
t
a
b
l
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
s
o
n
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
o
f
p
r
o
l
i
f
i
c
a
u
t
h
o
r
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
1
2
s
u
b
p
e
r
i
o
d
s
:
1
9
7
0
-
1
9
7
9
,
2
0
0
0
-
2
0
0
9
,
a
n
d
1
0
t
w
o
-
y
e
a
r
p
e
r
i
o
d
s
f
r
o
m
1
9
8
0
t
o
1
9
9
9
.
P
a
n
e
l
A
l
i
s
t
s
t
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
a
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
i
n
e
a
c
h
o
f
t
h
e
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
(
a
n
d
t
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
a
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
i
n
a
l
l
2
3
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
)
i
n
t
h
e
1
2
s
u
b
p
e
r
i
o
d
s
.
P
a
n
e
l
s
B
a
n
d
C
a
n
a
l
y
z
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
b
y
a
u
t
h
o
r
s
w
i
t
h
f
i
v
e
o
r
m
o
r
e
a
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
s
e
t
o
f
a
l
l
2
3
,
a
n
d
b
y
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
w
i
t
h
f
i
v
e
o
r
m
o
r
e
a
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
f
i
v
e
e
l
i
t
e
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
,
r
e
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
.
F
o
r
e
a
c
h
s
u
b
p
e
r
i
o
d
,
P
a
n
e
l
s
B
a
n
d
C
l
i
s
t
,
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
a
n
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
2
3
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
i
n
t
o
t
a
l
,
t
h
e
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
a
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
b
y
t
h
e
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
s
e
t
o
f
p
r
o
l
i
f
i
c
a
u
t
h
o
r
s
a
n
d
(
i
n
p
a
r
e
n
t
h
e
s
e
s
)
t
h
e
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
g
r
a
d
u
a
t
i
o
n
d
a
t
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
.
T
h
e
c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
a
u
t
h
o
r
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
i
n
P
a
n
e
l
s
B
a
n
d
C
w
a
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
c
r
o
s
s
t
h
e
e
n
t
i
r
e
1
9
7
0
-
2
0
0
9
p
e
r
i
o
d
.
A
l
l
2
3
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
F
A
J
F
R
F
M
J
B
F
A
J
P
M
J
B
F
J
F
R
J
F
U
J
A
C
F
P
a
n
e
l
A
.
T
o
t
a
l
A
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
b
y
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
a
n
d
b
y
S
u
b
p
e
r
i
o
d
1
9
7
0
-
1
9
7
9
4
,
6
5
4
6
7
0
1
4
1
4
3
4
2
5
9
3
0
1
1
0
4
3
9
1
9
8
0
-
1
9
8
1
1
,
3
9
2
1
0
0
6
4
1
4
1
1
2
7
1
5
1
8
2
8
6
4
4
1
9
8
2
-
1
9
8
3
1
,
5
7
6
1
3
7
7
7
1
2
5
1
1
8
1
4
7
1
0
7
1
0
2
9
7
1
9
8
4
-
1
9
8
5
1
,
6
6
2
1
7
0
9
8
1
1
6
1
3
5
1
2
4
1
1
2
1
2
0
1
3
9
1
9
8
6
-
1
9
8
7
1
,
7
7
2
1
8
3
1
2
5
1
3
1
1
3
8
1
4
8
1
2
4
1
2
2
1
6
1
1
9
8
8
-
1
9
8
9
1
,
9
8
5
1
7
2
1
4
2
1
1
8
1
6
0
1
6
7
1
5
6
1
2
1
1
5
6
7
8
1
9
9
0
-
1
9
9
1
2
,
2
6
8
1
7
5
1
4
7
1
3
0
1
9
6
1
5
6
2
3
3
1
2
2
1
9
1
8
2
1
9
9
2
-
1
9
9
3
2
,
5
3
0
2
1
6
1
1
8
1
6
9
2
3
8
1
5
3
2
5
8
1
1
8
2
0
2
1
2
1
1
9
9
4
-
1
9
9
5
2
,
7
1
3
1
7
9
1
3
4
1
0
9
2
7
7
1
5
6
2
9
4
1
4
0
1
7
5
1
3
9
1
9
9
6
-
1
9
9
7
3
,
0
2
1
1
9
6
1
5
8
1
1
0
2
9
5
1
6
8
3
3
0
1
3
7
1
8
3
1
4
5
1
9
9
8
-
1
9
9
9
3
,
0
7
8
1
9
0
1
7
1
1
3
2
2
0
1
1
6
0
2
8
3
1
2
4
1
8
3
1
3
6
2
0
0
0
-
2
0
0
9
2
0
,
4
8
3
7
8
2
6
0
1
5
3
0
1
,
1
5
6
1
,
0
1
3
3
,
1
2
4
6
2
1
1
,
0
6
1
6
4
9
T
o
t
a
l
4
7
,
1
3
4
3
,
1
7
0
1
,
9
7
6
2
,
2
4
5
3
,
3
0
0
2
,
8
4
4
5
,
2
0
7
1
,
8
5
2
2
,
5
9
2
1
,
3
5
0
P
a
n
e
l
B
.
F
i
v
e
o
r
M
o
r
e
A
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
i
n
A
l
l
2
3
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
1
9
7
0
-
1
9
7
9
5
0
.
0
%
(
1
9
7
0
.
1
)
3
4
.
0
%
(
1
9
6
7
.
9
)
5
0
.
4
%
(
1
9
7
1
.
5
)
5
1
.
6
%
(
1
9
7
0
.
3
)
3
2
.
8
%
(
1
9
7
5
.
4
)
4
2
.
1
%
(
1
9
7
0
.
0
)
5
8
.
7
%
(
1
9
7
0
.
1
)
7
4
.
4
%
(
1
9
7
2
.
9
)
1
9
8
0
-
1
9
8
1
5
7
.
0
%
(
1
9
7
3
.
4
)
3
9
.
4
%
(
1
9
7
0
.
9
)
6
2
.
5
%
(
1
9
7
3
.
8
)
5
8
.
2
%
(
1
9
7
2
.
3
)
3
8
.
6
%
(
1
9
7
6
.
1
)
5
4
.
0
%
(
1
9
7
2
.
2
)
5
9
.
8
%
(
1
9
7
3
.
0
)
6
6
.
7
%
(
1
9
7
4
.
5
)
3
1
.
8
%
(
1
9
7
8
.
0
)
1
9
8
2
-
1
9
8
3
6
2
.
7
%
(
1
9
7
5
.
0
)
5
7
.
4
%
(
1
9
7
3
.
9
)
6
3
.
6
%
(
1
9
7
4
.
1
)
6
1
.
6
%
(
1
9
7
4
.
3
)
4
8
.
3
%
(
1
9
7
6
.
8
)
6
4
.
2
%
(
1
9
7
4
.
9
)
5
0
.
5
%
(
1
9
7
4
.
3
)
6
6
.
7
%
(
1
9
7
5
.
4
)
5
8
.
2
%
(
1
9
7
3
.
4
)
1
9
8
4
-
1
9
8
5
6
5
.
9
%
(
1
9
7
6
.
0
)
5
8
.
7
%
(
1
9
7
4
.
6
)
7
6
.
5
%
(
1
9
7
6
.
4
)
7
1
.
6
%
(
1
9
7
5
.
8
)
4
4
.
4
%
(
1
9
7
6
.
9
)
6
3
.
7
%
(
1
9
7
3
.
8
)
5
8
.
0
%
(
1
9
7
5
.
5
)
7
2
.
5
%
(
1
9
7
7
.
1
)
5
6
.
5
%
(
1
9
7
7
.
1
)
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Danielson & Heck
r
T
a
b
l
e
I
V
.
C
h
a
n
g
i
n
g
P
u
b
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
P
a
t
t
e
r
n
s
:
1
9
8
0
-
2
0
0
9
(
P
r
e
-
1
9
9
0
S
e
c
o
n
d
T
i
e
r
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
)
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
A
l
l
2
3
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
F
A
J
F
R
F
M
J
B
F
A
J
P
M
J
B
F
J
F
R
J
F
U
J
A
C
F
P
a
n
e
l
B
.
F
i
v
e
o
r
M
o
r
e
A
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
i
n
A
l
l
2
3
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
1
9
8
6
-
1
9
8
7
6
7
.
8
%
(
1
9
7
7
.
6
)
6
4
.
7
%
(
1
9
7
6
.
4
)
6
6
.
4
%
(
1
9
7
7
.
1
)
6
5
.
6
%
(
1
9
7
6
.
6
)
4
9
.
3
%
(
1
9
7
8
.
2
)
6
6
.
9
%
(
1
9
7
5
.
6
)
6
6
.
9
%
(
1
9
7
6
.
8
)
6
9
.
7
%
(
1
9
7
8
.
5
)
6
1
.
5
%
(
1
9
7
9
.
1
)
1
9
8
8
-
1
9
8
9
6
6
.
1
%
(
1
9
7
8
.
9
)
6
5
.
3
%
(
1
9
7
7
.
5
)
6
3
.
3
%
(
1
9
7
9
.
8
)
5
5
.
1
%
(
1
9
7
7
.
4
)
4
3
.
8
%
(
1
9
7
9
.
8
)
6
1
.
4
%
(
1
9
7
5
.
5
)
6
6
.
7
%
(
1
9
7
8
.
2
)
7
6
.
9
%
(
1
9
7
9
.
0
)
5
7
.
7
%
(
1
9
7
8
.
3
)
5
2
.
6
%
(
1
9
7
7
.
7
)
1
9
9
0
-
1
9
9
1
6
4
.
1
%
(
1
9
8
0
.
4
)
5
7
.
1
%
(
1
9
7
6
.
7
)
5
7
.
8
%
(
1
9
7
9
.
7
)
6
5
.
3
%
(
1
9
8
1
.
2
)
4
4
.
9
%
(
1
9
8
1
.
2
)
5
7
.
1
%
(
1
9
7
6
.
9
)
6
3
.
3
%
(
1
9
7
9
.
9
)
7
2
.
9
%
(
1
9
8
1
.
1
)
5
3
.
4
%
(
1
9
8
1
.
4
)
5
1
.
2
%
(
1
9
7
6
.
5
)
1
9
9
2
-
1
9
9
3
6
5
.
1
%
(
1
9
8
1
.
9
)
6
0
.
3
%
(
1
9
7
7
.
6
)
5
9
.
3
%
(
1
9
8
2
.
2
)
6
9
.
2
%
(
1
9
8
1
.
6
)
5
3
.
8
%
(
1
9
8
3
.
4
)
5
2
.
6
%
(
1
9
7
9
.
1
)
6
0
.
1
%
(
1
9
8
1
.
2
)
7
6
.
3
%
(
1
9
8
2
.
8
)
5
8
.
4
%
(
1
9
8
3
.
6
)
6
6
.
9
%
(
1
9
7
9
.
8
)
1
9
9
4
-
1
9
9
5
6
4
.
8
%
(
1
9
8
3
.
2
)
6
0
.
9
%
(
1
9
8
0
.
6
)
5
5
.
2
%
(
1
9
8
1
.
7
)
6
1
.
5
%
(
1
9
8
2
.
7
)
4
6
.
9
%
(
1
9
8
4
.
6
)
6
4
.
1
%
(
1
9
7
8
.
3
)
6
7
.
3
%
(
1
9
8
2
.
4
)
6
7
.
9
%
(
1
9
8
3
.
1
)
5
8
.
9
%
(
1
9
8
5
.
3
)
6
1
.
9
%
(
1
9
7
9
.
9
)
1
9
9
6
-
1
9
9
7
6
3
.
0
%
(
1
9
8
4
.
8
)
5
6
.
3
%
(
1
9
8
5
.
2
)
5
5
.
7
%
(
1
9
8
3
.
8
)
6
8
.
2
%
(
1
9
8
3
.
4
)
4
6
.
1
%
(
1
9
8
3
.
1
)
5
5
.
7
%
(
1
9
8
0
.
6
)
6
3
.
6
%
(
1
9
8
0
.
8
)
6
2
.
0
%
(
1
9
8
7
.
2
)
6
2
.
8
%
(
1
9
8
6
.
1
)
5
6
.
6
%
(
1
9
8
1
.
7
)
1
9
9
8
-
1
9
9
9
6
0
.
0
%
(
1
9
8
6
.
0
)
5
8
.
1
%
(
1
9
8
1
.
8
)
6
0
.
2
%
(
1
9
8
6
.
4
)
6
7
.
4
%
(
1
9
8
5
.
9
)
5
9
.
4
%
(
1
9
8
7
.
9
)
5
9
.
4
%
(
1
9
8
2
.
3
)
5
7
.
2
%
(
1
9
8
4
.
3
)
5
2
.
4
%
(
1
9
8
7
.
7
)
4
8
.
6
%
(
1
9
8
7
.
3
)
5
5
.
1
%
(
1
9
8
2
.
6
)
2
0
0
0
-
2
0
0
9
5
1
.
6
%
(
1
9
8
9
.
7
)
5
9
.
0
%
(
1
9
8
4
.
9
)
5
6
.
1
%
(
1
9
8
8
.
7
)
6
5
.
0
%
(
1
9
9
0
.
3
)
3
5
.
9
%
(
1
9
9
0
.
4
)
4
6
.
0
%
(
1
9
8
4
.
6
)
4
1
.
8
%
(
1
9
8
9
.
2
)
5
7
.
5
%
(
1
9
8
8
.
7
)
4
8
.
6
%
(
1
9
9
1
.
4
)
4
9
.
2
%
(
1
9
8
3
.
9
)
P
a
n
e
l
C
.
F
i
v
e
o
r
M
o
r
e
A
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
i
n
F
i
v
e
E
l
i
t
e
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
1
9
7
0
-
1
9
7
9
3
2
.
3
%
(
1
9
6
9
.
5
)
1
1
.
9
%
(
1
9
6
7
.
8
)
1
4
.
9
%
(
1
9
7
2
.
1
)
2
5
.
3
%
(
1
9
6
9
.
8
)
8
.
9
%
(
1
9
7
4
.
3
)
1
9
.
2
%
(
1
9
7
0
.
5
)
3
3
.
7
%
(
1
9
6
9
.
3
)
3
5
.
9
%
(
1
9
7
2
.
1
)
1
9
8
0
-
1
9
8
1
3
1
.
0
%
(
1
9
7
2
.
6
)
1
0
.
2
%
(
1
9
6
6
.
9
)
1
7
.
2
%
(
1
9
7
1
.
8
)
2
2
.
0
%
(
1
9
7
0
.
5
)
1
0
.
2
%
(
1
9
7
3
.
7
)
2
1
.
1
%
(
1
9
7
0
.
8
)
2
6
.
9
%
(
1
9
7
1
.
0
)
2
4
.
4
%
(
1
9
7
2
.
9
)
6
.
8
%
(
1
9
7
0
.
0
.
)
1
9
8
2
-
1
9
8
3
3
5
.
1
%
(
1
9
7
4
.
3
)
2
2
.
1
%
(
1
9
7
1
.
0
)
2
3
.
4
%
(
1
9
7
4
.
1
)
2
4
.
0
%
(
1
9
7
2
.
5
)
5
.
9
%
(
1
9
7
2
.
4
)
2
3
.
5
%
(
1
9
7
3
.
3
)
2
6
.
2
%
(
1
9
7
2
.
0
)
2
4
.
5
%
(
1
9
7
4
.
6
)
1
7
.
6
%
(
1
9
7
8
.
3
)
1
9
8
4
-
1
9
8
5
3
8
.
1
%
(
1
9
7
5
.
2
)
2
2
.
7
%
(
1
9
7
4
.
6
)
2
8
.
6
%
(
1
9
7
5
.
5
)
2
4
.
1
%
(
1
9
7
2
.
4
)
9
.
6
%
(
1
9
7
5
.
5
)
3
0
.
6
%
(
1
9
7
2
.
3
)
3
3
.
9
%
(
1
9
7
4
.
1
)
2
3
.
3
%
(
1
9
7
6
.
2
)
1
8
.
1
%
(
1
9
7
6
.
6
)
1
9
8
6
-
1
9
8
7
3
6
.
4
%
(
1
9
7
6
.
8
)
2
1
.
7
%
(
1
9
7
7
.
8
)
1
7
.
6
%
(
1
9
7
4
.
1
)
3
2
.
1
%
(
1
9
7
4
.
5
)
8
.
9
%
(
1
9
7
6
.
7
)
2
7
.
7
%
(
1
9
7
4
.
9
)
3
9
.
5
%
(
1
9
7
6
.
1
)
2
0
.
5
%
(
1
9
7
7
.
7
)
1
3
.
7
%
(
1
9
7
7
.
1
)
1
9
8
8
-
1
9
8
9
3
4
.
6
%
(
1
9
7
7
.
9
)
1
6
.
8
%
(
1
9
7
2
.
0
)
1
7
.
6
%
(
1
9
7
6
.
6
)
2
4
.
6
%
(
1
9
7
5
.
2
)
7
.
5
%
(
1
9
7
7
.
6
)
2
5
.
3
%
1
9
7
2
.
8
)
2
5
.
6
%
(
1
9
7
4
.
9
)
3
0
.
6
%
(
1
9
7
7
.
2
)
9
.
0
%
(
1
9
7
7
.
0
)
2
5
.
6
%
(
1
9
7
2
.
3
)
1
9
9
0
-
1
9
9
1
3
2
.
8
%
(
1
9
7
9
.
5
)
2
0
.
3
%
(
1
9
7
3
.
3
)
1
3
.
6
%
(
1
9
7
9
.
1
)
2
9
.
2
%
(
1
9
7
9
.
4
)
3
.
5
%
(
1
9
7
9
.
1
)
1
8
.
5
%
(
1
9
7
3
.
7
)
2
5
.
4
%
(
1
9
7
8
.
0
)
1
9
.
6
%
(
1
9
7
8
.
5
)
7
.
3
%
(
1
9
7
8
.
1
)
2
9
.
2
%
(
1
9
7
4
.
4
)
1
9
9
2
-
1
9
9
3
3
0
.
7
%
(
1
9
8
1
.
0
)
1
9
.
8
%
(
1
9
7
4
.
7
)
8
.
4
%
(
1
9
7
7
.
6
)
2
9
.
5
%
(
1
9
7
9
.
6
)
5
.
0
%
(
1
9
7
8
.
2
)
1
4
.
4
%
(
1
9
7
4
.
7
)
1
7
.
0
%
(
1
9
7
8
.
6
)
1
7
.
7
%
(
1
9
8
1
.
6
)
9
.
4
%
(
1
9
8
2
.
3
)
3
2
.
7
%
(
1
9
7
6
.
3
)
1
9
9
4
-
1
9
9
5
3
1
.
5
%
(
1
9
8
2
.
3
)
1
9
.
8
%
(
1
9
7
8
.
7
)
8
.
4
%
(
1
9
7
6
.
8
)
2
9
.
5
%
(
1
9
8
0
.
3
)
5
.
0
%
(
1
9
8
6
.
5
)
1
4
.
4
%
(
1
9
7
5
.
1
)
1
7
.
0
%
(
1
9
7
8
.
6
)
1
7
.
7
%
(
1
9
7
9
.
2
)
9
.
4
%
(
1
9
8
4
.
4
)
3
2
.
7
%
(
1
9
7
8
.
0
)
1
9
9
6
-
1
9
9
7
3
0
.
2
%
(
1
9
8
3
.
3
)
2
1
.
3
%
(
1
9
8
4
.
6
)
9
.
4
%
(
1
9
8
2
.
4
)
2
6
.
3
%
(
1
9
7
7
.
1
)
3
.
3
%
(
1
9
8
6
.
1
)
1
4
.
9
%
(
1
9
7
6
.
2
)
2
1
.
8
%
(
1
9
8
4
.
0
)
1
5
.
3
%
(
1
9
8
4
.
7
)
1
0
.
3
%
(
1
9
8
4
.
4
)
3
4
.
4
%
(
1
9
8
0
.
5
)
1
9
9
8
-
1
9
9
9
2
9
.
3
%
(
1
9
8
4
.
5
)
2
5
.
1
%
(
1
9
8
0
.
7
)
7
.
0
%
(
1
9
8
0
.
9
)
2
7
.
2
%
(
1
9
8
2
.
9
)
3
.
9
%
(
1
9
8
4
.
2
)
2
1
.
2
%
(
1
9
7
6
.
7
)
2
1
.
9
%
(
1
9
8
3
.
4
)
8
.
8
%
(
1
9
8
1
.
0
)
6
.
0
%
(
1
9
8
2
.
6
)
3
2
.
3
%
(
1
9
8
0
.
7
)
2
0
0
0
-
2
0
0
9
2
4
.
3
%
(
1
9
8
7
.
9
)
2
2
.
1
%
(
1
9
8
2
.
1
)
8
.
1
%
(
1
9
8
2
.
1
)
2
6
.
8
%
(
1
9
8
6
.
6
)
2
.
2
%
(
1
9
8
2
.
2
)
1
1
.
7
%
(
1
9
7
6
.
6
)
1
0
.
2
%
(
1
9
8
4
.
3
)
1
2
.
7
%
(
1
9
8
3
.
4
)
6
.
2
%
(
1
9
8
4
.
0
)
2
9
.
4
%
(
1
9
8
1
.
7
)
r
Spring 2014
appearances in JPM and JFU also increased in the 2000s, relative to earlier years, but to a much
lesser extent. Both of these journals averaged over 200 appearances every two years since 2000,
increasing from two-year averages of between 150 and 200 in prior years.
11
As competition for high-quality manuscripts heated up in the 1980s (following the launch of
RFS) and into the 1990s (as the post-1990 journals commenced operations), many of the pre-
1990 second tier journals experienced a decline in the percentage of articles attributed to prolific
authors. These declines are relatively muted when prolific authors are identified using publication
activity across all 23 journals (Panel B). The most notable declines prior to 2000 in Panel B were
experienced by the FR and the JFR. Appearances by this set of authors in the FR decreased from
over 60% of all appearances during the 1980s (ranging from 62.5% to 76.5%) to less than 60%
of all appearances during four of the five two-year subperiods during the 1990s (ranging from
55.2% to 60.2%). Appearances by these authors in the JFR averaged over 70% during four of
the five two-year subperiods from 1984 to 1993, before declining to 62% from 1996 to 1997 and
52.4% from 1998 to 1999. Since 2000, prolific author appearances in the JBFA, the JPM, and the
JBF have all declined by slightly more than the average across all 23 journals.
When prolific authors are defined as those individuals with five or more appearances in the five
elite journals (Panel C), the decline in prolific author content in the pre-1990 second tier journals
is more pronounced, with six journals displaying visible downward trends in such content: FR,
JBFA, JPM, JBF, JFR, and JFU. The most dramatic of these declines were felt by the FR and
the JFR. During the 1980s, contributions by this set of prolific authors averaged between 17.2%
and 28.6% of all appearances at the FR. However, since 1992 appearances by these authors have
averaged less than 9.4%of the appearances in the FR. Prior to 1990, appearances by these prolific
authors in the JFR exceeded 20% during each subperiod, averaging over 35% prior to 1980, and
just over 30% from 1988 to 1989. After 1990, however, appearances in the JFR by these authors
have averaged less than 20% in each subperiod, with a low of 8.8% from 1998 to 1999.
It is also noteworthy that the type of prolific author publishing in the FR and the JFR has
evolved. Prior to 1990, authors publishing in either of these journals had average graduation
years comparable to the average across all 23 journals in both Panels B and C. In Panel B, this
correlation has continued for both journals through 2009. In Panel C, however, the career stage
of those authors appearing in the FR and the JFR has shifted over time. From 1992 to 2009,
the average graduation year for authors appearing in the FR was at least 3.4 years earlier than
the average across all 23 journals in every subperiod except 1996-1997. For the JFR, the average
graduation year for prolific authors appearing in the journal was at least 3.5 years earlier than
the average across all 23 journals from 1998 to 2009. During the late 1970s and throughout the
1980s, JFR and FR were viewed by many to be the premier second tier finance journals. The
average graduation year data from more recent years suggests that the reputation of these journals
remains intact with at least some of the prolific authors who were active prior to 1990. However,
prolific authors in an earlier career stage (i.e., those fighting for promotion and tenure) now
appear to be less likely to target these journals. As the FR and the JFR have lost market share
within this important segment of the prolific author population, the volume of prolific author
content in these journals has declined.
11
Prior to 1990, the JBF published four issues per year. The JBF then published six issues in each year from 1990 to
1994, eight in 1995, 10 in 1996, and 12 in 1997 and all subsequent years. The JPM continues to publish four issues a
year (as it has since its inception). Thus, fluctuations in the number of appearances in this journal are due to year-to-year
changes in the number of articles published and the number of coauthors per paper. The JFU published four issues each
year until 1986, six issues each year from 1987 to 1992, eight issues from 1993 to 1999, 10 in 2000, and 12 in 2001 and
all subsequent years.
Danielson & Heck
r
Only two of the traditional second tier journals were able to maintain relatively constant shares
of prolific author content (in both Panels B and C) throughout the entire 1980-2009 period:
FM and FAJ. To remain relevant in the increasingly competitive finance literature, each of these
journals has demanded more rigorous empirical articles over time. The results in Panels B and C
suggest that these policies have worked, as the journals continue to attract submissions from both
sets of prolific authors.
Three of the journals, the FAJ, the JPM, and the JACF, specialize in applied research. Although
each of these journals publishes an impressive amount of prolific author content (in both Panels
B and C), the average graduation dates for prolific authors appearing in these journals since 1988
are typically earlier than the graduation year averages across all 23 journals, often by over four
years. These results suggest that either prolific authors delay developing this portion of their
research portfolios until later in their careers (i.e., after earning promotion and tenure) or the
perceived value of applied research is lower to scholars who have entered the field in, say, 1990
or later, than it was to individuals who started their careers in earlier years.
C. The New (Post-1990) Second Tier Journals
Table Vfocuses on the brief lifespan of the post-1990 second tier journals. Panel Aprovides the
total number of appearances (by subperiod) for these journals. Panels Band Canalyze appearance
activity by prolific authors with five or more publications in all 23 journals and in the five elite
journals, respectively.
The results in Panel A reveal that much of the growth of the finance literature during the 1990s
can be attributed to these nine journals. In addition, several of these journals have continued to
fuel the growth of the finance literature into the 2000s, as they have expanded their output. For
example, the average number of appearances every two years from 2000 to 2009 has increased
by at least 30 appearances relative to the two-year averages from the 1990s for five of these
journals: Mathematical Finance (MF), JEF, Pacific Basin Finance Journal (PBFJ), JCF, and
EFM.
12
The results in Panels B and C allow author characteristics to be compared before and after each
journals reputation had become established. This issue is important as journals are sometimes
launched with inaugural issues containing articles by luminaries in the field. If the outlet is
successful, contributions from such individuals will continue. However, if a journal fails to gain
widespread acceptance in the scholarly community, appearances by prolific authors will become
less frequent.
When prolific authors are defined as individuals with five or more appearances in all 23
journals, Panel B identifies five journals that were unable to sustain their early momentum: JEF,
JD, EFM, and RF. For each of these journals, the percentage of journal content by this set of
prolific authors declined by over 15 percentage points from the inaugural two-year period to
2000-2009. For the JEF and the JD, the decline exceeded 30 percentage points.
When prolific authors are defined as individuals with five or more appearances in the elite
journals, Panel C identifies six journals that were unable to maintain the initial level of prolific
author content: MF, JEF, PBFJ, JD, JCF, and EFM. For each of these journals, the percentage
of journal content by this set of prolific authors declined by over 10 percentage points from the
12
For example, MF has averaged almost 108 (=538/5) appearances every two years since 2000, compared to a previous
high of 72 in 1998-1999. However, MF continues to publish four issues a year, as it has since its inception. JEF (1999),
JCF (2003), PBFJ (1997), and EFM (2005) all increased their annual production schedule from four issues to five issues
in the year listed in parentheses.
r
Spring 2014
T
a
b
l
e
V
.
C
h
a
n
g
i
n
g
P
u
b
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
P
a
t
t
e
r
n
s
:
1
9
9
0
-
2
0
0
9
(
P
o
s
t
-
1
9
9
0
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
)
T
h
i
s
t
a
b
l
e
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
t
h
e
e
v
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
r
o
l
i
f
i
c
a
u
t
h
o
r
c
o
n
t
e
n
t
i
n
e
a
c
h
o
f
t
h
e
n
i
n
e
s
e
c
o
n
d
t
i
e
r
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
t
h
a
t
b
e
g
a
n
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
f
t
e
r
1
9
9
0
.
T
h
e
t
a
b
l
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
s
o
n
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
o
f
p
r
o
l
i
f
i
c
a
u
t
h
o
r
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
s
i
x
s
u
b
p
e
r
i
o
d
s
:
2
0
0
0
-
2
0
0
9
a
n
d
f
i
v
e
t
w
o
-
y
e
a
r
p
e
r
i
o
d
s
f
r
o
m
1
9
9
0
t
o
1
9
9
9
.
P
a
n
e
l
A
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
t
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
a
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
i
n
e
a
c
h
o
f
t
h
e
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
(
a
n
d
t
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
a
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
i
n
a
l
l
2
3
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
)
i
n
t
h
e
s
i
x
s
u
b
p
e
r
i
o
d
s
.
P
a
n
e
l
s
B
a
n
d
C
a
n
a
l
y
z
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
b
y
a
u
t
h
o
r
s
w
i
t
h
f
i
v
e
o
r
m
o
r
e
a
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
s
e
t
o
f
a
l
l
2
3
,
a
n
d
b
y
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
w
i
t
h
f
i
v
e
o
r
m
o
r
e
a
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
f
i
v
e
e
l
i
t
e
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
,
r
e
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
.
F
o
r
e
a
c
h
s
u
b
p
e
r
i
o
d
,
P
a
n
e
l
s
B
a
n
d
C
l
i
s
t
,
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
a
n
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
2
3
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
i
n
t
o
t
a
l
,
t
h
e
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
a
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
b
y
t
h
e
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
s
e
t
o
f
p
r
o
l
i
f
i
c
a
u
t
h
o
r
s
a
n
d
(
i
n
p
a
r
e
n
t
h
e
s
e
s
)
t
h
e
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
g
r
a
d
u
a
t
i
o
n
d
a
t
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
e
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
.
T
h
e
c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
a
u
t
h
o
r
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
i
n
P
a
n
e
l
s
B
a
n
d
C
w
a
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
c
r
o
s
s
t
h
e
e
n
t
i
r
e
1
9
7
0
-
2
0
0
9
p
e
r
i
o
d
.
A
l
l
2
3
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
J
F
I
M
F
J
E
F
P
B
F
J
J
D
J
C
F
E
F
M
R
F
J
F
M
P
a
n
e
l
A
.
T
o
t
a
l
A
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
b
y
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
a
n
d
b
y
S
u
b
p
e
r
i
o
d
1
9
9
0
-
1
9
9
1
2
,
2
6
8
2
6
3
0
1
9
9
2
-
1
9
9
3
2
,
5
3
0
4
2
6
5
1
9
4
3
1
1
1
9
9
4
-
1
9
9
5
2
,
7
1
3
3
9
6
5
4
3
1
0
3
4
1
4
6
3
1
1
9
9
6
-
1
9
9
7
3
,
0
2
1
4
6
7
0
6
2
1
0
8
7
3
4
5
5
8
2
1
1
9
9
8
-
1
9
9
9
3
,
0
7
8
5
4
7
2
8
7
1
0
2
1
0
0
6
2
7
2
6
2
5
6
2
0
0
0
-
2
0
0
9
2
0
,
4
8
3
3
9
5
5
3
8
6
8
9
6
8
3
3
8
2
6
9
6
5
9
8
3
6
4
3
9
2
T
o
t
a
l
3
4
,
0
9
3
6
0
2
8
4
0
9
0
0
1
,
0
3
9
6
0
7
8
4
9
7
5
9
4
4
7
4
4
8
P
a
n
e
l
B
.
F
i
v
e
o
r
M
o
r
e
A
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
i
n
A
l
l
2
3
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
1
9
9
0
-
1
9
9
1
6
4
.
1
%
(
1
9
8
0
.
4
)
5
7
.
7
%
(
1
9
8
2
.
1
)
2
6
.
7
%
(
1
9
7
8
.
5
)
1
9
9
2
-
1
9
9
3
6
5
.
1
%
(
1
9
8
1
.
9
)
5
4
.
8
%
(
1
9
8
3
.
2
)
4
3
.
1
%
(
1
9
8
0
.
9
)
7
8
.
9
%
(
1
9
8
1
.
4
)
5
8
.
1
%
(
1
9
7
9
.
4
)
8
1
.
8
%
(
1
9
8
2
.
7
)
1
9
9
4
-
1
9
9
5
6
4
.
8
%
(
1
9
8
3
.
2
)
6
1
.
5
%
(
1
9
8
6
.
5
)
4
6
.
2
%
(
1
9
8
1
.
6
)
3
9
.
5
%
(
1
9
8
8
.
1
)
7
0
.
9
%
(
1
9
8
4
.
2
)
6
8
.
3
%
(
1
9
8
0
.
3
)
6
5
.
2
%
(
1
9
8
3
.
7
)
6
4
.
5
%
(
1
9
8
4
.
2
)
1
9
9
6
-
1
9
9
7
6
3
.
0
%
(
1
9
8
4
.
8
)
6
5
.
2
%
(
1
9
8
7
.
0
)
3
1
.
4
%
(
1
9
8
8
.
4
)
5
3
.
2
%
(
1
9
8
4
.
5
)
6
1
.
1
%
(
1
9
8
3
.
5
)
5
4
.
8
%
(
1
9
8
5
.
8
)
6
6
.
7
%
(
1
9
8
4
.
4
)
6
2
.
1
%
(
1
9
8
6
.
8
)
6
6
.
7
%
(
1
9
8
5
.
9
)
1
9
9
8
-
1
9
9
9
6
0
.
0
%
(
1
9
8
6
.
0
)
6
8
.
5
%
(
1
9
8
6
.
6
)
4
5
.
8
%
(
1
9
8
5
.
6
)
4
0
.
2
%
(
1
9
8
7
.
3
)
5
2
.
0
%
(
1
9
8
6
.
8
)
4
9
.
0
%
(
1
9
8
8
.
3
)
5
6
.
5
%
(
1
9
8
8
.
1
)
4
8
.
6
%
(
1
9
8
2
.
3
)
5
8
.
1
%
(
1
9
8
3
.
4
)
6
4
.
3
%
(
1
9
8
7
.
4
)
2
0
0
0
-
2
0
0
9
5
1
.
6
%
(
1
9
8
9
.
7
)
5
1
.
5
%
(
1
9
9
0
.
3
)
2
6
.
3
%
(
1
9
8
8
.
3
)
4
2
.
9
%
(
1
9
9
0
.
4
)
4
4
.
2
%
(
1
9
8
9
.
4
)
4
3
.
8
%
(
1
9
8
7
.
2
)
5
6
.
5
%
(
1
9
9
0
.
2
)
4
5
.
0
%
(
1
9
8
9
.
4
)
4
7
.
9
%
(
1
9
9
0
.
2
)
6
0
.
0
%
(
1
9
9
0
.
2
)
P
a
n
e
l
C
.
F
i
v
e
o
r
M
o
r
e
A
p
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
s
i
n
F
i
v
e
E
l
i
t
e
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
s
1
9
9
0
-
1
9
9
1
3
2
.
8
%
(
1
9
7
9
.
5
)
3
0
.
7
%
(
1
9
8
1
.
4
)
1
6
.
6
%
(
1
9
8
2
.
7
)
1
9
9
2
-
1
9
9
3
3
0
.
7
%
(
1
9
8
1
.
0
)
4
0
.
4
%
(
1
9
8
3
.
4
)
2
3
.
4
%
(
1
9
8
2
.
2
)
5
7
.
8
%
(
1
9
8
1
.
3
)
2
5
.
5
%
(
1
9
7
5
.
5
)
5
4
.
5
%
(
1
9
8
2
.
2
)
1
9
9
4
-
1
9
9
5
3
1
.
5
%
(
1
9
8
2
.
3
)
3
3
.
3
%
(
1
9
8
5
.
8
)
1
6
.
9
%
(
1
9
8
2
.
5
)
1
3
.
9
%
(
1
9
8
8
.
0
)
3
1
.
0
%
(
1
9
8
1
.
9
)
3
9
.
0
%
(
1
9
7
6
.
3
)
4
7
.
8
%
(
1
9
8
3
.
1
)
3
5
.
4
%
(
1
9
8
1
.
8
)
1
9
9
6
-
1
9
9
7
3
0
.
2
%
(
1
9
8
3
.
3
)
4
1
.
3
%
(
1
9
8
6
.
8
)
8
.
5
%
(
1
9
8
6
.
7
)
2
2
.
5
%
(
1
9
8
2
.
9
)
2
5
.
0
%
(
1
9
7
7
.
3
)
2
3
.
2
%
(
1
9
8
4
.
2
)
3
5
.
5
%
(
1
9
8
4
.
3
)
1
3
.
7
%
(
1
9
7
7
.
6
)
2
3
.
8
%
(
1
9
8
0
.
0
)
1
9
9
8
-
1
9
9
9
2
9
.
3
%
(
1
9
8
4
.
5
)
3
5
.
1
%
(
1
9
8
6
.
2
)
5
.
5
%
(
1
9
8
4
.
2
)
1
6
.
0
%
(
1
9
8
3
.
1
)
2
2
.
5
%
(
1
9
8
2
.
5
)
1
7
.
0
%
(
1
9
8
5
.
1
)
2
7
.
4
%
(
1
9
8
7
.
9
)
2
5
.
0
%
(
1
9
7
8
.
0
)
3
8
.
7
%
(
1
9
8
1
.
5
)
3
9
.
2
%
(
1
9
8
6
.
6
)
2
0
0
0
-
2
0
0
9
2
4
.
3
%
(
1
9
8
7
.
9
)
2
6
.
1
%
(
1
9
8
7
.
5
)
4
.
8
%
(
1
9
8
3
.
0
)
1
3
.
1
%
(
1
9
8
8
.
1
)
9
.
5
%
(
1
9
8
1
.
0
)
1
5
.
2
%
(
1
9
8
0
.
5
)
2
2
.
1
%
(
1
9
8
6
.
1
)
1
5
.
5
%
(
1
9
8
4
.
0
)
2
0
.
9
%
(
1
9
8
6
.
4
)
3
0
.
9
%
(
1
9
8
8
.
0
)
Danielson & Heck
r
inaugural two-year period to 2000-2009. Again, this decline exceeded 30 percentage points for
both the JEF and the JD.
To their credit, none of the journals launched during the 1990s appeared to give undue preference
to submissions by established, prolific authors during the early years of the journals existence.
In both Panels B and C, the average graduation date for each of the nine journals during the
initial two-year period was similar to the overall average across all journals. This suggests that
the prolific authors appearing in the new journals included roughly the same mix of established
and aspiring prolific authors as the journal population as a whole. What is noteworthy, however,
is that the type of prolific author publishing in the less successful new journals has gradually
changed over time. Panel C reveals that in 2000-2009, the average graduation year for prolific
authors (five or more elite articles) appearing in MF, the PBFJ, the JD, and EFMis approximately
four years earlier or more than the average across all journals. Thus, it appears that researchers
striving for tenure and promotion at many research universities no longer consider these journals
to be among the most desirable second tier destinations for papers that cannot be placed in an
elite journal.
VI. The Current Pecking Order of Finance Journals
What does the current pecking order of finance journals look like? The results in Table VI
address this question. Table VI ranks the 23 journals in this study based on the percentage of
1990-2009 (Panel A) and 2000-2009 (Panel B) journal content by prolific authors. The results in
Panel A rank the journals based on publication activity over a longer period and are less likely
to be distorted by short-term (nonpermanent) trends. The results in Panel B are more current.
The Panel B results also necessarily exclude the pre-2000 publications of the post-1990 second
tier journals (as all nine of these journals published their first issues prior to 2000) and focus
on publishing activity after the journals reputations started taking shape. Thus, each ranking
has unique benefits, and a comparison of the two rankings can reveal recent shifts in perceived
journal quality.
Panels A and B report rankings using the two prolific author definitions individually (Columns
2 and 3) and based on a weighted-average of the two rankings (Column 1). In each case, journals
with higher percentages of content from prolific authors rank higher. The weighted-average
ranking is calculated as the sum of the percentage of appearances by the two sets of prolific
authors divided by two. Since authors with five or more appearances in the five elite journals are
included in both groups, the publication records of these authors are more heavily weighted in this
index. Column 4 lists the percentage of journal content by authors with no elite five appearances,
but does not rank the journals on this basis.
Panel A of Table VI reports that over the entire 1990-2009 period, the JF, the RFS, the JFE, the
JFQA, and the JB remain the top five journals (based on the weighted-average ranking in Column
1). Moving to the more recent 2000-2009 period, however, Panel B reveals that the RFS has
surpassed the JF in prolific author content. While, the percentage of prolific author content has
decreased in the most recent 10-year subperiod in each of the RFS, the JF, the JFE, and the JFQA,
these declines are modest. As previously discussed, these declines are caused, in part, by the fact
that the population of authors publishing articles from 2000 to 2009 includes some individuals at
the beginning of their research careers, who have not yet accumulated enough publications (but
will at some future date) to be classified as prolific using the benchmarks defined in this study.
After the top four surviving journals (excluding the JB), the top 10 surviving journals, based on
the weighted-average rankings in Column 1, include the same titles in Panels Aand Bof Table VI,
r
Spring 2014
Table VI. The Current Pecking Order of Finance Journals
This table presents the current ranking of journals based on the percentage of journal content by prolific authors, where
prolific authors are identified based upon appearances accumulated over 1970-2009. Panel A analyzes journal content
during the most recent 20-year period (1990-2009), while Panel B reports on the most recent 10-year period (2000-2009).
In each panel, Column 2 ranks journals based on appearances by authors having five or more appearances in all 23 journals.
Column 3 ranks journals using appearances by authors with five or more appearances in the five elite journals. Column
1 ranks journals using a simple weighted-average of the appearance percentages in Columns 2 and 3. For example, the
weighted-average appearances by prolific authors in the Review of Financial Studies in Panel A is 64.8% (= [70.2% +
59.4%]/2). Not all of the percentages in Column 1 can be recalculated exactly from the appearance information in Columns
2 and 3, as listed here, due to rounding. In each panel, the journals are listed based upon the ranking in this column. The
table also lists the percentage of journal content by authors with no appearances in the five elite journals (Column 4), but
does not rank the journals on this basis.
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4
Weighted- % by Authors % by Authors % by Authors
Average with 5+ with 5+ Elite with No Elite
Appearances by Appearances Appearances Appearances
Prolic Authors in All 23
% Rank % Rank % Rank %
Panel A. Appearances in Individual Journal by Prolific Authors: 1990-2009
Journal of Finance 65.2% 1 72.0% 1 58.5% 2 0.0%
Review of Financial
Studies
64.8% 2 70.2% 3 59.4% 1 0.0%
Journal of Financial
Economics
63.3% 3 70.3% 2 56.3% 3 0.0%
and Quantitative
Analysis
57.1% 4 70.0% 4 44.2% 4 0.0%
Journal of Business 49.6% 5 60.2% 7 39.0% 5 0.0%
Financial
Management
46.4% 6 65.8% 5 26.9% 9 35.8%
Markets
45.0% 7 59.2% 8 30.8% 7 31.1%
Journal of Applied
Corporate Finance
42.8% 8 54.2% 12 31.4% 6 50.9%
Intermediation
41.0% 9 53.8% 13 28.2% 8 34.7%
Journal of Corporate
Finance
39.7% 10 55.2% 11 24.1% 10 40.5%
Financial Analysts
Journal
39.0% 11 57.7% 9 20.3% 12 54.6%
Research
38.1% 12 61.9% 6 14.3% 18 46.2%
Review of Finance 35.8% 13 48.8% 16 22.8% 11 41.4%
Journal of Derivatives 33.4% 14 47.9% 18 18.9% 13 59.2%
Journal of Portfolio
Management
32.4% 15 50.2% 15 14.5% 17 68.1%
Financial Review 32.2% 16 56.3% 10 8.2% 20 54.0%
Pacific Basin Finance
Journal
31.4% 17 48.0% 17 14.7% 15 59.2%
European Financial
Management
31.0% 18 46.0% 20 16.1% 14 60.9%
Journal of Banking
and Finance
30.1% 19 46.6% 19 13.6% 19 58.5%
Journal of Futures
Markets
29.2% 20 51.4% 14 7.1% 22 65.8%
(Continued)
Danielson & Heck
r
Table VI. The Current Pecking Order of Finance Journals (Continued)
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4
Weighted- % by Authors % by Authors % by Authors
Average with 5+ with 5+ Elite with No Elite
Appearances by Appearances Appearances Appearances
Prolic Authors in All 23
% Rank % Rank % Rank %
Panel A. Appearances in Individual Journal by Prolific Authors: 1990-2009
Journal of Empirical
Finance
28.3% 21 42.0% 21 14.6% 16 57.3%
Journal of Business
Finance and
Accounting
22.0% 22 41.2% 22 2.8% 23 74.8%
Mathematical Finance 19.3% 23 30.7% 23 8.0% 21 73.5%
Panel B. Appearances in Individual Journal by Prolific Authors: 2000-2009
Review of Financial
Studies
63.0% 1 68.9% 3 57.0% 1 0.0%
Journal of Finance 62.1% 2 68.7% 4 55.5% 2 0.0%
Economics
61.6% 3 69.0% 2 54.2% 3 0.0%
and Quantitative
Analysis
55.7% 4 69.3% 1 42.1% 4 0.0%
Journal of Business 50.6% 5 61.0% 6 40.2% 5 0.0%
Financial
Management
45.9% 6 65.0% 5 26.8% 8 35.1%
Markets
45.5% 7 60.0% 7 30.9% 6 31.1%
Financial Analysts
Journal
40.0% 8 59.0% 8 20.9% 11 54.2%
Journal of Corporate
Finance
39.3% 9 56.5% 10 22.1% 10 41.5%
Journal of Applied
Corporate Finance
39.3% 9 49.2% 13 29.4% 7 55.1%
Intermediation
38.8% 11 51.5% 12 26.1% 9 36.7%
Research
35.1% 12 57.5% 9 12.7% 16 48.0%
Review of Finance 34.4% 13 47.9% 15 20.9% 12 43.7%
Financial Review 32.1% 14 56.1% 11 8.1% 20 56.4%
European Financial
Management
30.3% 15 45.0% 17 15.5% 13 63.3%
Journal of Derivatives 29.5% 16 43.8% 19 15.2% 14 64.8%
Journal of Portfolio
Management
28.9% 17 46.0% 16 11.7% 17 73.3%
Journal of Empirical
Finance
28.0% 18 42.9% 20 13.1% 15 59.1%
Journal of Futures
Markets
27.4% 19 48.6% 14 6.2% 21 71.6%
Pacific Basin Finance
Journal
26.9% 20 44.2% 18 9.5% 19 67.3%
Journal of Banking
and Finance
26.0% 21 41.8% 21 10.2% 18 53.5%
Journal of Business
Finance and
Accounting
19.1% 22 35.9% 22 2.2% 23 79.1%
Mathematical Finance 15.6% 23 26.3% 23 4.8% 22 79.9%
r
Spring 2014
but in a slightly different order. Across the entire 1990-2009 period, the journals on this list are
(in order): FM, JFM, JACF, JFI, JCF, and FAJ. From 2000 to 2009, this ranking now reads: FM,
JFM, FAJ, JCF, JACF, and JFI. It is noteworthy that the journals ranked from fifth to tenth place
include just one pre-1990 general interest journal (FM), three specialty journals with inaugural
dates after 1990 (JFI, JCF, and JFM), and two journals that focus on applied finance (FAJ and
JACF). The inclusion of the FAJ and the JACFon these lists confirms that prolific authors consider
applied finance to be an integral part of the literature. In addition, the volume of prolific author
content in these journals sets a high-quality benchmark that contributions fromother authors must
meet.
As with the five elite journals, most of the nonelite journals experienced slight declines in
prolific author content from 2000 to 2009 (Panel B) relative to 1990-2009 (Panel A). The largest
of these declines was for the PBFJ (=4.5% =31.4% to 26.9%). Only seven of the journals
experienced a decline of less than one percentage point, or an increase, in prolific author content
(FAJ, JFM, FR, JEF, JCF, FM, and EFM). As prolific author content declined in the nonelite
journals, most of these journals published more content by individuals who have never published
an elite five article (Table VI, Column 4). For five journals, the percentage of appearances by
authors who have not published an elite five article increased by more than five percentage points
between Panel A and Panel B of Table VI (JD, JPM, PBFJ, JFU, and MF). The largest of these
increases was for the PBFJ (=8.1% =67.3% to 59.2%). In only three journals (FM, FAJ, and
JBF) did the percentage of journal content by authors who have never published an elite article
decline from 1990 to 2009 to 2000 to 2009. These changes certainly are caused, in part, by the
shifting population of active finance researchers, as the 2000-2009 population of appearances
includes contributions by individuals who ultimately will be classified as prolific, but have yet to
meet the benchmarks defined in this paper. However, these changes could also be due, in part, to
the ever-increasing population of finance journals, which has spread prolific author content over
a wider number of journal titles.
Perhaps the most interesting pieces of information in Table VI are the differences between the
ranking of the nonelite journals when appearances in all 23 journals determine prolific authors
and when appearances in just the elite five are used as the benchmark. When prolific authors
are identified using appearances across all 23 journals, the JFR and the FR move into the top
10 surviving journals (in both Panels A and B), replacing the JACF and the JFI. When only
appearances in the five elite journals are used to isolate prolific authors, the RF moves into the
top 10 (replacing the FAJ in Panel A and tying the FAJ in Panel B). The JFR and the FR fall
well outside the top 10 in Column 3 of both panels. Thus, the publication preferences of, or
opportunities available to, prolific authors may depend upon whether an individual has published
frequently in the elite five journals or across all 23 journals. Some of the traditional second
tier journals, most notably JFR and FR, appear to have developed a clientele within a subset of
authors who have published frequently in high-impact journals, but not necessarily in the five
elite journals.
VII. Conclusions
Sometimes actions speak louder than words. In this spirit, one way to discern what prolific
authors really think about various journals is to see where they publish. We use this approach to
document howpublishing preferences have changed over the past 40 years and to gain information
about the current pecking order of finance journals.
Danielson & Heck
r
Although this method of ranking journals is not perfect (e.g., it can shortchange journals that
publish articles outside of mainstream finance such as the JBF and the JBFA), it can nevertheless
yield useful insights. The results confirm that the JF, the JFE, the RFS, and the JFQA remain
the most popular destinations for research produced by prolific finance authors. After these four
surviving journals (i.e., excluding the JB), the results suggest that FM and the FAJ, along with the
newer, specialty journals such as the JFM, the JCF, and the JFI, are gradually replacing older,
general interest journals, such as the JFR and the FR, as the most likely second tier destination
of articles by these authors.
It should also be noted that the pecking order of finance journals will continue to evolve with
several promising newjournals commencing operations in 2011 and 2012 including the Quarterly
Journal of Finance (2011), the Review of Asset Pricing Studies (2011), Critical Finance Review
(2012), and the Review of Corporate Finance Studies (2012). A cursory review of their editorial
boards reveals that each of these journals has the potential to compete with outlets included in
our set of 23 high-impact journals.
The results in this paper provide insights for the editors of these (or other) new journals. In
particular, it is unlikely that a journal can succeed in the long term by simply giving preference
to (or soliciting) submissions by established, prolific authors. Instead, the key to a journals long-
term success appears to lie in its ability to attract high-quality submissions from talented, junior
faculty members, and to help these scholars mold the manuscripts into high-quality papers. The
lessons aspiring researchers can learn through this rigorous process will no doubt contribute
to their future success. Thus, the content of the best journals is dominated by prolific author
contributions not only because established scholars will (voluntarily) submit their best papers to
these journals, but also because the younger scholars who publish in these journals are highly
likely to become prolific in the future.
Even though the population of finance journals has exploded over the past 40 years (and
continues to expand), allowing countless financial research papers to be published, it is no small
task to place a paper in a high-impact finance journal. Over 50% of the appearances in 15 of the
journals in this study are by individuals with five or more appearances across the entire set of 23
journals, while over 40% of the appearances in 22 of the journals are from authors with five or
more high-impact appearances. Whether this result is due to cronyism or quality, it does not leave
many available pages for researchers just starting their careers or for those working at nonelite
research universities.
Although research standards should necessarily be rigorous (especially at the most prestigious
universities), even scholars who have successfully published in the elite finance journals cannot
place every article in those journals. The results here suggest that second tier finance publications
are not necessarily second rate. In some cases, due to the highly specialized nature of the topic,
articles appearing in specialized second tier journals might be in one of the best outlets that would
consider publishing a manuscript of that specific type. As the finance field and its subfields con-
tinue to evolve, this trend is likely to continue. Because the population of journals has expanded
in many academic fields and because competition for journal slots is also fierce in accounting,
economics, and other disciplines, the patterns identified in this paper are unlikely to be unique to
the finance literature. Thus, university administrators, especially those at nonelite research uni-
versities, would be wise to evaluate the research productivity of faculty members (both in finance
and in other disciplines) using both restrictive lists of elite journals and slightly broader sets of
high-quality journals, and to continually update these lists over time as the journal population con-
tinues to expand and perceptions of journal quality shift. This insight could help (all) universities
better evaluate the research records of candidates for promotion, tenure, or merit awards.
r
Spring 2014
Appendix
Twenty-Three High-Impact Journals
This appendix lists the 23 journals included in this study, the acronyms used to identify these
journals in the text, and the year of each journals inaugural issue (in parentheses). The journals
are separated into three groups: 1) five elite journals, 2) nine second tier journals established
before 1989, and 3) nine second tier journals established during the 1990s. In each category, the
journals are listed by initial publication date.
Five elite journals
Journal of Business JB (1922)
Journal of Finance JF (1946)
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis JFQA (1966)
Journal of Financial Economics JFE (1974)
Review of Financial Studies RFS (1988)
Other high-impact journals established prior to 1990
Financial Analysts Journal FAJ (1945)
Financial Review FR (1966)
Financial Management FM (1972)
Journal of Business Finance and Accounting JBFA (1974)
Journal of Portfolio Management JPM (1974)
Journal of Banking and Finance JBF (1977)
Journal of Financial Research JFR (1978)
Journal of Futures Markets JFU (1981)
Journal of Applied Corporate Finance JACF (1988)
Other high-impact journals established after 1990
Journal of Financial Intermediation JFI (1991)
Mathematical Finance MF (1991)
Journal of Empirical Finance JEF (1993)
Pacific Basin Finance Journal PBFJ (1993)
Journal of Derivatives JD (1993)
Journal of Corporate Finance JCF (1994)
European Financial Management EFM (1997)
Review of Finance RF (1997)
Journal of Financial Markets JFM (1998)
References
Alexander, J.C. and R.H. Mabry, 1994, Relative Significance of Journals, Authors, and Articles Cited in
Financial Research, Journal of Finance 49, 697-712.
Bauerlein, M., M. Gad-el-Hak, W. Grody, B. McKelvey, and S.W. Trimple, 2010, We Must Stop the
Avalanche of Low Quality Research, Chronicle of Higher Education 56, A80.
Borde, S.F., J.M. Cheney, and J. Madura, 1999, A Note on Perceptions of Finance Journal Quality, Review
of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 12, 89-96.
Borokhovich, K.A., R.J. Bricker, and B.J. Simkins, 2000, An Analysis of Finance Journal Impact Factors,
Journal of Finance 55, 1457-1469.
Danielson & Heck
r
Borokhovich, K.A., A.A. Lee, and B.J. Simkins, 2011, A Framework for Journal Assessment: The Case of
the Journal of Banking and Finance, Journal of Banking and Finance 35, 1-6.
Chan, K.C., R. Fok, and M.-S. Pan, 2000, Citation-Based Finance Journal Rankings: An Update, Financial
Practice and Education 10, 132-141.
Chen, C.R. and Y. Huang, 2007, Author Affiliation Index, Finance Journal Ranking, and the Pattern of
Authorship, Journal of Corporate Finance 13, 1008-1026.
Coe, R.K. and I. Weinstock, 1983, Evaluating the Finance Journals, Journal of Financial Research 6,
345-349.
Corbett, E.P.J., 1992, The Shame of the Current Standards for Promotion and Tenure, Journal of Advanced
Composition 12, 111-116.
Currie, R.R. and G.S. Pandher, 2011, Finance Journal Rankings and Tiers: An Active Scholar Assessment
Methodology, Journal of Banking & Finance 35, 7-20.
Danielson, M.G. and J.L. Heck, 2010, Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due: Summary Analysis of the Most
Prolific Authors in 15 High-Impact Accounting Journals, Advances in Accounting 26, 195-206.
Engemann, K.M. and H.J. Wall, 2009, A Journal Ranking for the Ambitious Economist, Federal Reserve
Bank of St. Louis Review 91, 127-139.
Fishe, R.P.H., 1998, What Are the Research Standards for Full Professor of Finance? Journal of Finance
53, 1053-1079.
Griffiths, M.D. and D. Winters, 2005, Inferring Promotion and Tenure Research Hurdles: What the Data
Say, Journal of Financial Education 31, 1-16.
Heck, J.L. and P.L. Cooley, 2005, Prolific Authors in the Finance Literature: A Half-Century of Contribu-
tions, Journal of Finance Literature 1, 40-62.
Keloharju, M., 2008, Whats New in Finance? European Financial Management 14, 564-608.
Mabry, R.H. and A.D. Sharplin, 1985, The Relative Importance of Journals Used in Finance Research,
Journal of Financial Research 8, 287-296.
Oltheten, E., V. Theoharakis, and N.G. Travlos, 2005, Faculty Perceptions and Readership Patterns of
Finance Journals: A Global View, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 40, 223-239.
Tanner, G., 2000, Referee Quality and Journal Characteristics, Financial Practice and Education 10,
123-131.
Weston, J.F., 1994, A (Relatively) Brief History of Finance Ideas, Financial Practice and Education 4,
7-26.
Wilhite, A.W. and E.A. Fong, 2012, Coercive Citation in Academic Publishing, Science 335, 542-543.
Zivney, T.L. and W. Reichenstein, 1994, The Pecking Order in Finance Journals, Financial Practice and
Education 4, 77-87.

Voting With Their Feet

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Voting With Their Feet

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Voting with Their Feet: In Which

Journals Do the Most Prolic Finance

Вам также может понравиться