IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/accfor/v26y2002i1p45-71.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Problematising the construction of journal quality: an engagement with the mainstream

Author

Listed:
  • Joanne Locke
  • Alan Lowe

Abstract

Journal ranking studies have generally adopted citation techniques or academic perceptions as the basis for assessing journal quality. They have traditionally been a source of information about potential research outlets, new journals, and an aid to developing a consensus about the relative merit of publications for promotion decisions. The aim of our research is to address specific shortcomings in the conventional literature and construct an alternative view of how we might more appropriately assess journal ‘quality’. We attempt to engage with the conventional literature by applying an approach that does not privilege either citation techniques or academic perceptions. We have adopted from Zeff (1996) an objective measure of academic journal library holdings, which Zeff describes as a ‘market test’. Our construct provides evidence of an important difference in journal holdings for the Australasian region that could significantly influence further research on journal quality. The method itself is entirely mundane but may be considered to reflect a complex of historic and more contemporary variables which impact on academic and administrative decisions, influencing the makeup of academic library holdings and providing a proxy for journal ‘quality’.

Suggested Citation

  • Joanne Locke & Alan Lowe, 2002. "Problematising the construction of journal quality: an engagement with the mainstream," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1), pages 45-71, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:accfor:v:26:y:2002:i:1:p:45-71
    DOI: 10.1111/1467-6303.00079
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/1467-6303.00079
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1467-6303.00079?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lowe, Alan & Locke, Joanne, 2006. "Constructing an ‘efficient frontier’ of accounting journal quality," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 321-341.
    2. Hussain, Simon, 2010. "Accounting journals and the ABS quality ratings," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 1-16.
    3. Wade D. Cook & Tal Raviv & Alan J. Richardson, 2010. "Aggregating Incomplete Lists of Journal Rankings: An Application to Academic Accounting Journals," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(3), pages 217-235, September.
    4. Lowe, Alan & Locke, Joanne, 2005. "Perceptions of journal quality and research paradigm: results of a web-based survey of British accounting academics," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 81-98, January.
    5. repec:dau:papers:123456789/11779 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Geert Campenhout & Tom Caneghem & Steve Uytbergen, 2008. "A comparison of overall and sub-area journal influence: The case of the accounting literature," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 77(1), pages 61-90, October.
    7. Bonner, Sarah E. & Hesford, James W. & Van der Stede, Wim A. & Young, S. Mark, 2006. "The most influential journals in academic accounting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(7), pages 663-685, October.
    8. S. Douglas Beets & Andrea S. Kelton & Bruce R. Lewis, 2015. "An assessment of accounting journal quality based on departmental lists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 315-332, January.
    9. Catriona Paisey & Nicholas Paisey, 2005. "The research assessment exercise 2001—insights and implications for accounting education research in the UK," Accounting Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(4), pages 411-426.
    10. repec:dau:papers:123456789/8741 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. M. R. Mathews, 2007. "Publish or Perish: Is this Really a Viable Set of Options?," Accounting Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3), pages 225-240.
    12. Vivien Beattie & Alan Goodacre, 2006. "A new method for ranking academic journals in accounting and finance," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(2), pages 65-91.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:accfor:v:26:y:2002:i:1:p:45-71. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/racc .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.