RANKINGS AND TRENDS IN FINANCE PUBLISHING: AN ITERATIVE APPROACH

• Published date: 01 September 2016
• Author: Brian R. Walkup,Matthew D. Crook
• Date: 01 September 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jfir.12099

RANKINGS AND TRENDS IN FINANCE PUBLISHING:

AN ITERATIVE APPROACH

Matthew D. Crook and Brian R. Walkup

The University of Tulsa

Abstract

Using a sample of 20 finance journals from 1985 to 2014, we develop a robust, iterative

loop ranking system for journals, universities, and doctoral programs across five-year

intervals. Unlike past models, our dynamic model requires minimal reliance on external

rankings. New journals create an immediate impact on rankings, likely because they

attract high-profile authors in early issues. Niche journals rank higher than broad-based

journals outside the top five. Our results demonstrate increased productivity of

international universities and nonacademic institutions relative to U.S. universities.

International doctoral programs experience similar increases in graduate productivity.

Over time, collaboration between authors at different institutions increases.

JEL Classification: G00

I. Introduction

“Publish or perish”describes the requirement placed on untenured faculty to demonstrate

the ability to make an intellectual contribution at a level commensurate with peers before

attaining tenure. For tenured faculty, continued productivity affects promotion and

compensation. The quality of the contribution is, in part, judged by the perceived

importance of the journal in which the article is published. Thus, a metric for categorizing

and establishing a relative order of journal rankings is essential to reduce the

asymmetries and noise inherent in evaluating research ability in the tenure and promotion

processes.

Faculty publishing records in aggregate suggest to the academic community the

parity between different institutions. Given competition for resources, rankings

(qualitative and quantitative) affect university operations through many channels,

including: quality of student applicants, faculty recruitment, and resources allocated by

governmental agencies or donors. The high importance of rankings to faculty and

administrators establishes a need for productivity rankings less dependent on conjecture

and opinion. The system must be dynamic to recognize shifts by institutions seeking to

increase academic standing relative to peers.

We are grateful for assistance and comments from the editor, Betty Simkins (Referee), Mark Griffiths, John

Howe, Jennifer Itzkowitz, Andrew Lynch, and James Whitworth, as well as conference participants atthe Southern

Finance Association 2015 annual meeting and the 2015 Southwest Finance Symposium. Gavin Pearson, Michael

Balp, Ruitao Wang, and Weibo Liu provided excellent research assistance. All errors or omissions are our own.

The Journal of Financial Research Vol. XXXIX, No. 3 Pages 291–322 Fall 2016

291

© 2016 The Southern Finance Association and the Southwestern Finance Association

RAWLS COLLEGE OF BUSINESS, TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY

PUBLISHED FOR THE SOUTHERN AND SOUTHWESTERN

FINANCE ASSOCIATIONS BY WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING

A majority of prior studies ranking journals or institutional productivity rely on

common perceptions across academic finance (surveys), existing rankings of institutions

related to institutional prestige or editorial board membership, or citations by subsequent

authors as the metric for quality. Although past rankings provide evidence of the relative

prestige of journals, many previous studies anchor rankings to past perception or earlier

studies to determine rankings. Using a sample of 20 finance journals over a 30-year time

series, we create a dynamic method of journal and institutional rankings with minimal

dependence on historical rankings.

Our method differs from the existing literature as we use a recursive ranking

system that requires only a baseline ranking of schools from the prior literature to

establish the first iteration of journal rankings. The first-iteration journal rankings

provide the inputs to rank universities and institutions for the initial period (1985–1989).

All successive iterations are self-contained, as an internally updating process is used for

subsequent journal and school rankings. The initial and subsequent rankings are based on

five-year windows for both programs and journals. Rankings are robust to the choice of

baseline ranking or credit given to coauthors. Journal rankings reach stability after

approximately 50 articles and each additional article has minimal effect on the journal

ranking.

Our results show that journal rankings tend to persist across time but are subject

to shocks when new journals become available as a research outlet. New journals

attempting to generate a high reputation often solicit submissions from authors at

prestigious institutions for early issues. The high-prestige authors raise the visibility and

perception of the journal. Journal of Corporate Finance, Journal of Financial

Intermediation, and Journal of Financial Markets are examples of new entrants making a

“splash”that changes established rankings. Although persistence exists in journal

rankings across time, we find evidence of established journals improving relative

standing. Review of Finance and Mathematical Finance improve in relative ranking over

time. Consistent with findings of Chen and Huang (2007), we see that niche journals

(such as Journal of Financial Markets and Mathematical Finance) rank higher than

conventional expectations.

Research productivity and relative ranking for academic institutions affect the

quality of graduate students electing to do doctoral studies at a given institution.

Universities are judged not only on the quality of current faculty but also on the quality

of graduates. When considering an institution for doctoral study, quality drives

students because of the impact on future placement (Spence 1973) and career success

(Oyer 2006). Therefore, having an understanding of the relative effectiveness of doctoral

programs to prepare their graduates for success is of high importance to prospective

doctoral students.

We find that school rankings exhibit less persistence than observed for journal

rankings. In more recent periods, we document an increase in the diversity of research

contribution by international universities and nonacademic institutions. Across the time

series, the numberof international universitiesrepresented in the top 50 rankings increases

from 1 to 13. No nonacademic institutions initially rank in the top 50, but 3 rank in the

top 50 in the last period.Similar to our productivity rankings, researchglobalization results

in several international universities producing highly productive doctoral graduates.

292 The Journal of Financial Research

Changing research requirements in quality or quantity of publications in com-

bination with greater data availability, improved statistical techniques, and technological

advances may spur shifts in authorship trends. The prior literature suggests the degree of

coauthorship changes across time. Chen and Huang (2007) show more coauthorship

occurs across a broad range of journals and authors from top 80 schools concentrate

publishing efforts in the top-tier and near-top-tier journals. Kim, Morse, and Zingales

(2009) explore publishing productivity at the top 25 academic programs in 41 economics

and finance journals, finding that coauthorship at a distance (coauthors at different

universities) increases from 31% in the early 1970s to 61% in 2004.

Our 30-year data set allows the opportunity to quantify the shifting paradigms of

authorship across time. From the early sample period (1985–1999) to the late sample

period (2000–2014), solo-authored articles decrease from 36.82% to 21.58%. The

number of authors increases from 1.84 to 2.21 over the two periods. Consistent with the

findings of Kim, Morse, and Zingales (2009) and Chen and Huang (2007), our findings

demonstrate increased coauthorship across finance authors over time. Often, disciplines

use order of authorship as a means of denoting contribution. However, we provide

evidence that alphabetical listing of authors is the convention in finance journals and

becomes more prominent over time.

II. Literature Review

Journal Rankings

When assessing the quality of a journal, readers and authors in the field perceive the

relative ranking of publication outlets. The anecdotal knowledge of authors and readers

provides the basis of surveys ranking journals by quality. Coe and Weinstock (1983) use

a survey of 107 finance department chairs to establish a relative order of quality, noting

that perceived low acceptance rates cause journals to be ranked higher and perceptions

about acceptance rates are higher than actual acceptance rates. Borde, Cheney, and

Madura (1999) provide additional survey data on rankings, showing that a clientele effect

may exist in journal rankings. The rankings provided by respondents show bias toward

the areas where the respondent’s teaching and research lie. In a global survey of finance

academics, Oltheten, Theoharakis, and Travlos (2005) provide further evidence of the

clientele effect in journal rankings. Respondents rank journal clusters within their

research interest higher. Level of seniority and affiliation with a particular journal alter

relative perception of journal quality.

Survey data provide a starting point for rankings. For top-tier publications, little

variance is found in the survey results provided by Coe and Weinstock (1983), Borde,

Cheney, and Madura (1999), and Olthenten, Theoharakis, and Travlos (2005). The flaw

inherent in survey data as a measurement tool stems from perception. Survey rankings

require respondents to be familiar with research published in each journal to properly

assess the relative impact of the journal. As noted by both Borde, Cheney, and Madura

(1999) and Olthenten, Theoharakis, and Travlos (2005), survey participants tend to bias

rankings based on areas of interest or expertise. Thus, quantitative methods provide a

more objective view of the relative rank of journals.

Finance Publishing 293