accounting ph.d. program graduates: affiliation performance and publication performance

ORI GIN AL PA PER

Accounting Ph.D. program graduates: affiliationperformance and publication performance

Lawrence D. Brown Æ Indrarini Laksmana

Published online: 26 September 2007� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Abstract We examine the affiliation performance and publication performance of 1991–

1997 accounting Ph.D. graduates. We define affiliation performance as whether or not an

individual is employed at a school with an accounting program ranked by Trieschmann

et al. (Academy of Management Journal 43:1130–1141, 2000). We define publication

performance in two ways, whether or not the Ph.D. graduate published in at least one of:

(1) three premier accounting journals, and (2) a broader set of eight accounting journals.

We examine the influence of the institutional status (private versus public) of the gradu-

ating institution on both affiliation performance and publication performance. We examine

the institutional status both unconditionally and conditionally on four article types pub-

lished in three premier journals: (1) articles from Ph.D. dissertations, (2) co-authored

articles with degree-school faculty, (3) co-authored articles with degree-school Ph.D.

students, and (4) co-authored articles with affiliated faculty. We show that accounting

graduates of private schools are more likely to be affiliated with higher ranked schools, but

they are not more likely to publish in the premier journals or the broader set of eight

journals.

Keywords Ph.D. programs � Publication performance � Affiliation performance

JEL Classification M40

L. D. Brown (&)Robinson College of Business, School of Accountancy, Georgia State University, P.O. Box 4050, 35Broad Street, 5th Floor, Atlanta, GA 30302-4050, USAe-mail: [email protected]

I. LaksmanaCollege of Business Administration, Department of Accounting, Kent State University, P.O. Box 5190,Kent, OH 44242-0001, USAe-mail: [email protected]

123

Rev Quant Finan Acc (2007) 29:285–313DOI 10.1007/s11156-007-0031-1

1 Introduction

We examine affiliation performance and publication performance of accounting Ph.D.

graduates during the 7-year period, 1991–1997. We focus on affiliations and publications

6 years after graduation as it is the time horizon for most tenure decisions. Consistent with

Fogarty and Ruhl (1997) and Trieschmann et al. (2000) [TDNN], we consider publications

in the three premier accounting journals, The Accounting Review (TAR), Journal ofAccounting Research (JAR), and Journal of Accounting and Economics (JAE). We also

extend their analyses by considering publications in a broader set of eight accounting

journals: the three premier accounting journals plus Contemporary Accounting Research(CAR), Journal of Accounting Auditing and Finance (JAAF), Journal of Accounting andPublic Policy (JAPP), Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory (AJPT), and Review ofQuantitative Finance and Accounting (RQFA).

In the spirit of TDNN, who examined the effect of institutional status (private versus

public) on faculty publication, we examine the effect of institutional status on the affiliation

and publication performance of accounting Ph.D. graduates. We examine the influence of

institutional status on publication success unconditionally on article type, and for the three

premier accounting journals only, conditionally on four article types: (1) articles from dis-

sertations, (2) co-authored articles with degree school faculty, (3) co-authored articles with

degree school Ph.D. students, and (4) co-authored articles with affiliated school faculty.1

We identify the names, affiliations, and publication performance of all 1,348 individuals

in Hasselback (2004) who received Ph.D. degrees in accounting from 110 US Ph.D.

granting institutions between 1991 and 1997.2 We provide rankings of 74 Ph.D. granting

universities awarding at least six Ph.D. degrees in accounting between 1991 and 1997,

based on affiliation and publication performance.3 We conduct multivariate analyses of

affiliation and publication performance using all 1,348 graduates from the 110 schools. Our

multivariate analyses reveal that private school graduates are more likely to be placed in

higher ranked institutions, but that private school graduates are not more likely to publish

in the eight journals unconditionally and (for the three premier accounting journals)

conditionally on article type.

Jacobs et al. (1986) ranked doctoral programs based on Ph.D. graduates’ publication

performance. Hasselback et al. (2000) examined research productivity of accounting

academics, providing benchmarks for articles needed for tenure and promotion. Other

researchers performed multivariate analyses to examine whether graduating school and

faculty affiliation affect placement and publication productivity (Fogarty and Ruhl 1997;

Maranto and Streuly 1994). TDNN compared rankings based on faculty publications with

rankings based on MBA rankings (source: US News and World Report rankings). TDNN

examined the effect of institutional status on faculty publication and found no relation

between institutional status and faculty publication after controlling for other factors.

The TDNN results suggest that institutional status is unimportant for faculty publica-

tion, but it leaves unanswered a related question: Does institutional status matter for

1 We do not have a separate category for publishing with Ph.D. students from affiliated schools as there areonly three individuals in this category.2 We omit seven non-US institutions graduating a total of eight authors who published in the three premieraccounting journals. We restrict our study to US Ph.D. granting institutions because TDNN only ranked USinstitutions.3 We exclude schools with fewer than six graduates because we use percents. Small program sizes couldsignificantly distort our rankings.

286 L. D. Brown, I. Laksmana

123

Ph.D. placement? While conventional wisdom suggests that institutional status does matter

for Ph.D. placement, the indirect evidence of TDNN suggests it does not matter. Our study

fills this gap in the literature by conducting the first examination of the impact of insti-

tutional status of graduating institution on Ph.D. affiliation. We also examine the impact of

institutional status of the graduating institution on the publication success of its Ph.D.

graduates. Our publication performance analyses help to reconcile our affiliation results

(institutional status matters) with the TDNN publication results (institutional status does

not matter).

We expect institutional status of the graduating institution to be positively related to the

affiliation of Ph.D. graduates for three reasons. First, the relatively smaller doctoral pro-

grams, greater financial resources, and smaller student-faculty ratios (National Center of

Education Statistics 2003) of private versus public schools enables private schools to

attract more highly-qualified Ph.D. students so they should be more likely to place their

Ph.D. graduates in ranked universities. Second, promotion and tenure requirements in

private institutions are relatively more likely to be based on academic journal publications

(Hagerman and Hagerman 1989) since private universities’ greater dependence on vol-

untary support increases their incentives to enhance their reputations. In contrast, public

schools place greater demands on teaching (e.g., more courses; larger sections) and public

service (Jordan et al. 1989; Dundar and Lewis 1998) so their lesser focus on research is

likely to impart fewer research skills to their Ph.D. students, who teach more and may take

fewer research-related courses.4 Third, private schools’ relatively greater emphasis on

research leads to more research support for Ph.D. students, such as better access to dat-

abases, more time for research, lower teaching loads, and higher quality faculty and Ph.D.

students, primary determinants of published research (Cargile and Bublitz 1986). All of

these factors should make private school graduates, ceteris paribus, more attractive to the

higher-ranked schools.

Ours is the first study to examine multiple article types. More specifically, we condition

our publication analyses in the three premier accounting journals on four article types: (1)

articles from dissertations, (2) co-authored articles with degree-school faculty, (3) co-

authored articles with degree-school Ph.D. students, and (4) co-authored articles with

affiliated faculty. Our conditional analyses have the potential either to add validity to our

main results or to show that our main results pertain only to certain article types (e.g.,

graduating from a private school is important for publishing articles from one’s dissertation

but not for other article types).

The remainder of our paper is divided into seven sections. We next explain our

methodology. In the following two sections, we examine the affiliation and publication

profiles of 74 US programs with at least six graduates during 1991–1997. We investigate

determinants of placement performance and publication performance in two subsequent

sections, followed by analyses of article types. The final section provides a summary.

2 Methodology

We examined the Accounting Faculty Directory 2004–2005 (Hasselback 2004) to identify

all individuals receiving their Ph.D.s from US schools during the 7-year period, 1991–

4 In addition, public schools may have a mandate to provide educators for their regions. Thus, their maingoal may not be to educate Ph.D.s who will be placed in ranked schools.

Accounting Ph.D. program graduates 287

123

1997.5 We determined the institutions from which they graduated and if the institutions

were private or public. We examined Hasselback directories beginning with the 1997

edition and ending with the 2004–2005 edition to determine affiliation 6 years after

graduation.6

TDNN ranked 178 accounting programs from 1 (best) to 178 (worst) but their published

article includes only 50 business schools, and their website includes only 100 business

schools.7 Alan Dennis, a TDNN co-author, provided us with a complete listing of all 178US ranked accounting programs so we code all institutions TDNN ranked with their ranks

and all institutions TDNN did not rank as 179.8 The 179 coding also applies to all indi-

viduals who were affiliated with industry.

We measure publication performance using two sets of journals. First, we include only

three accounting journals: TAR, JAR, and JAE, generally considered the most prestigious

accounting journals (Ballas and Theoharakis 2003; Brown 2003). Second, we extend our

analysis by considering publications in a set of eight accounting journals: the three premier

journals plus CAR, JAAF, JAPP, AJPT, and RQFA. We perused all issues of these journals

in 1992–2003 to find the number of articles each individual published in these journals

within 6 years after graduation.9 We identified and examined four article types for the three

premier accounting journals: (1) dissertation-based, (2) co-authored with faculty at school

of degree, (3) co-authored with fellow Ph.D. students, or (4) co-authored with faculty at

school of employment.10

We identified 1,348 Ph.D.s graduating from 110 US Ph.D. granting institutions. Thirty

six (33% of the total) of these schools are private and 74 are public. We classified a school

as public if it was controlled by a government entity. Seventeen of the 36 private uni-

versities (47% of all privates) and 57 of the 74 public universities (77% of all publics)

graduated more than five people between 1991 and 1997.

5 The Accounting Faculty Directory compiled by Hasselback has been used for many accounting faculty-related studies including Maranto and Streuly (1994) and Zivney et al. (1995). The Accounting FacultyDirectory was published yearly (bi-annually) at the beginning (end) of our examination period.6 To determine this, we examined the relevant Hasselback edition showing the individual’s affiliationprecisely 6 years after graduation. We use the term ‘‘accounting Ph.D. program’’ broadly as some schoolsoffered DBAs not Ph.D.s (e.g., Harvard) during our time frame while others offered Ph.D.s but not inbusiness (e.g., Notre Dame). Indeed, some members of accounting academia (e.g., the first named author ofthis article) obtained their Ph.D.s in other disciplines, such as economics, mathematics, or psychology. Wepaid special attention to name changes by female faculty members by comparing their names in the firstHasselback edition wherein they appeared with their names in the 2004–2005 edition.7 http://www.kelley.indiana.edu/ardennis/rankings.8 Thus, the 179 coding applies to all individuals who graduated from and/or were affiliated with: (1) USaccounting programs not ranked in the top 178 or (2) non-US universities. This coding introduces mea-surement error because it classifies some strong non-US schools (e.g., University of British Columbia,London Business School, INSEAD, and Hong Kong University of Science and Technology) on a par withless research-oriented US schools. However, this artifact of the TDNN ranking procedure should not biasour results.9 The TDNN business school ranks are based on the number of pages a business school’s faculty publishedduring the 13 years, 1986–1998, in 20 journals, spanning eight disciplines. Similar to Fogarty and Ruhl(1997), we use number of publications rather than the computationally more difficult TDNN approach ofnumber of pages. Consistent with TDNN and Fogarty and Ruhl (1997), we weight sole-authored andcoauthored papers the same. We omit discussion papers.10 An article may belong to multiple groups. For example, a coauthored article with a faculty member and aPh.D. student from a degree school is coded as (2) and (3). Due to its costly nature, we did not determinearticle type for the other five accounting journals constituting the broader set of eight journals.


123

We included in Tables 1 and 2 all 74 schools graduating six or more people. We

included in Tables 3, 4 and 5 all 1,348 graduates from all 110 schools. We show in the

appendix the following information regarding those Ph.D. graduates who published at least

one article in at least one of the eight journals within 6 years of graduation. We include the

individual’s name (in descending order of number of publications in the three premier

journals), year of graduation, school of degree, institutional affiliation, number of publi-

cations in the three premier accounting journals, and number of publications in the broader

set of eight journals.

The appendix reveals that only 192 of 1,348 (14.2%) of the 1991–1997 graduates

published at least one article in at least one of the three premier accounting journals within

6 years of graduation, and that only 335 of 1,348 (24.9%) of them published at least one

article in at least one of the broader set of eight accounting journals within 6 years of

graduation. Figure 1 show the percent of total graduates who published one or more

articles. Panel A shows the distribution for the three premier accounting journals and panel

B shows the distribution for the broader set of eight accounting journals. About half of

those who published in either the three premier journals or the broader set of eight journals

published only once therein within 6 years of graduation, and only about 20% of those who

published in either the three premier journals or the broader set of eight journals published

more than twice therein within 6 years of graduation. Both figures show that only 14.2% of

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Number of Publications

Fre

quen

cy o

f G

rads

1.9%

7.0%

3.3%

1.1%0.4%0.3%

0.1% 0.0% 0.1%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Number of Publications

Fre

quen

cy o

f G

rads

13.2%

5.1%

2.6%2.3%

0.4%0.9%

0.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%

B

A

Fig. 1 (A) Frequency of graduates publishing in three premier journals. (B) Frequency of graduatespublishing in eight journals. Note: Number of graduates publishing as a percentage of total graduates (i.e.,1,348) is reported on the top of each bar


123

all 1,348 graduates published one or more articles in the three premier journals and about a

quarter of the graduates published at least one article in the eight journals.

3 Affiliation profile of 74 Ph.D. programs

We ranked all 74 programs from highest to lowest based on the magnitude of the percent of

Ph.D. graduates affiliated with the top 178 US accounting programs 6 years after gradu-

ation. Table 1 presents the results. Over 75% of graduates from the top three accounting

programs (Cornell, Rochester and Pennsylvania) were affiliated with the top 178 US

accounting programs 6 years after graduation. In contrast, none of the graduates of three

accounting programs (Florida International, Syracuse and Virginia Commonwealth) were

affiliated with any of the top 178 US accounting programs 6 years after graduation.

The 17 private schools, on average, have relatively more graduates affiliated with the

top 178 US accounting programs than do the 57 public schools (42.1% vs. 31.2%). We do

not undertake a significance test of this difference because the information pertains only to

74 of the 110 Ph.D. granting institutions in our sample (i.e., programs with six or more

graduates); and univariate analyses ignore factors past research has shown are related to

institutional affiliation. We conduct multivariate analyses below.

4 Publication profile of graduates from 74 Ph.D. programs

Table 2 presents the percent of Ph.D. graduates from the 74 schools publishing at least one

article in three premier accounting journals (panel A) and in the broader set of eight

accounting journals (panel B) within 6 years after graduation. We ranked the 47 schools

with at least one graduate publishing in three premier journals from 1 to 47, and we

assigned the rank 48 to all other 27 Ph.D. programs with zero graduates publishing in these

journals.11 Of the 47 schools with non-zero percents in the three premier journals, the

percent of Ph.D.s publishing in premier accounting journals 6 years out ranges from a high

of 77.8% (Pennsylvania, ranked 1st) to a low of 4.3% (Oklahoma State, ranked 47th).

While not tabulated, the Pearson correlation between our Table 1 placement rankings

and our panel A of Table 2 publication rankings is 0.81. Nevertheless, some schools rank

much higher in Table 1 than in panel A of Table 2 while others rank much higher in panel

A of Table 2 than in Table 1.12 The former group, indicating schools whose graduates

place better than their subsequent publication success merits, includes University of Texas-

Austin, University of Florida, Michigan State University, Ohio State University, University

of Southern California, and Arizona State University. The latter group, indicating schools

whose graduates’ subsequent publication success is better than their placement merits,

includes Stanford University, University of Minnesota, University of Arizona, Washington

University (Saint Louis), University of Iowa, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill,

New York University, and University of Pittsburgh.

11 We use Ph.D. graduate publication performance to rank accounting Ph.D. programs. Publication per-formance is a common method used to rank accounting programs (Chan et al. 2005). Other methods ofranking accounting Ph.D. programs are perception, citation, and working paper download (Brown andLaksmana 2004).12 The text discusses only those cases where a school is ranked in the top 20 based on at least one of the tworankings and whose Table 1 rank differs by more than five places from its Table 2 Panel A rank.


123

Table 1 Employment profile of 1991–1997 accounting Ph.D. graduates: 6 years after graduation

Rank Ph.D. granting school No. Ph.D. grads. 1991–1997 Grads. employed by TDNNranked schools (%)

1 Cornell 9 88.89

2 Rochester 11 81.82

3 Pennsylvania 9 77.78

4 California-Berkeley 13 69.23

4 Northwestern 13 69.23

6 Michigan 19 68.42

7 Michigan State 24 66.67

8 Arizona State 25 64.00

9 Stanford 16 62.50

10 Texas-Austin 41 60.98

11 Chicago 10 60.00

11 Washington-Seattle 20 60.00

13 Ohio State 27 59.26

14 Southern California 12 58.33

15 Indiana 26 57.69

16 Florida 16 56.25

17 Illinois 28 53.57

18 Central Florida 12 50.00

18 Iowa 12 50.00

20 Arizona 27 48.15

21 Penn State 25 48.00

22 Minnesota 21 47.62

23 Carnegie Mellon 9 44.44

24 Purdue 14 42.86

24 Washington-St. Louis 7 42.86

26 Colorado-Boulder 17 41.18

27 Connecticut 13 38.46

28 CUNY-Baruch College 11 36.36

28 Oregon 11 36.36

30 Case Western 6 33.33

30 Florida State 27 33.33

30 Missouri-Columbia 15 33.33

30 South Florida 9 33.33

30 Tennessee 21 33.33

30 UNC-Chapel Hill 9 33.33

36 Georgia 28 32.14

37 Texas A&M 36 30.56

38 Wisconsin-Madison 24 29.17

39 New York University 19 26.32

39 Pittsburgh 19 26.32

41 Oklahoma State 23 26.09

42 Columbia 12 25.00

42 SUNY-Buffalo 8 25.00


123

The graduates of the 17 private schools, on average, are more likely to publish in the

premier accounting journals 6 years after graduation than do the 57 public schools (27.0%

vs. 11.5%). We do not undertake a significance test of this difference for similar reasons we

offered above when discussing our affiliation results. We conduct multivariate analyses

below.

Table 1 continued

Rank Ph.D. granting school No. Ph.D. grads. 1991–1997 Grads. employed by TDNNranked schools (%)

42 Virginia Tech 24 25.00

45 South Carolina 21 23.81

45 Texas Tech 21 23.81

47 Maryland-College Park 13 23.08

48 Arkansas 18 22.22

49 North Texas 32 21.88

50 Cincinnati 10 20.00

50 Georgia State 15 20.00

50 Utah 10 20.00

53 Drexel 16 18.75

54 Rutgers 11 18.18

55 Louisiana State 17 17.65

56 Oklahoma 18 16.67

57 Kansas 13 15.38

57 Washington State 13 15.38

59 Texas-Arlington 20 15.00

60 Houston 28 14.29

60 Kent State 14 14.29

62 Kentucky 32 12.50

63 California-Los Angeles 9 11.11

63 Union 9 11.11

65 Mississippi 28 10.71

66 Alabama-Tuscaloosa 21 9.52

67 George Washington 12 8.33

68 Memphis 14 7.14

69 Temple 15 6.67

70 St Louis 16 6.25

71 Nebraska 24 4.17

72 Florida International 7 0.00

72 Syracuse 9 0.00

72 Virginia Commonwealth 18 0.00

Private schools (17 schools) 42.1

Public schools (57 schools) 31.2

Notes: Only 74 Ph.D. granting universities awarding at least six Ph.D. degrees in accounting between 1991and 1997 are reported. The requirement of six or more graduates is imposed to mitigate problems arisingfrom using ratios with small divisors. Private schools are italicized


123

Table 2 Publication profile of 1991–1997 accounting Ph.D. graduates: 6 years after graduation

Ph.D. grantingSchool

No. Ph.D. Grads.1991–1997

Panel A Panel B

Grads. publishingin 3 journals (%)

Rank Grads. publishingin 8 journals (%)

Rank

Pennsylvania 9 77.8 1 88.9 1

Stanford 16 68.8 2 68.8 3

Rochester 11 63.6 3 63.6 5

Northwestern 13 61.5 4 61.5 7

Michigan 19 57.9 5 63.2 6

Cornell 9 55.6 6 77.8 1

Iowa 12 50.0 7 66.7 4

California-Berkeley 13 46.2 8 53.8 9

Chicago 10 40.0 9 40.0 17

Indiana 26 38.5 10 42.3 16

Arizona 27 33.3 11 44.4 15

North Carolina-Chapel Hill 9 33.3 11 33.3 22

Washington-Seattle 20 30.0 13 50.0 11

Washington-St. Louis 7 28.6 14 57.1 8

Minnesota 21 28.6 14 47.6 13

Michigan State 24 25.0 16 33.3 22

Texas-Austin 41 24.4 17 39.0 18

Illinois 28 21.4 18 28.6 29

New York University 19 21.1 19 52.6 10

Pittsburgh 19 21.1 19 26.3 34

Wisconsin-Madison 24 20.8 21 25.0 35

Penn State 25 20.0 22 36.0 21

Florida 16 18.8 23 37.5 19

Ohio State 27 18.5 24 37.0 20

CUNY-Baruch College 11 18.2 25 18.2 40

Case Western 6 16.7 26 33.3 22

Georgia 28 14.3 27 28.6 29

Purdue 14 14.3 27 28.6 29

SUNY-Buffalo 8 12.5 29 25.0 35

Arizona State 25 12.0 30 28.0 32

Carnegie Mellon 9 11.1 31 22.2 37

Texas A&M 36 11.1 31 16.7 44

Oregon 11 9.1 33 18.2 40

Southern California 12 8.3 34 50.0 11

Connecticut 13 7.7 35 46.2 14

Maryland-College Park 13 7.7 35 15.4 45

Washington State 13 7.7 35 7.7 61

Florida State 27 7.4 38 29.6 28

Missouri-Columbia 15 6.7 39 26.7 33

Temple 15 6.7 39 13.3 46

Drexel 16 6.3 41 31.3 25


123

While not tabulated, the Pearson correlation between our panel A and panel B of

Table 2 publication rankings is 0.86. Nevertheless, some schools rank much higher in

panel A than in panel B while others rank much higher in panel B than in panel

Table 2 continued

Ph.D. grantingSchool

No. Ph.D. Grads.1991–1997

Panel A Panel B

Grads. publishingin 3 journals (%)

Rank Grads. publishingin 8 journals (%)

Rank

Colorado-Boulder 17 5.9 42 17.6 43

Virginia Commonwealth 18 5.6 43 22.2 37

Oklahoma 18 5.6 43 11.1 51

Texas-Arlington 20 5.0 45 5.0 63

South Carolina 21 4.8 46 4.8 64

Oklahoma State 23 4.3 47 13.0 48

Kansas 13 0.0 48 30.8 26

Cincinnati 10 0.0 48 30.0 27

Kent State 14 0.0 48 21.4 39

Houston 28 0.0 48 17.9 42

Georgia State 15 0.0 48 13.3 46

North Texas 32 0.0 48 12.5 49

Louisiana State 17 0.0 48 11.8 50

Union 9 0.0 48 11.1 51

California-Los Angeles 9 0.0 48 11.1 51

South Florida 9 0.0 48 11.1 51

Utah 10 0.0 48 10.0 55

Alabama-Tuscaloosa 21 0.0 48 9.5 56

Kentucky 32 0.0 48 9.4 57

Rutgers 11 0.0 48 9.1 58

George Washington 12 0.0 48 8.3 59

Nebraska 24 0.0 48 8.3 59

St Louis 16 0.0 48 6.3 62

Tennessee 21 0.0 48 4.8 64

Texas Tech 21 0.0 48 4.8 66

Virginia Tech 24 0.0 48 4.2 67

Mississippi 28 0.0 48 3.6 68

Columbia 12 0.0 48 0.0 69

Syracuse 9 0.0 48 0.0 69

Arkansas 18 0.0 48 0.0 69

Central Florida 12 0.0 48 0.0 69

Florida International 7 0.0 48 0.0 69

Memphis 14 0.0 48 0.0 69

Private schools (17 schools) 27.0 39.6

Public schools (57 schools) 11.5 22.2

Note: Only 74 Ph.D. granting universities awarding at least six Ph.D. degrees in accounting between 1991and 1997 are reported. The requirement of six or more graduates is imposed to mitigate problems arisingfrom using ratios with small divisors. Private schools are italicized


123

A.13 The former group, indicating schools whose graduates are relatively more likely to

publish in the premier journals versus in a broader set of journals, includes Carnegie

Mellon University, SUNY-Buffalo, Michigan State University, Indiana University,

Temple University, University of Oregon, University of Chicago, University of Mary-

land, University of Illinois, University of North Carolina, Texas A&M, University of

Wisconsin-Madison, CUNY-Baruch, and University of Pittsburgh. The latter group,

indicating schools whose graduates are relatively more likely to publish in a broader set

of journals than in the most premier journals, includes Washington University (Saint

Louis), University of Missouri, New York University, Florida State University, Uni-

versity of Connecticut, and University of Southern California.

5 Determinants of placement success

The Table 1 findings suggest that Ph.D. graduates from private schools are more likely

than those of public schools to be employed by the 178 ranked TDNN accounting pro-

grams 6 years after graduation, but these results do not use all 1,348 Ph.D. graduates in our

sample and ignore the following facts: (1) private schools are relatively more likely than

public schools to have higher accounting program ranks; (2) accounting program rank is

likely to be an important determinant of placement success; and (3) TDNN show other

variables that are significantly related to their proxy for research quality, namely: Total

faculty, percent of assistant professors, percent of full professors, and editorships. Thus, we

run the following multiple regression equation:

Placement Success ¼ b1 þ b2� Degree Rankþ b3� Privateþ b4� Total Facultyþb5� Percent Assistantþ b6� Percent Fullþ b7� Editorships

where Placement Success is –1 multiplied by the TDNN accounting program rank of the

institution the individual is affiliated with. The program rankings range from the highest

( = –1) to the lowest ( = –179).14

Degree Rank is –1 multiplied by the TDNN rank of the accounting program from which

the individual graduated.

Private is a dummy variable indicating if the institution from which the individual

graduated is private (coded 1) or public (coded 0).

Total Faculty is the number of tenure-track faculty from all ranks at the degree school in

1994, excluding visiting faculty, non-tenure track faculty (e.g., lecturers and executive

professors), faculty holding administrative appointments (e.g., deans), and emeritus

faculty.15

Percent Assistant is the number of tenure-track assistant professors as a percent of total

tenure-track faculty at the degree school in 1994.

13 The text discusses only those cases where a school is ranked in the top 40 based on the percent of itsgraduates who published in the three premier journals and whose rank differs by more than five places in thetwo panels.14 Similar to our univariate analyses, we code all accounting programs not ranked by TDNN as equal to179. We multiply ranks by minus one to facilitate interpretation of results. A positive coefficient indicatesthat higher ranked schools are more likely to place their graduates in higher ranked schools.15 We assume that faculty size is approximately steady during the examination period (1991–1997). Thus,we use the 1994 faculty size and composition of the degree schools in our multivariate analyses.


123

Percent Full is the number of tenure-track full professors as a percent of total tenure-

track faculty at the degree school in 1994.

Editorships are the number of years during 1991–1997 that the degree school was home

to an editor or associate editor of TAR, JAR or JAE.16

We expect the coefficient on Degree Rank to be positive because past research has

shown that the quality of the institution where the individual is employed is positively

related to the quality of the institution wherefrom the individual graduated (Fogarty and

Ruhl, 1997). We expect the signs of the coefficients on Total Faculty, Percent Assistant,

Percent Full, and Editorships to be positive since TDNN find them to be positive and

significant in their regressions, and both their dependent variable and ours measure

research quality. Based on the arguments we made in the introduction, we expect the sign

of the coefficient on Private to be positive.

We present our results in Table 3. As expected, the coefficients of Degree Rank (b2) and

Private (b3) are positive and significant (at the 0.05 level or better, one-tailed).17 Consistent

Table 3 Determinants of placement success. Placement success = b1 + b2*Degree Rank + b3*Private +b4*Total Faculty + b5*Percent Assistant + b6*Percent Full + b7*Editorships

Independent variable Predicted sign Coefficient (t-stat.)

Intercept ? –143.68 (–15.19)***

Degree Rank + 0.25 (7.40)***

Private + 8.47 (2.02)**

Total Faculty + 0.11 (0.39)

Percent Assistant + –5.89 (–0.56)

Percent Full + 20.49 (1.87)**

Editorships + 5.97 (7.70)***

N 1,348

Adj. R2 18.12%

F-Statistic 50.53***

Note: t-statistics are in parentheses

*** (**) indicates significance at the 0.01 (0.05) level based on a one- or two-tailed test as appropriate

Placement success is the TDNN (2000) accounting program rank of the school that the individual isemployed at

Degree Rank is the TDNN (2000) rank of the accounting program from which the individual graduated

Private is a dummy variable indicating whether the institution from which the individual graduated is private(=1) or public (=0)

Total Faculty is the number of tenure-track faculty from all ranks at the degree school in 1994, excludingvisiting faculty, non-tenure track faculty (e.g., lecturers and executive professors), faculty holding admin-istrative appointments (e.g., deans), and emeritus faculty

Percent Assistant is the number of tenure-track assistant professors as percent of total tenure-track faculty atthe degree school in 1994

Percent Full is the number of tenure-track full professors as percent of total tenure-track faculty at the degreeschool in 1994

Editorships are the number of years during 1991–1997 that the degree school was home to an editor orassociate editor of TAR, JAR or JAE

16 In untabulated results, we find that the results are robust to using editorships of the broader set of eightjournals.17 Since the highest (lowest) ranked program has a Degree Rank of –1 (–179), a positive coefficient revealsthat private schools do a better job of placing their graduates.


123

with TDNN, Percent Full and Editorships are significant determinants of our proxy for

research quality (Ph.D. placements), but, in contrast to TDNN, we do not find Total Faculty

or Percent Assistant to be significant. Thus, institutional status matters for affiliation

success, i.e., Ph.D. graduates of private schools are relatively more likely to be affiliated

with higher ranked schools 6 years after graduation.

6 Determinants of publication success

The Table 2 results suggest that Ph.D. graduates of private schools are relatively more likely

than those of public schools to publish in premier accounting journals within 6 years after

graduation but these results do not use all 1,348 Ph.D. graduates in our sample and ignore the

following facts: (1) private schools are relatively more likely than public schools to have

higher accounting program ranks; (2) accounting program rank of an individual’s doctoral

program is likely to be an important determinant of publication success; (3) accounting

program rank of the individual’s affiliated school is likely to be an important determinant of

publication success; and (4) TDNN identify other variables significantly impacting faculty

publication success: total faculty, percent of assistant professors, percent of full professors,

and editorships. Thus, we run the following multiple regression equation:

Publication Success ¼ b1 þ b2� Degree Rankþ b3� Privateþ b4� Affiliation Rankþb5� Total Facultyþ b6� Percent Assistantþ b7� Percent Fullþ b8� Editorships

where Publication Success is defined in two ways: (1) number of articles the individual

published in accounting journals, and (2) whether the individual published in accounting

journals (coded 1 or 0 for yes or no, respectively), where we consider both three premier

journals and a broader set of eight journals.18

Degree Rank is –1 multiplied by the TDNN rank of the accounting program that the

individual graduated from.

Private is a dummy variable indicating whether the institution from which the individual

graduated is private (coded 1) or public (coded 0).

Affiliation Rank is –1 multiplied by the TDNN rank of the accounting program with

which the individual is affiliated.

Total Faculty is the number of tenure-track faculty from all ranks at the degree school in

1994, excluding visiting faculty, non-tenure track faculty (e.g., lecturers and executive

professors), faculty holding administrative appointments (e.g., deans), and emeritus faculty.

Percent Assistant is the number of tenure-track assistant professors as a percent of total

tenure-track faculty in the degree school in 1994.

Percent Full is the number of tenure-track full professors as a percent of total tenure-

track faculty in the degree school in 1994.

Editorships are the number of years during 1991–1997 that the degree school was home

to an editor or an associate editor of at least one accounting journal. We consider only the

three premier journals when our dependent variable is publication success in the three

journals, and the boarder set of eight accounting journals when our dependent variable is

publication success in the eight journals.

18 We use ordinary least squares regression for modeling number of publications and logistic regression formodeling whether or not the individual published in the three premier journals or the broader set of eightjournals.


123

We expect the coefficients of Degree Rank and Affiliation Rank to be positive as

graduates of higher ranked programs and individuals affiliated with higher ranked pro-

grams have better resources to help them publish in the premier accounting journals. We

expect Total Faculty, Percent Assistant, Percent Full, and Editorships to be positive since

TDNN find them to be positive and significant in their regressions. Consistent with TDNN,

we expect the sign of Private to be insignificant once we control for Degree Rank and

Affiliation Rank along with the variables that TDNN found to be significant.

We run four regressions, two for our above two measures of publication success and two

for the number of journals we consider, three and eight, respectively. We present our

results in Table 4, where panel A (B) contains results for the three (eight) accounting

journals. As expected, Affiliation Rank is positive and significant in all regressions (at the

0.01 level, one-tailed). Degree Rank is significant only in the publish/not publish regres-

sions (at the 0.01 level, one-tailed). Consistent with TDNN, Editorships is positive in all

regressions and significant in three of them (p-value \ 0.01, one-tailed). In contrast to

TDNN, Percent Assistant and Percent Full are insignificant while Total Faculty is negative

and significant in two regressions. Consistent with TDNN, Private is insignificant,

revealing that institutional status does not matter for publication by Ph.D. graduates in the

premier accounting journals and the eight journals once we control for Degree Rank,

Affiliation Rank, and the control variables that TDNN found to be significant.

It may seem that our affiliation success results contradict both our publication success

results and the TDNN publication success results. We do not believe this is so, and we

offer the following plausible scenario for reconciling the results. Ranked schools recognize

that private school graduates, on average, are better trained than public school graduates so

they are more likely to hire private school graduates (our Table 3 results). Ranked schools

hire those (albeit fewer) public school graduates who are just as likely to succeed at the

publication game as are the graduates of the private schools. The fact that institutional

status matters neither for publication by Ph.D. graduates (our results) nor by faculty

(TDNN results) is consistent with each other and with our affiliation results.

7 Determinants of publication success by article type

Having shown that institutional status of the graduating institution does not matter for pub-

lication success, we examine if our findings for publishing in the three premier journals are

robust to four article types: (1) articles based on dissertations, (2) co-authored articles with

faculty from degree granting institutions, (3) co-authored articles with Ph.D. students from

degree granting institutions, and (4) co-authored articles with faculty from affiliated insti-

tutions. It is plausible that our unconditional findings do not hold for all article categories. For

example, a thesis developed at a private school may be more likely to be published if it utilized

better data, subjects, software, or if it had a more research-oriented thesis committee.

Table 5 reports results of four logistic regressions. Our dependent variable is the author

publishes (coded 1) or does not publish (coded 0) a particular article type in a premier

accounting journal. In general, our Table 5 results mirror our Table 4 results. More spe-

cifically, Degree Rank is positive and significant in all four cases (at the 0.05 level or

better, one-tailed). Affiliation Rank is positive and significant in all four cases (at the 0.01

level, one-tailed). Graduating institutional status (Private) is not positive and significant in

any of the regressions, suggesting that individuals graduating from private universities do

not have a publication advantage with respect to any of the four article types we examine,

once we control for other factors. Interestingly, individuals graduating from private


123

universities are at a publication disadvantage with respect to co-authored articles with

faculty from degree granting institution, suggesting that faculty at public institutions are

more likely to work with their best graduates (perhaps because they have relatively fewer

Ph.D. students with such publication skills). It is evident that our unconditional finding that

Table 4 Determinants of publication success. Publication success = b1 + b2*Degree Rank + b3*Private +b4*Affiliation Rank + b5*Total Faculty + b6*Percent Assistant + b7*Percent Full + b8*Editorships

Independentvariable

Predictedsign

Panel A Panel B

No. publication in3 journals(N = 1,348)

Publish/Not publishin 3 journals(N = 1,348)

No. publicationin 8 journals(N = 1,348)

Publish/not publishin 8 journals(N = 1,348)

Intercept ? 1.31 (9.17)*** 0.53 (1.67) 1.92 (10.53)*** 0.42 (1.97)

DegreeRank

+ 0.0005 (0.99) 0.01 (18.98)*** 0.0009 (1.52) 0.003 (6.52)***

Private ? 0.003 (0.05) 0.09 (0.38) 0.07 (0.96) 0.13 (1.29)

Affiliationrank

+ 0.01 (17.45)*** 0.01 (155.27)*** 0.01 (19.62)*** 0.01 (167.83)***

Total Faculty + –0.01 (–2.62)+++ –0.01 (1.30) –0.01 (–1.65) 0.002 (0.04)

PercentAssistant

+ 0.006 (0.04) 0.22 (0.27) 0.07 (0.39) 0.36 (1.29)

Percent Full + 0.01 (0.09) 0.23 (0.24) 0.07 (0.36) 0.18 (0.29)

Editorships + 0.08 (7.06)*** 0.03 (1.56) 0.05 (4.51)*** 0.04 (5.90)***

N 1348 1348 1348 1348

Adj. R2 31.68% 32.70%

F-Statistic 89.97*** 94.21***

v2 statistic 385.97*** 330.89***

t-statistics (v2 statistics) are in parentheses for the OLS (logistic) regressions

*** (**) indicates significance at the 0.01 (0.05) level based on a one- or two-tailed test as appropriate

+++ indicates unpredicted sign, significant at the 0.01 level based on a one- or two-tailed test as appropriate

Publication success is defined in two ways: (1) number of articles the individual published in the three(eight) accounting journals, and (2) whether the individual published in the three (eight) accounting journals(coded 1 or 0 for yes or no, respectively). We use ordinary least squares (OLS) regression for modelingnumber of publications and logistic regression for modeling whether or not the individual published in thethree (eight) journals

Degree Rank is the TDNN (2000) rank of the accounting program from which the individual graduated

Private is a dummy variable indicating whether the institution from which the individual graduated is private(=1) or public (=0)

Affiliation rank is the TDNN (2000) rank of the accounting program at which the individual is employed

Total Faculty is the number of tenure-track faculty from all ranks at the degree school in 1994, excludingvisiting faculty, non-tenure track faculty (e.g., lecturers and executive professors), faculty holding admin-istrative appointments (e.g., deans), and emeritus faculty

Percent Assistant is the number of tenure-track assistant professors as percent of total tenure-track faculty inthe degree school in 1994

Percent Full is the number of tenure-track full professors as percent of total tenure-track faculty in the degreeschool in 1994

Editorships are the number of years during 1991–1997 that the degree school was home to an editor orassociate editor of any of the three (eight) journals


123

Ta

ble

5D

eter

min

ants

of

pu

bli

cati

on

succ

ess

inth

eto

pth

ree

journ

als

by

arti

cle

typ

ear

ticl

ety

pe

=b 1

+b

2*

Deg

ree

Ran

k+

b 3*

Pri

vat

e+

b4*

Affi

liat

ion

Ran

k+

b 5*

To

tal

Fac

ult

y+

b 6*

Per

cen

tA

ssis

tan

t+

b7*

Per

cen

tF

ull

+b

8*

Ed

ito

rsh

ips

Ind

epen

den

tv

aria

ble

Inte

rcep

tD

egre

eR

ank

Pri

vat

eA

ffili

atio

nra

nk

To

tal

Fac

ult

yP

erce

nt

Ass

ista

nt

Per

cen

tF

ull

Ed

ito

rsh

ips

v2st

atis

tic

Pre

dic

ted

sign

?+

?+

++

++

Publi

shdis

sert

atio

n0.8

1(1

.53)

0.0

3(1

3.2

4)*

**

–0.2

4(1

.47)

0.0

1(6

2.4

9)*

**

–0.0

1(0

.30)

–0.3

4(0

.33)

–1.0

1(2

.02)

0.0

1(0

.07)

218.9

8***

Publi

shw

ith

deg

ree

school

facu

lty

–0.5

7(1

.13)

0.0

1(1

2.6

0)*

**

–0.3

4(3

.18)+

0.0

1(4

0.1

7)*

**

0.0

0(0

.11)

0.5

1(0

.93)

0.5

6(0

.83)

0.0

0(0

.01)

127.9

5***

Publi

shw

ith

deg

ree

school

Ph.D

.st

uden

t–0.1

2(0

.04)

0.0

1(4

.82)*

*–0.1

2(0

.33)

0.0

1(3

9.5

7)*

**

–0.0

2(2

.86)+

+–0.2

2(0

.14)

–0.2

1(0

.10)

0.0

4(1

.32)

124.4

2***

Publi

shw

ith

affi

liat

edsc

hool

facu

lty

0.0

1(0

.00)

0.0

1(5

.68)*

**

–0.1

8(0

.78)

0.0

1(6

7.2

5)*

**

–0.0

3(4

.53)+

+0.3

3(0

.34)

0.0

7(0

.01)

0.0

7(3

.56)*

*223.4

1***

Res

ult

sar

ebas

edon

logis

tic

regre

ssio

ns

v2st

atis

tics

are

inp

aren

thes

es

**

*(*

*)

indic

ates

sign

ifica

nce

atth

e0

.01

(0.0

5)

lev

elb

ased

on

ao

ne-

or

two

-tai

led

test

asap

pro

pri

ate

++

(+)

ind

icat

esu

np

red

icte

dsi

gn

,si

gn

ifica

nt

atth

e0

.05

(0.1

0)

lev

elb

ased

on

ao

ne-

or

two

-tai

led

test

asap

pro

pri

ate

Dis

sert

atio

nis

1if

the

indiv

idual

publi

shed

her

/his

dis

sert

atio

nin

the

thre

epre

mie

rjo

urn

als;

0oth

erw

ise

Deg

ree

sch

ool

facu

lty

is1

ifth

ein

div

idual

pu

bli

shed

aco

auth

ore

dar

ticl

ein

the

thre

ep

rem

ier

journ

als

wit

ha

facu

lty

from

sch

oo

lo

fd

egre

e;0

oth

erw

ise

Deg

ree

Sch

oo

lP

h.D

.S

tud

ent

is1

ifth

ein

div

idu

alp

ub

lish

eda

coau

tho

red

arti

cle

inth

eth

ree

pre

mie

rjo

urn

als

wit

ha

fell

ow

Ph

.D.

stu

den

tfr

om

sch

ool

of

deg

ree;

0oth

erw

ise

Affi

liat

edsc

ho

ol

facu

lty

is1

ifth

ein

div

idu

alp

ub

lish

eda

coau

tho

red

arti

cle

inth

eth

ree

pre

mie

rjo

urn

als

wit

ha

facu

lty

fro

msc

ho

ol

of

emp

loym

ent;

0oth

erw

ise

Deg

ree

Ran

kis

the

TD

NN

(20

00)

rank

of

the

acco

un

tin

gp

rog

ram

from

wh

ich

the

indiv

idu

alg

rad

uat

ed

Pri

vat

eis

ad

um

my

var

iab

lein

dic

atin

gw

het

her

the

inst

itu

tio

nfr

om

wh

ich

the

ind

ivid

ual

gra

du

ated

isp

riv

ate

(=1

)o

rp

ub

lic

(=0)

Affi

liat

ion

rank

isth

eT

DN

N(2

000)

rank

of

the

acco

unti

ng

pro

gra

mat

whic

hth

ein

div

idual

isem

plo

yed

To

tal

Fac

ult

yis

the

nu

mb

ero

fte

nu

re-t

rack

facu

lty

from

all

ran

ks

atth

ed

egre

esc

ho

ol

in1

99

4,ex

clud

ing

vis

itin

gfa

cult

y,n

on

-ten

ure

trac

kfa

cult

y(e

.g.,

lect

ure

rsan

dex

ecuti

ve

pro

fess

ors

),fa

cult

yh

old

ing

adm

inis

trat

ive

app

oin

tmen

ts(e

.g.,

dea

ns)

,an

dem

erit

us

facu

lty

Per

cen

tA

ssis

tan

tis

the

nu

mb

ero

fte

nu

re-t

rack

assi

stan

tp

rofe

sso

rsas

per

cen

to

fto

tal

ten

ure

-tra

ckfa

cult

yin

the

deg

ree

sch

ool

in1

99

4

Per

cen

tF

ull

isth

en

um

ber

of

ten

ure

-tra

ckfu

llp

rofe

sso

rsas

per

cen

to

fto

tal

ten

ure

-tra

ckfa

cult

yin

the

deg

ree

sch

ool

in1

99

4

Ed

itors

hip

sar

eth

en

um

ber

of

yea

rsd

uri

ng

19

91

–1

99

7th

atth

ed

egre

esc

ho

ol

was

ho

me

toan

edit

or

or

asso

ciat

eed

ito

ro

fT

AR

,JA

R,

or

JAE


123

graduates of private schools do not have more publication success, controlling for such

factors as rank of both the graduating and affiliated institutions, pertains to all four article

types (conditions) we examine.

Total Faculty, Percent Assistant, and Percent Full are not positive and significant in any

of the four regressions. Editorships is significant in only in the Affiliated School Faculty

regressions (p-value \ 0.05, one-tailed). Thus, it appears that our Table 4 results for

Editorships are driven by this article type.

8 Summary

We identify 1,348 Ph.D. graduates from 110 US schools during the 7-year period, 1991–

1997. We examine the affiliation success and publication success 6 years after graduation

as it is the time horizon for most tenure decisions. Our multivariate analyses define

affiliation success as the accounting ranking of the school they are affiliated with, based on

the rankings by Trieschmann et al. (2000) [TDNN]. Similar to TDNN, we define publi-

cation success as publishing in the three most premier accounting journals: The AccountingReview, Journal of Accounting Research and Journal of Accounting and Economics. In

addition, we extend their analyses by considering publications in a broader set of eight

accounting journals: the three premier accounting journals plus Contemporary AccountingResearch, Journal of Accounting Auditing and Finance, Journal of Accounting and PublicPolicy, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, and Review of Quantitative Financeand Accounting.

We identify 74 US schools that graduated six or more accounting Ph.D.s during 1991–

1997, and we rank them on two dimensions: percent of Ph.D.s affiliated with the top 178

TDNN accounting ranked US schools (Table 1) and percent of Ph.D.s publishing at least

one article in a premier accounting journal (panel A of Table 2) or a in a broader set of

eight accounting journals (panel B of Table 2). We show that our Tables 1 and 2 panel A

ranks are highly associated with each other (Pearson correlation = 0.81), but that some

schools are considerably more highly ranked based on affiliation success than on publi-

cation success (e.g., Arizona State) while others are considerably more highly ranked based

on publication success than on affiliation success (e.g., Arizona).

We model affiliations of all 1,348 Ph.D. graduates from all 110 schools based on the

graduating school’s institutional status (private or public), TDNN accounting rank of

graduating institution, and the four other variables TDNN found to be significant. We show

that Ph.D. graduates of private schools are more likely to be affiliated with ranked schools,

even after controlling for rank of graduating institution and four TDNN variables.

We model publications of all 1,348 Ph.D. graduates based on institutional status (private

or public), TDNN accounting rank of graduating institution, TDNN accounting rank of

affiliated institution, and four control variables suggested by TDNN. We show that Ph.D.

graduates of private schools do not publish more in the premier journals or the broader set

of eight journals, and that this result pertains to all four article types we examined for the

three premier journals: (1) articles based on dissertations, (2) co-authored articles with

degree school faculty, (3) co-authored articles with degree school Ph.D. students, and (4)

co-authored articles with affiliated faculty. Thus, it is evident that institutional status of the

graduating institution does not matter for publication, either by faculty members (TDNN

result) or by Ph.D. graduates (our results).

We close with some caveats. First, we rely on TDNN data and Hasselback data so our

results are only as reliable as are these data. However, any data errors therein are likely to


123

be random so measurement errors should not induce an a priori bias into our results.

Second, we define publication success as articles published in three premier journals or a

broader set of eight journals. We recognize that most journals used in the present study

publish a larger percent of financial articles than is representative of the accounting

academy (Brown 2003) so our publication results are biased against programs focusing on

such areas as tax and accounting information systems. Third, public schools have become

more dependent in recent years on private sources, blurring the distinction between public

and private schools. However, this has the effect of reducing the power of our tests, making

it harder for us to find that institutional status matters for affiliation success. Fourth, we

document that institutional status of graduating institution does not exert a direct effect on

publication success. However, we show that it exerts an indirect effect via its impact on

institutional affiliation, which is an important determinant of publication success. Thus, our

results should not be interpreted as the graduates of public institutions publish as much as

do graduates of private institutions. Indeed, graduates of public institutions generally

publish relatively less, partly because they are relatively less likely to be affiliated with

ranked schools.

Acknowledgments We thank Alan Dennis for accounting program rankings data. We thank Nan Liu forresearch assistance and Sudipta Basu, Robert Bowen, Marcus Caylor, Liyu Luo, and Alan Reinstein forhelpful comments.

Appendix

Appendix A 1991–1997 US accounting Ph.D. graduates publishing in the three premier journals and eightjournals

Last name Firstname

YearGrad.

School ofdegree

Institutional affiliation6 years after graduation

No. publication6 years aftergraduation

In 3journals

In 8journals

Sloan Richard G. 1992 Rochester Michigan 9 10

Kasznik Ron 1995 California-Berkeley Stanford 7 7

Amir Eli 1991 California-Berkeley Columbia 6 9

Dechow P.M. 1993 Rochester Michigan 6 7

Maydew Edward L. 1993 Iowa Chicago 6 7

Aboody David 1995 California-Berkeley California-Los Angeles 6 6

Erickson Merle 1996 Arizona Chicago 6 6

Jacob John 1995 Northwestern Colorado-Denver 6 6

Gigler Frank B. 1992 Minnesota Chicago 5 5

Kennedy Jane 1992 Duke Washington-Seattle 5 5

Stanford-Harris Mary 1994 Michigan Syracuse 5 5


123

Appendix A continued

Last name Firstname

YearGrad.

School ofdegree


No. publication6 yearsafter graduation

In 3journals

In 8journals

Wong M. H. Franco 1997 Pennsylvania Chicago 5 5

Subramanyam K. R. 1993 Wisconsin-Madison Southern California 4 6

Arya Anil 1991 Iowa Ohio State 4 5

Bushee Brian 1997 Michigan Pennsylvania 4 5

Glover Jonathan 1992 Ohio State Carnegie Mellon 4 5

Bloomfield Robert J. 1992 Michigan Cornell 4 4

D’ Sousa Julia 1995 Northwestern Cornell 4 4

Hanna J. Douglas 1991 Cornell Chicago 4 4

Hutton Amy P. 1992 Rochester Harvard 4 4

Ittner Christopher D. 1992 Harvard Pennsylvania 4 4

Kemsley Deen 1995 N. Carolina-Chapel Hill

Columbia 4 4

Muller Karl A., III 1997 Illinois Penn State 4 4

Nelson Karen K. 1996 Michigan Stanford 4 4

Peecher Mark E. 1994 Illinois Illinois 4 4

Vincent Linda 1995 Northwestern Northwestern 4 4

Walther Beverly 1995 Chicago Northwestern 4 4

Barron Orie 1993 Oregon Penn State 3 5

Mayhew Brian 1997 Arizona Wisconsin-Madison 3 5

Rees Lynn 1994 Arizona State Texas A&M 3 5

Ashbaugh Hollis 1997 Iowa Wisconsin-Madison 3 4

Ayers Benjamin 1996 Texas-Austin Georgia 3 4

Beatty Anne 1992 MIT Penn State 3 4

Clement Michael B. 1997 Stanford Texas-Austin 3 4

Hayes Rachel M. 1996 Stanford Chicago 3 4

Hirst D. Eric 1992 Minnesota Texas-Austin 3 4

Venkatachalam Mohan 1996 Iowa Stanford 3 4

Wahlen James M. 1991 Michigan N. Carolina-Chapel Hill 3 4

Willenborg Michael 1996 Penn State Connecticut 3 4

Billings Bruce K. 1996 Penn State Florida State 3 3

Eldenburg Leslie 1991 Washington-Seattle Arizona 3 3

Engel Ellen 1997 Stanford Chicago 3 3

Frankel Richard 1993 Stanford Michigan 3 3

Hopkins Patrick E. 1995 Texas-Austin Indiana 3 3

Matsunaga Steven R. 1992 Washington-Seattle Oregon 3 3

Mills Lillian F. 1996 Michigan Arizona 3 3


123


Last name Firstname

YearGrad.

School ofdegree



In 3journals

In 8journals

Myers James N. 1997 Michigan Illinois 3 3

Nanda D. J. 1997 Rochester Michigan 3 3

Noe Christopher 1996 Rochester n/a 3 3

Rock Steve 1996 Penn State Colorado 3 3

Schrand Catherine M. 1994 Chicago Pennsylvania 3 3

Sprinkle Geoffrey B. 1996 Iowa Indiana 3 3

Johnstone Karla M. 1997 Connecticut Wisconsin-Madison 2 5

Chamberlain Sandra 1991 Chicago Santa Clara 2 4

Cloyd C. Bryan 1992 Indiana Texas 2 4

Houston Richard W. 1995 Indiana Alabama-Tuscaloosa 2 4

Huddart Steven J. 1991 Yale Duke 2 4

Schwartz Rachel 1994 Northwestern Washington-St Louis 2 4

Soo Billy S. 1991 Northwestern Boston College 2 4

Whisenant Scott 1997 Oklahoma Houston 2 4

Beasley Mark S. 1994 Michigan State N. Carolina State 2 3

Duru Augustine 1997 Maryland-CollegePark

American U. 2 3

Hogan Chris E. 1994 Ohio State Vanderbilt 2 3

Klassen Kenneth J. 1995 Stanford Waterloo 2 3

Krishnan Jagan 1991 Ohio State Temple 2 3

Lehavy Reuven 1997 Northwestern California-Berkeley 2 3

Marquardt Carol 1997 Cornell New York Univ. 2 3

Peters Michael F. 1996 Indiana Maryland-College Park

2 3

Pfeiffer Ray J., Jr. 1994 N. Carolina-Chapel Hill

Massachusetts 2 3

Ramesh K. 1991 Michigan State Rochester 2 3

Ahmed Anwar S. 1992 Rochester Florida 2 2

Alles Michael 1991 Stanford Texas 2 2

Berger Philip G. 1992 Chicago Pennsylvania 2 2

Botosan Christine 1995 Michigan Utah 2 2

Calegari Michael 1996 Arizona Santa Clara 2 2

Cheon Youngsoon Susan 1994 Georgia Chung-Ang 2 2

Core John E. 1995 Pennsylvania Pennsylvania 2 2

Dichev Ilia D 1995 Washington-Seattle

Michigan 2 2

Frankel Micah 1991 Arizona Cal. State-Hayward 2 2


123


Last name Firstname

YearGrad.

School ofdegree



In 3journals

In 8journals

Keating A. Scott 1995 Harvard Chicago 2 2

Leone Andrew J. 1997 Pittsburgh Rochester 2 2

Liu Chi-Chun 1994 New YorkUniversity

National Taiwan U. 2 2

Liu Chao-Shin 1992 Illinois Notre Dame 2 2

Lo May H. 1992 Drexel W. New England 2 2

Luft Joan L. 1992 Cornell Michigan State 2 2

Martin Roger D. 1996 Texas-Austin Indiana 2 2

Park Chul W. 1994 Washington-St. Louis Hong Kong Sc 2 2

Peffer Sean A. 1996 Indiana Kentucky 2 2

Plumlee Marlene A. 1997 Michigan Utah 2 2

Seida Jim A. 1997 Texas A&M Notre Dame 2 2

Spilker Brian C. 1993 Texas-Austin Brigham Young 2 2

Srinivasan Dhinu 1997 Minnesota Pittsburgh 2 2

Takeda Carolyn 1994 Florida n/a 2 2

Tan Hun-Tong 1992 Michigan Nanyang Tech 2 2

Wallace James S. 1996 Washington-Seattle California-Irvine 2 2

Yohn TeriLombardi

1991 Indiana Georgetown 2 2

Zimbelman Mark 1996 Arizona Brigham Young 2 2

Gramling Audrey A. 1995 Arizona Wake Forest 1 4

Hwang Lee-Seok 1994 New YorkUniversity

CUNY-BaruchCollege

1 4

Kirschenheiter Michael 1995 Northwestern Columbia 1 4

Payne Jeff L. 1995 Florida Mississippi 1 4

Ramsay Robert J. 1991 Indiana Kentucky 1 4

Wilkins Michael S. 1994 Arizona Texas A&M 1 4

Glover Steven M. 1994 Washington-Seattle

Brigham Young 1 3

Kadous Kathryn 1996 Illinois Washington-Seattle 1 3

Paterson Jeffrey S. 1995 Georgia Florida State 1 3

Benartzi Shlomo 1994 Cornell California-Los Angeles 1 2

Bhattacharjee Sudip 1997 Massachusetts Virginia Tech 1 2

Bryan Stephen H. 1994 New York University Wake Forest-MBA 1 2

Caplan Dennis 1994 California-Berkeley

Columbia 1 2

Chan Kam C. 1991 South Carolina Jersey City 1 2

Dutta Sunil 1994 Minnesota California-Berkeley 1 2


123


Last name Firstname

YearGrad.

School ofdegree



In 3journals

In 8journals

Elder Randal J. 1993 Michigan State Syracuse 1 2

Hunton James E. 1994 Texas-Arlington

South Florida 1 2

Kim Sungsoo 1993 CUNY-BaruchCollege

Minnesota-Duluth 1 2

Kim Kwon-Jung 1991 SUNY-Buffalo Sook Myung 1 2

Levine Carolyn B. 1996 Carnegie Mellon Carnegie Mellon 1 2

Lynn Stephen G. 1997 New YorkUniversity

City Univ HK 1 2

McAnally Mary Lea 1994 Stanford Texas 1 2

Mishra Birendra 1996 Texas-Austin Texas-Dallas 1 2

Natarajan Ramachandran 1992 Pennsylvania Southern Methodist 1 2

Newberry Kaye J. 1994 Arizona State Arizona 1 2

Noland Thomas R. 1992 Illinois Houston 1 2

Shaw Kenneth W. 1995 Wisconsin-Madison

Maryland-College Park 1 2

Simko Paul J. 1996 Texas-Austin Emory 1 2

Stinson Christopher H. 1993 Stanford Texas-Austin 1 2

Taylor Gary 1996 Ohio State Alabama-Hunt 1 2

Williams Michael 1996 SouthernCalifornia

California-Los Angeles 1 2

Adiel Ron 1994 Pennsylvania n/a 1 1

Anctil Regina M. 1993 Minnesota California-Berkeley 1 1

Anderson Shannon W. 1993 Harvard Michigan 1 1

Atwood T.J. 1995 Illinois Missouri 1 1

Balsam Steven 1991 CUNY-BaruchCollege

Temple 1 1

Basu Sudipta 1995 Rochester CUNY-Baruch College 1 1

Chandar Nandini 1997 Case Western Rutgers-New Brunswick 1 1

Chase Bruce W. 1991 Virginia Comm Radford 1 1

Choi Byeonghee (Ben) 1994 Iowa McGill Univ. 1 1

Coller Maribeth 1991 Indiana South Carolina 1 1

Conrad Edward J. 1991 Florida State Akron 1 1

Davis-Friday Paquita Y. 1996 Michigan Notre Dame 1 1

Doogar Rajib 1994 Penn State Illinois 1 1

Ducharme Larry 1994 Washington-Seattle

n/a 1 1

Finger Catherine A. 1991 California-Berkeley

Illinois 1 1


123


Last name Firstname

YearGrad.

School ofdegree



In 3journals

In 8journals

Finn Mark W. 1995 Cornell Northwestern 1 1

Geisler Greg C. 1995 N. Carolina-Chapel Hill

Georgia State 1 1

Gill Susan 1994 MichiganState

Washington State 1 1

Greenstein Marilyn Magee 1991 Temple Lehigh 1 1

Han Bong H. 1991 Texas-Austin Ajou Univ. 1 1

Heflin Frank 1992 Purdue Wisconsin-Madison 1 1

Heninger William G. 1997 Georgia Brigham Young 1 1

Henning Steven L. 1994 Wisconsin-Madison

Southern Methodist 1 1

Hughes K. E. II 1996 Georgia Louisiana State 1 1

Hyatt Troy A. 1995 Arizona Northern Iowa 1 1

Janakiraman Surya N. 1994 Pennsylvania Texas-Dallas 1 1

Key Kimberly Galligan 1995 MichiganState

Auburn 1 1

Kim Chung K. 1994 Pittsburgh Hong Kong Sc 1 1

Kim Myung-Sun 1995 Purdue Missouri 1 1

Lee Seok-Young 1992 Minnesota n/a 1 1

Lin Hsiou-wei 1994 Stanford National Chengchi 1 1

Lindquist Tim M. 1991 Colorado-Boulder

Northern Iowa 1 1

Louwers Timothy J. 1993 Florida State Houston 1 1

Moehrle Stephen R. 1997 Indiana Missouri-St Louis 1 1

Mohrman Mary Beth 1994 Washington-St. Louis

Missouri-St Louis 1 1

Mukherji Arijit 1991 Pittsburgh Minnesota 1 1

Narayanan V.G. 1996 Stanford Harvard 1 1

Nutter Sarah E. 1993 MichiganState

George Mason 1 1

Philliphs Fred 1996 Texas-Austin Saskatchewan 1 1

Prawitt Douglas F. 1993 Arizona Brigham Young 1 1

Price Renee A. 1993 Texas A&M William & Mary 1 1

Ramnath Sundaresh 1996 Penn State Georgetown 1 1

Rangan Srinivasan 1995 Pennsylvania California-Davis 1 1

Rau Stephen E. 1997 Pittsburgh Duquesne 1 1

Rhoades Shelley C. 1995 Texas-Austin Villanova 1 1

Sabino Jowell S. 1996 Northwestern MIT 1 1

Sengupta Partha 1995 Florida Hawaii-Manoa 1 1

Shelton Sandra Waller 1994 Wisconsin-Madison

DePaul 1 1

Shivakumar Lakshmanan 1996 Vanderbilt London Business 1 1


123


Last name Firstname

YearGrad.

School ofdegree



In 3journals

In 8journals

Soffer Leonard 1991 California-Berkeley

Northwestern 1 1

Stammerjohan William W. 1995 WashingtonState

Mississippi State 1 1

Stevens Douglas E. 1996 Indiana Syracuse 1 1

Stock Toby 1995 Indiana Colorado-Boulder 1 1

Summers Scott L. 1995 Texas A&M Missouri 1 1

Sweeeney John T. 1992 Missouri-Columbia

Missouri 1 1

Thomas Wayne B. 1995 OklahomaState

Utah 1 1

Turner CynthiaWilliams

1995 Ohio State Illinois 1 1

Utama Siddharta 1996 Texas A&M Indonesia 1 1

Vargus Mark E. 1996 Pennsylvania Southern California 1 1

Vaysman Igor 1993 Stanford Texas 1 1

Vera-Munoz Sandra C. 1994 Texas-Austin Notre Dame 1 1

Weaver Connie D. 1997 Arizona State Texas-Austin 1 1

Williams Patricia A. 1992 Boston U. Fordham 1 1

Yoo Seung-Weon 1997 Wisconsin-Madison

Hong Kong Sc 1 1

Richardson Vernon 1997 Illinois Kansas 0 6

Gelb David 1997 New YorkUniversity

Seton Hall 0 5

Vafeas Nikos 1994 Kansas Cyprus 0 4

Wiedman Christine 1994 Cornell William & Mary 0 4

Jamal Karim 1991 Minnesota Alberta 0 3

Johnson Marilyn 1992 Washington-Seattle

Michigan 0 3

Lowe D. 1992 Arizona State Virginia Tech 0 3

Nwaeze Emeka 1992 Connecticut Rutgers-Camden 0 3

Rui Oliver 1997 Houston Hongkong Tech 0 3

Asthana Sharad 1995 Texas-Austin Temple 0 2

Behn Bruce 1994 Arizona State Tennessee 0 2

Bernardi Richard 1992 Union SUNY-Plattsburgh 0 2

Chandra Uday 1992 Purdue Oklahoma 0 2

Chen Charles 1995 Houston City Univ HK 0 2

DeZoort F. Todd 1995 Alabama-Tuscaloosa

South Carolina 0 2

Haynes Christine 1993 Texas-Austin Virginia Tech 0 2

Hermanson Dana 1993 Wisconsin-Madison

Kennesaw State 0 2


123


Last name Firstname

YearGrad.

School ofdegree

Institutional affiliation6 years aftergraduation


In 3journals

In 8journals

Iyer Govind 1994 Georgia State Arizona State 0 2

Kane Gregory 1992 Virginia Tech Delaware 0 2

Krishnamoorthy Ganesh 1994 Southern California Boston College 0 2

Mande Vivek 1991 California-LosAngeles

Nebraska-Omaha 0 2

Morris Roselyn 1993 Houston SW Texas State 0 2

Morton Richard 1994 Penn State Florida State 0 2

Pagach Donald 1992 Florida State N. Carolina State 0 2

Schoderbek Michael 1992 Indiana Rutgers-NewBrunswick

0 2

Scholz Susan 1996 Southern California Kansas 0 2

Smith David 1997 North Texas Missouri Southern 0 2

Welker Michael 1993 Iowa Queen’s Univ. 0 2

Wier Heather 1994 Cornell Alberta 0 2

Ahlawat Sunita 1993 Penn State Rutgers-NewBrunswick

0 1

Allen Robert 1992 Michigan State Utah 0 1

Anandarajan Asokan 1995 Drexel New Jersey Inst.Tech.

0 1

Anderson Mark 1996 Florida Texas-Dallas 0 1

Arora Alka 1995 Kent State Wisconsin-Whitewater

0 1

Austen Lizabeth 1997 Florida Florida Atlantic 0 1

Barney Douglas 1993 Mississippi Indiana SE 0 1

Beaulieu Philip 1991 Washington-Seattle Calgary 0 1

Bierstaker James 1995 Connecticut Massachusetts Boston 0 1

Bishop Marquerite 1995 North Texas Pennsylvania 0 1

Black Ervin 1995 Washington-Seattle Arkansas 0 1

Boone Jeff 1994 North Texas Mississippi State 0 1

Branson Bruce 1992 Florida State N. Carolina State 0 1

Braun Karen 1996 Connecticut Georgia 0 1

Brody Richard 1993 Arizona State Nevada-Las Vegas 0 1

Buchheit Steve 1997 Texas-Austin Texas Tech 0 1

Campbell Katherine 1996 Washington-Seattle Maryland-CollegePark

0 1

Carnes Thomas 1997 Florida State Arkansas 0 1

Casterella Jeffrey 1995 Colorado-Boulder Auckland 0 1

Chaney Barbara 1997 Georgia N. Carolina State 0 1

Chen Chih-Ying 1997 California-Berkeley Hong Kong Sc 0 1

Chen Gongmeng 1995 Texas-Dallas Hongkong Tech 0 1


123


Last name Firstname

YearGrad.

School ofdegree

Institutional affiliation6 years aftergraduation


In 3journals

In 8journals

Chung Richard 1992 Ohio State Hongkong Tech 0 1

Colbert Gary 1991 Oregon Colorado-Denver 0 1

Cullinan Charles 1991 Kentucky Bryant 0 1

Curtis Mary 1995 Kentucky North Texas 0 1

Davis Jefferson 1993 Tennessee Clarkson 0 1

Dawkins Mark 1994 Florida State Georgia 0 1

Duchac Jonathan 1993 Georgia Wake Forest 0 1

Dutta Saurav 1991 Kansas Rutgers-Newark 0 1

Dzeng Simon 1992 Drexel n/a 0 1

Eng LiLi 1995 Michigan NV of Singapore 0 1

Fargher Neil 1993 Arizona Oregon 0 1

Fennema Martin 1993 Illinois Florida State 0 1

Franz Diana 1992 Texas Tech Toledo 0 1

Gabriel Ann 1993 Ohio State Notre Dame 0 1

Ghosh Dipankar 1991 Penn State Oklahoma State 0 1

Gilbertson David 1997 Utah Western Washington 0 1

Gillett Peter 1996 Kansas Rutgers-NewBrunswick

0 1

Godwin Norman 1996 Michigan State Auburn 0 1

Green Brian 1991 Kent State Michigan-Dearborn 0 1

Grice J.Stephen

1997 Alabama-Tuscaloosa Troy State 0 1

Healy Joanne 1994 SUNY-Buffalo Kent State 0 1

Hill Callahan 1993 Georgia Kennesaw State 0 1

Iyengar Raghavan 1995 Maryland-CollegePark

Catholic 0 1

Iyer Venkataraman 1994 Georgia Wright State 0 1

Jones Jefferson 1997 Florida State Auburn 0 1

Joseph Jerry 1993 Pittsburgh Indiana U-PA 0 1

Kealey Burch 1996 Oklahoma Nebraska-Omaha 0 1

Ketchand Alice 1994 Houston Sam Houston 0 1

Kidwell Linda 1993 Louisiana State Niagara 0 1

Kile Charles 1993 Washington-St. Louis Emory 0 1

Korte Leon 1992 Nebraska South Dakota 0 1

Kurtenbach James 1992 Missouri-Columbia Iowa State 0 1

Kwon Soo Young 1992 Washington-St. Louis Korea Univ. 0 1

LaSalle Randall 1991 Drexel Rutgers-Camden 0 1

Lightle Susan 1991 Cincinnati Wright State 0 1

Lyon John 1991 Ohio State California-Davis 0 1


123


Last name Firstname

YearGrad.

School ofdegree



In 3journals

In 8journals

Machuga Susan 1996 Massachusetts Massachusetts-Boston 0 1

Malone Charles 1992 Missouri-Columbia

N. Carolina A&T 0 1

Marden Ronald 1995 South Florida Appalachian State 0 1

Martzoukos Spyros 1995 GeorgeWashington

Cyprus 0 1

Mauldin Elaine 1997 Nebraska Missouri Western 0 1

McMullen Dorothy 1993 Drexel Rider 0 1

Mereba Janice 1994 Penn State Delaware State 0 1

Mest David 1995 Texas-Austin Rutgers-New Brunswick 0 1

Moreland Keith 1992 Cincinnati Michigan-Flint 0 1

Neidermeyer Presha 1997 VirginiaComm

Union 0 1

Nigrini Mark 1993 Cincinnati St Mary’s-Canada 0 1

Northcut W. 1994 SouthernCalifornia

n/a 0 1

O’Donnell Ed 1994 North Texas Arizona State 0 1

Ou Chin-Shyh 1993 Minnesota National Chengchi 0 1

Paek Wonsun 1996 Temple Sung Kyun Kw 0 1

Park Taewoo 1996 Purdue Maryland-College Park 0 1

Park Jaewan 1995 Texas-Austin Dongguk U. 0 1

Plummer C. 1994 Texas-Austin Southern Methodist 0 1

Radhakrishnan Suresh 1992 New YorkUniversity

New York Univ. 0 1

Rai Atul 1996 New YorkUniversity

Florida State 0 1

Reck Jacqueline 1996 Missouri-Columbia

South Florida 0 1

Reed Margaret 1997 Kansas Cincinnati 0 1

Reed Bradford 1995 Arizona S Ill-Edward

0 1

Riffe Susan 1992 SouthernCalifornia

Southern Methodist 0 1

Robb Sean 1995 Florida Wilfrid Laurier 0 1

Robinson Thomas 1992 Case Western U. Miami 0 1

Robinson-Backmon Ida 1993 OklahomaState

n/a 0 1

Rose-Green Ena 1994 Florida State Florida International 0 1

Schwartz Steven 1997 Ohio State SUNY-Binghamton 0 1

Seetharaman Ananth 1991 Georgia State St Louis 0 1

Sen Kaustav 1994 Rutgers Pace 0 1


123

References

Ballas, A., & Theoharakis, V. (2003). Exploring diversity in accounting through faculty journal perceptions.Contemporary Accounting Research, 20, 619–644.

Brown, L. (2003). Ranking journals using social science research network downloads. Review of Quanti-tative Finance and Accounting, 20, 291–307.


Last name Firstname

YearGrad.

School ofdegree


No. publication6 years after graduation

In 3journals

In 8journals

Seol Inshik 1996 Connecticut Clark 0 1

Sevcik Galen 1991 Minnesota Arizona 0 1

Shafer William 1994 Houston Cal. State-Los Angeles 0 1

Singer Robert 1996 St Louis Quincy 0 1

Sinha Praveen 1992 CarnegieMellon

Cincinnati 0 1

Sparks H. 1996 Iowa Alaska-Fairbank 0 1

Stanko Brian 1992 Kentucky Loyola-Chicago 0 1

Subramaniam Chandra 1993 Minnesota Texas Christian 0 1

Taylor Mark 1994 Arizona Nebraska 0 1

Thibodeau Jay 1997 Connecticut Bentley 0 1

Tinkelman Daniel 1997 New YorkUniversity

Pace 0 1

Tiras Samuel 1994 Ohio State Oregon 0 1

Turetsky Howard 1997 VirginiaComm

San Jose State 0 1

Turner Jerry 1994 Texas A&M Memphis 0 1

Tuttle Brad 1991 Arizona State South Carolina 0 1

Vickrey Donn 1993 OklahomaState

San Diego 0 1

Vines Cynthia 1992 SouthernCalifornia

Arizona 0 1

Visvanathan Gnanakumar 1996 New YorkUniversity

George Washington 0 1

Walden W. 1994 VirginiaComm

Richmond 0 1

Walker Paul 1994 Colorado-Boulder

Virginia State 0 1

Watkins Ann 1995 LouisianaState

Fayetteville 0 1

Wells Donald 1993 Texas A&M St Thomas-TX 0 1

Wong Moon-Hung 1997 Pennsylvania California-Berkeley 0 1

Wu Y. 1992 New YorkUniversity

Chinese HK 0 1

Zeller Thomas 1991 Kent State Loyola-Chicago 0 1


123

Brown, L., & Laksmana, I. (2004). Ranking accounting Ph.D. programs and faculties using social scienceresearch network downloads. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 22, 249–266.

Cargile, B., & Bublitz, B. (1986). Factors contributing to published research by accounting faculties. TheAccounting Review, 61, 158–178.

Chan, K., Chen, C., & Cheng, L. (2005). Ranking research productivity in accounting for Asia-Pacificuniversities. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 24, 47–64.

Dundar, H., & Lewis, D. (1998). Determinants of research productivity in higher education. Research inHigher Education, 39(6), 607–631.

Fogarty, T., & Ruhl, J. (1997). Institutional antecedents of accounting faculty research productivity: LIS-REL study of the best and brightest. Issues in Accounting Education, 12, 27–48.

Hagerman, R., & Hagerman, C. (1989). Research promotion standards at selected accounting programs.Issues in Accounting Education, 4, 265–279.

Hasselback, J. (2004). Accounting faculty directory 2004–2005. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Hasselback, J., Reinstein, A., & Schwan, E. S. (2000). Benchmarks for evaluating the research productivity

of accounting faculty. Journal of Accounting Education, 18, 79–97.Jacobs, F., Hartgraves, A., & Beard, L. (1986). Publication productivity of doctoral alumni: A time-adjusted

model. The Accounting Review, 61, 179–187.Jordan, J., Meador, M., & Walters, S. (1989). Academic research productivity, department size, and

organization: Further results. Economics of Education Review, 8(4), 345–352.Maranto, C. L., & Streuly, C. A. (1994). The determinants of accounting professors’ publishing productivity

– the early career. Contemporary Accounting Research, 10, 387–407.National Center of Education Statistics. (2003). Digest of Education Statistics: 2002, U.S. Department of

Education.Trieschmann, J., Dennis, A., Northcraft, G., & Niemi, A. (2000). Serving multiple constituencies in business

schools: M.B.A. program versus research performance. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1130–1141.

Zivney, T. L., Bertin, W. J., & Gavin, T. A. (1995). A comprehensive examination of accounting facultypublishing. Issues in Accounting Education, 10(1), 1–25.


123

accounting ph.d. program graduates: affiliation performance and publication performance

Documents