Search results

This paper presents a descriptive analysis of the publication records of faculty promoted from 1995 to 2003 at the top 75 accounting research programs (as ranked by Trieschmann et al. 2000). The presentation and analyses of these data are designed to be useful to faculty and evaluation committees from a benchmarking and decision-making perspective. From a benchmarking perspective, the results will be useful in helping schools as they develop or refine relevant policies and research expectations. The results may be particularly useful in view of the fact that average accounting faculty publication records differ from the average publication records of faculty in other disciplines. We present results in different ways to help faculty and evaluation committees understand faculty publication records at the time accounting faculty are promoted to associate and full professor at various sets, or portfolios, of universities. Not surprisingly, the results indicate significant differences in publication records across the accounting programs included in the study. While differences are expected, given the varied missions and emphases of different schools, we believe the data will be useful to policy makers, evaluation committees, and faculty as they set standards, evaluate performance, and plan scholarship activities in conjunction with other expected activities, such as teaching and service.

ABSTRACTThe primary purpose of this study is to update the Glover et al. (2006) publication benchmarking study by providing benchmarking statistics of faculty promoted to associate and/or full professor from 2004 to 2009. We also extend Glover et al. (2006) by examining new benchmarking metrics and by investigating publication productivity differences between studies. Our results indicate that, on average, faculty promoted from 2004 to 2009 had more publications in leading accounting journals at the time of promotion than faculty promoted from 1995 to 2003. We explore possible explanations for the increase in publication productivity. We find that increases in the time to promotion, number of total published journal articles, and number of co-authors can explain some, but not all of the observed increase in publication productivity. Finally, we find that publication records at the time of promotion are similar between public and private institutions within similar university publication productivity portfolios.Data Availability: Data used in this paper are available from the authors upon request.