Ranking Finance Journals Using Author Affiliation Index

Ranking Finance Journals Using Author Affiliation Index

Carl R. Chen* University of Dayton

Ying Huang

Manhattan College

Abstract ________________________________________________________________________ In this paper we use a new method to rank finance journals. Traditionally, journal qualities are measured either by the citation-based impact factor approach, or by the survey method. Although these two approaches have merits, their efficacy is also limited in many ways. Author Affiliation Index is a cost-effective and intuitively easy-to- understand approach to journal rankings. We define Author Affiliation Index as the ratio of articles authored by faculties at the world’s top 80 finance programs divided by the total number of articles by all authors. Forty-one finance journals are ranked according to this index. The effectiveness of the index is comparable to prior citation-based and survey-based studies. We find Author Affiliation Index, if properly constructed, provides an easy and credible way to supplement the existing journal ranking methods. Due to its easiness to construct, the index is particularly useful for junior faculty seeking the right journals to publish but is unable to justify the journal quality because these journals are not ranked in existing studies. JEL classification: G00 Keywords: Finance journal ranking, author affiliation index _________________________ * Corresponding author: Carl R. Chen, William J. Hoben Professor of Finance, Department of Economics and Finance, University of Dayton, 300 College Park, Dayton, Ohio 45469-2251. Tel: (937) 229-2418, Fax: (937) 229-2477, E-mail:[email protected].

2


Abstract ________________________________________________________________________ In this paper we use a new method to rank finance journals. Traditionally, journal

qualities are measured either by the citation-based impact factor approach, or by the

survey method. Although these two approaches have merits, their efficacy is also limited

in many ways. Author Affiliation Index is a cost-effective and intuitively easy-to-

understand approach to journal rankings. We define Author Affiliation Index as the ratio

of articles authored by faculties at the world’s top 80 finance programs divided by the

total number of articles by all authors. Forty-one finance journals are ranked according to

this index. The effectiveness of the index is comparable to prior citation-based and

survey-based studies. We find Author Affiliation Index, if properly constructed, provides

an easy and credible way to supplement the existing journal ranking methods. Due to its

easiness to construct, the index is particularly useful for junior faculty seeking the right

journals to publish but is unable to justify the journal quality because these journals are

not ranked in existing studies.

3


I. Introduction Rating journal quality is crucial for faculty seeking promotion, tenure, and new

job hunting; and for administrators in determining merit pay increases. Institutions use

journal rankings to publicize the superiority of their faculty and where their departments

stand relative to peer institutions. For example, Arizona State University’s Department of

Finance sponsors a web page that ranks top-100 institutions based upon publications in

the top-4 finance journals.1 Borokhovich et al. (1995) find association between business

schools’ prestige and their publication productivity. Tamkang University in Taiwan

offers considerable amount of bonuses to faculty who publish in a set of academic

journals. As shown in Chan, Chen, and Steiner (2002), faculty seeking relocation to a

better institution is required to have more and better publications than the existing faculty

in the target school. These examples demonstrate the importance of journal quality rating.

Nevertheless, journal quality ranking is also very controversial with the exception of a

small number of journals that can be unambiguously regarded as top-notch.

Two methods are commonly employed for journal rankings. The most frequently

adopted method is the impact factor based upon journal citations. Institute of Scientific

Information (ISI) compiles a Journal Citation Report (JCR) which reports impact factors

of selected journals. In the literature some authors supplemented the JCR with additional

journals (e.g., Zivney and Reichenstein, 1994, Alexander and Mabry, 1994, Chan, Fok,

and Pan, 2000).

1 See http://wpcarey.asu.edu/finance/rankings/results.cfm.

4

However, it is noted that there are drawbacks when journals are ranked by impact

factors. Alexander and Mabry (1994) contend that citation-based journal ranking method

suffers from self-citation bias. Amin and Mabe (2000) also argue that the value of the

impact factor is affected by sociological and statistical factors. Sociological factors

include the subject area of the journal and the average size of co-authorship. For

example, the mean impact factor for fundamental life science is more than 3.0, while the

same statistic for mathematics and computer science is less than 0.5. Statistical factors

refer to the journal size and the citation measurement window which typically is two

years (one-year citing window and a two-year cited window).2 The year-to-year variation

of the journal’s impact factor is the largest for smaller-sized journals (< 35 articles per

year), and the smallest for large-sized journals (> 150 articles per year).

In a recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, it is reported that some

journal editors and journal publishers manipulate types of articles in order to raise the

impact factor. For example, review articles tend to get cited more often than the original

research articles ― 7 out of the top 15 science journals are review publications.

Therefore, the editorial board of the Journal of Environmental Quality has decided to

emphasize review articles in order to shore up the journal’s impact factor. Other ways to

distort the impact factor include running editorials that cite numerous articles from

previous issues, and publishing few articles so that the denominator of the impact factor

equation becomes smaller. 3

2 Impact factor of journal A can be calculated as the ratio of (citations in year t to articles published in A in year t-1 and year t-2) / (articles published in A in year t-1 and year t-2). 3 In Richard Monastersky, “The Number That’s Devouring Science,” Chronicle of Higher Education, October 14, 2005, p A12 - 17.

5

A different method of journal ranking is based upon survey of faculty, department

administrators, and/or journal article authors. Borde, Cheney, and Madura (1999) rank

55 finance, insurance, and real estate journals by surveying 218 finance department chairs

among whom 125 responded. A recent article by Oltheten, Theoharakis, and Travlos

(2005) ranks top 40 journals, consisting of finance, economics and accounting journals,

with a global survey of 862 finance academics. While survey studies provide an

alternative way of assessing journal quality, they are also subject to biases. They have

been criticized because of the self-serving and predisposition bias (Jobber and Simpson

1988, and Todorov and Glanzel 1988). Oltheten et al. (2005) find that senior faculty

ranks journals differently from junior faculty, and European/Asian academics also rank

journals differently from their US counterparts. In addition to the changes in research

goals as suggested by Oltheten et al., many senior faculties may also have passed their

prime research time and thus are less familiar with the newer and upcoming journals.

This “slow-fading memory” creates a bias in favor of older journals with which senior

faculties are more familiar. Similarly, home bias helps explain why European/Asian

academics rank European/Asian-based journals higher. 4

We propose in this paper an Author Affiliation Index as an alternative

measurement of finance journal quality. Author Affiliation Index, if properly constructed,

reduces the aforementioned biases. The basic premise of the Author Affiliation Index is

4 Many academic institutions also consider other ways to justify the quality of a journal, such as the editorial board composition, the institutional affiliation of the journal, and/or acceptance rate. These, however, are very noisy measures of journal quality. For example, acceptance rate is widely adopted as an important factor to rank journals. Acceptance rate, however, is subject to many drawbacks and is perhaps the most misleading benchmark to journal quality ranking. First, the acceptance rates reported in Cabell’s (2005) are self-reported. Second, even if accurate, acceptance rate of a journal is subject to authors’ self-selection bias. It is, therefore, meaningless to compare an acceptance rate of 10% for the Journal of Financial Economics with an equal acceptance rate of a lower-ranked journal. This authors’ self-selection bias is especially acute for many finance journals which often charge a significant amount of submission fee.

6

as follows: to protect their reputation capital, top-ranked institutions employ productive

faculty who accomplishes high quality and influential researches. Therefore, when this

group of researchers aspire to and publish more articles in certain journals, these journals

are more influential and are of better quality. Of course, the reverse could also be true.

That is, a reputable journal will only select high quality research to publish. Author

Affiliation Index can thus be constructed in view of the proportion of articles that are

written by authors affiliated with top-notch research institutions in the journal.

Here three notions are relevant to our analysis. First, all articles written by these

authors are not of high quality. However, top-ranked institutions generally have a higher

standard on faculty research. To preserve their reputation capital, these institutions often

require their faculty to publish in a certain set of journals with relatively clear-cut pecking

order. The validity of the Author Affiliation Index, therefore, does not rest upon the

presumption that all articles written by authors affiliated with top-ranked institutions

must be of high quality. Second, the validity of the Author Affiliation Index does not

require the knowledge of the direction of causality between the quality of the journal and

the reputation of the authors’ affiliations. The direction of causality is not our main

concern. We are interested in the association between journal quality and who publish in

these journals. A significant correlation is all that is needed for the efficacy of the index.

Third, Author Affiliation Index is admittedly not a perfect instrument to measure journal

quality, so are citation-based impact factors and survey-based faculty perceptions. What

we are proposing is an alternative measure that is intuitively clear, easy to compute, and

capable of providing credible and objective assessment of journal quality.

7

Based upon various definitions of the Author Affiliation Index, our findings

indicate that Journal of Finance, Review of Financial Studies, Journal of Financial

Economics, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, and Journal of Business

unambiguously claim the top five spots in finance journal rankings. Some newer journals,

such as Journal of Corporate Finance and Journal of Financial Markets, while ranked

lower in the other studies, score impressively in our analysis. Compared with prior

studies, our ranking is highly correlated with most of those journal rankings.

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section II discusses the

construction of the Author Affiliation Index and the pros and cons of various definitions.

Forty one finance journals are ranked according to the Authors Affiliation Index in

Section III. In Section IV we discuss the sensitivity of the journal ranking to different

definitions of the Index. Finally, Section V concludes.

II. Methodology

A. The Formula

The original Author Affiliation Index was devised by Harless and Reilly (1998) to

rank journal quality for their institution’s internal consumption. It is subsequently

employed in evaluating operations management journals (Gorman and Kanet, 2005). The

original formula (Harless and Reilly, 1998, and Gorman and Kanet, 2005) for the Index

takes the form of:

∑∑∈

∈

+=

mi iii

mi iij nyx

nxAAI

/)(/

(1)

where AAIj measures the Author Affiliation Index for journal j, xi is the number of authors

from a set of top US institutions (set x) in article i, yi is the number of US academic

8

authors in article i not from the top institution set (set y), n is the total number of authors

in article i, and i is drawn from a set of m articles.

The efficacy of the original formulation of the Author Affiliation Index, therefore,

depends on a number of factors. First, it is very important to determine what constitutes

the sample of top-notch research institutions (dataset x). That is, which universities and

how many universities should be included in this dataset? The original formula employed

in Harless and Reilly (1998) defines this dataset as comprising of top-60 US business

schools. However, there are problems associated with this pool of top-60 business

schools. For example, Brown University is included in this pool of business schools, but

in fact Brown does not have a business school although Brown houses strong economists.

Therefore, isn’t it more sensible to compile a set of top-notch programs for each

discipline? Furthermore, it may be problematic to assume that the top-program set is

equal in size for all disciplines as the size of each discipline in the business schools

differs substantially. One size obviously could not fit all.

Second, the original formula considers only US academic institutions in the

numerator and the denominator in Equation (1), excluding non-academics as well as non-

US academic institutions. This approach is quite likely to create a bias in favor of

journals that have proportionally more non-US authorship and journals that publish

articles authored by non-academics.

To see how Equation (1) works, we provide hypothetical data in Table 1 for the

purpose of demonstration. According to Harless and Reilly (1998), which was later

adopted in Gorman and Kanet (2005), both the numerator and the denominator in

Equation (1) take account of only US academic institutions. That is, datasets x and y

9

contain only US academics. For example, for article 1 where both authors are from the

top US-university set (Harvard and Duke), the contribution to the numerator of Equation

(1) is 1.00 and the contribution to the denominator is also 1.00, given that both

institutions are US academics. The contribution to the numerator of article 2 is reduced

by half because Alabama is not in the top US-university set. In article 4 and 5, Harvard

counts in the numerator and the denominator, but JP Morgan as well as the University of

Kuwait contribute to neither because they are not US academics. As for the case of

article 8, the contribution to the numerator and the denominator are zero because both

institutions are not US academics. On the other hand, in article 9 Alabama and CUNY-

Hunter do not contribute to the numerator, but contribute fully to the denominator

because both are non-top US academics. On the basis of this hypothetical example, total

contribution to the numerator is 3.16 and contribution to the denominator sums up to

6.17. Taken together, an AAI of 0.51 is created for this journal.

B. Potential Biases

Obviously there are biases that may result from this method of reasoning. The

first type of bias arises because the formula is in favor of international journals that

publish disproportionately large number of papers written by non-US academics. The

second type of bias seems to benefit a journal that has myriads of non-academic

participants. These biases may not be serious decades ago when finance literature

production in regions other than North America was close to negligible, but can be

significant today when European and Asian authors contribute substantially to the finance

literature.

10

These two types of biases are demonstrated in Table 2. Panel A of Table 2

illustrates the calculation of AAI using a hypothetical journal that has disproportionately

larger authorships from non-academics and non-US academics. Panel B of Table 2 uses

a hypothetical journal that has heavy concentration of US academics. The resulting

differences in AAIs are striking. AAI scores 1.00 (the upper bound) for Journal A, and a

much lower 0.40 for Journal B. It is noted that all top-ranked universities are identical in

both journals, and the only difference is the non-US academics and non-academics in

Journal A substituted by US academics in Journal B, hence a big discrepancy in the

denominators. The implicit assumption of this ranking result is the “superiority” of non-

US academics and non-academics over US academics, which is indeed implausible.

One important question remains to be addressed in calculating AAIs is thus the

definition of datasets x and y in Equation (1). The biases that we have discussed above

stem from the definition of y. To avoid the non-US academics and non-academics bias

found in the original formula and the subsequent applications, we define the set (x + y) as

including all authors, irrespective of academics or non-academics, and US or non-US

academics. To accommodate this new definition, x is also re-defined as containing all

top-tier universities, US or non-US.

This definition excludes non-academics from it. Any possible bias as an outcome

from this exclusion probably is non-consequential. The major non-academic contributor

in finance journals is perhaps, the Fed. Authorships from the Fed, however, are spread

out into different branches. Technically speaking, they do not belong to the same

institution just like UCLA and UC-Berkeley are not the same university. To properly

11

handle this potential caveat, we also attempt to rank the journals based upon various

definitions of x and y, and compare the upshot of the ranking differentials.

C. Definition of dataset x

As discussed in Section I of this paper, Harless and Reilly (1998) incorporate top-

60 US business schools in the dataset x. Gorman and Kanet (2005) conduct sensitivity

analysis to see if the changes of the size and composition of dataset x result in significant

journal ranking alterations in the discipline of operations management. Both studies,

however, focus only on US academics. The size of the dataset x is not the main issue in

our paper, despite its potential impact on the ranking. Our approach is different from

prior studies, being more comprehensive and seeking to rectify potential pitfalls, x used

in this paper is enlarged to incorporate not only US academics, but also non-US

academics that are qualified as top-tier universities. We thus employ top-80 finance

programs, US or non-US, in x. Sensitivity analyses based upon different x and (x + y) are

conducted in Section IV.

What constitute the top-80 finance programs? Since we are concerned about the

research quality, it makes sense to define top-80 finance programs strictly in terms of

research output. Chan, Chen, and Lung (2005) compile a list of top finance programs on

the basis of publications in various sets of finance journals during the 15-year period

from 1991 to 2004. Their dataset includes 20 major finance journals, but they also rank

finance programs based upon top-5 journals. Oltheten et al. (2005) find little

disagreement among academics on what constitute the top-tier journals, but the

disagreement becomes more significant when one goes down the pecking order of journal

quality. According to Oltheten et al., Journal of Finance, Journal of Financial

12

Economics, Review of Financial Studies, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis,

and Journal of Business are generally perceived as the top-5 finance journals.5

Therefore, finance programs ranked by these five journals seem to stir the least

controversy.6 We adopt Chan et al.’s top finance program list in our analysis. Note that

their ranking is a global ranking, thus suits our definition of the dataset x well. The list of

top-80 (and top-100) finance programs worldwide is shown in the Appendix.

D. A Numerical Example

In Table 3 we demonstrate the calculation of AAI using our definition of x and (x

+ y). Since all institutions, US and non-US, academics and non-academics, contribute to

the denominator of Equation (1), the denominator for each article must sum up to one.

Using this approach, the Author Affiliation Index computed from Table 3, where the

author affiliation data entries are identical to those of Table1, is a smaller 0.316 as

opposed to 0.51 shown in Table 1.

III. Ranking of Finance Journals Based upon Author Affiliation Index

A. AAI Ranking

In this section, we proceed to rank 41 finance journals by applying our calculation

of the AAI values. In Equation (1), dataset x contains the top-80 finance programs

worldwide ranked on the basis of top-5 finance journals while dataset (x + y) includes all

authors: US or non-US academics, academics or non-academics. m, the number of

5 Only European academics consider Journal of Banking and Finance one place above Journal of Business. 6 The variation in the number of weighted articles published in these top-5 journals is more significant for the higher-ranked institutions. The variation becomes meaninglessly small when one moves down to the bottom half of the list. Since we are interested in top research finance programs only for the numerator in Equation (1), the small variations among lower ranked institution is not a concern.

13

articles drawn from each journal, is set to equal 60. To obtain these sample articles, we

begin with the latest issue of each journal as of July 2005, and work backward until 60

articles are selected. Gorman and Kanet (2005) demonstrate that the AAI becomes

stabilized when the size of m increases to 50 or larger.

We reconfirm this notion for the finance journals by examining six journals –

three top-tier journals and three well established and highly regarded older journals. A

few interesting results emerge from Figure 1 which shows six sample paths. First, for

most journals, AAI converges and becomes considerably stable after the size of m

reaches 40 or more. Second, Review of Financial Studies (RFS) consistently scores

higher in terms of AAI than do Journal of Finance (JF) and Journal of Financial

Economics (JFE) irrespective of size m. Financial Management (FM) also coherently

beats Journal of Financial Research (JFR) and Financial Review (FR) once the size of m

exceeds 10. JFR, on the other hand, persists in having higher AAIs than FR when m

exceeds 35. Therefore, a consistent behavior of the AAIs is observed for various finance

journals when m is greater than 40, suggesting that our choice of 60 sample articles to

evaluate AAIs appear to be well justifiable.

The selected 41 journals are the most popular finance journals indexed by the

Finance Literature Index7 and are very similar to the journals included in prior studies

such as Borde, Cheney, and Madura (1999) and Oltheten et al. (2005), with only few

exceptions. We exclude such prestigious economic journals as American Economic

Review, Journal of Political Economy, and Econometrica, although they are highly

regarded by financial economists and are cited often. This is done for the following two

reasons. First, although these journals are frequently cited by finance research, they 7 J.L. Heck, Finance Literature Index, 1999.

14

publish mostly non-financial economics articles. For example, finance research cites

Econometrica frequently because of the methodology used (e.g., GARCH process).

Although these journals are widely envisioned to be the best economic journals, they are

ranked below top-5 finance journals according to the survey of finance faculty in

Oltheten et al. (2005). Second, the top-80 finance programs used in this paper may not be

the best x to calculate the AAIs for these non-finance journals. For the same reason,

those well-cited accounting journals such as Journal of Accounting Research, are also

excluded from our study. Obviously, it is not fair to rank accounting journals using top-

finance programs. Furthermore, we do not include educational journals, journals that

target primary for practitioners as well as those mainly consisting of invited articles.

Table 4 presents the results of such ranking. Not to our surprises, Journal of

Finance, Review of Financial Studies, Journal of Financial Economics, Journal of

Financial and Quantitative Analysis, and Journal of Business take the top five spots,

which is in accordance with those findings by prior journal ranking research such as

Oltheten et al. (2005). It is clearly indicated that Journal of Finance and Review of

Financial Studies practically tie for the leading position, while Journal of Financial

Economics is placed third. These top-5 journals are followed by some relatively new

comers, such as Journal of Corporate Finance and Journal of Financial Markets, which

are situated only slightly below the top-5. Journal of Financial Intermediation along with

two older journals, Financial Analysts Journal and Financial Management complete the

top-10 list. Financial Analysts Journal, however, has a higher ratio of invited papers, thus

potentially upward biases the AAI.

15

B. Comparison of ranking with prior studies

In Table 5 we compare our AAI-based rankings with the results obtained in

related studies. Among these, Oltheten et al. (2005) and Borde et al. (1999) report survey-

based rankings by surveying department chairs and faculties. Our analysis is broader in

scope since it comprises more sample of finance journals than the above two survey-

based studies. Compared with Oltheten et al.’s top-10 list, this study differs from theirs

on two journals, i.e., Journal of Financial Markets and Journal of Banking and Finance.

The former journal is ranked number 7 in our study but a distant 16 in theirs, whereas the

latter is number 6 in Oltheten et al., but a lagging 23 in ours. It is known that Journal of

Financial Market is a newer journal specializing in financial market microstructure

subjects, while Journal of Banking and Finance is a well-established journal based in

Europe. Obviously, familiarity and “slow-fading memory” play some roles in the

discrepancies.

On the other hand, Chan et al. (2000), Borokhovich et al. (1995), and Zivney and

Reichenstein (1994) are citation-based rankings. Since Borokhovich et al. and Zivney

and Reichenstein examine an earlier period, the number of finance journals included in

their studies is very limited. The citation-based ranking in effect uses only a two-year

citation window, year-by-year variations thus pose a problem. Cross-disciplinary

comparison is also problematic under this method. For example, Journal of Risk and

Insurance is ranked quite low (22nd place) in Chan et al.’s study, but is a 12th ranked

journal using AAI.8

8 Some of the journal ranks in comparison studies are altered after non-finance journals are excluded from the ranking. Therefore, the ranks reported in Table 5 may not be identical to the original ranks.

16

In Table 6, we report the Spearman rank correlations between the AAI-based

ranking and rankings from five comparable studies. Asymptotic standard errors are

shown inside the parentheses. The Spearman rank correlation coefficients between AAI-

based ranking and survey-based ranking are 0.7616 and 0.7445 respectively for Oltheten

et al. (2005) and Borde et al. (1999). Both statistics are statistically significant at the 1%

level. The results indicate that correlation coefficients between AAI-based ranking and

citation-based raking are 0.7218, 0.7227, and 0.9131 respectively for Chan et al. (2000),

Borokhovich et al. (1995), and Zivney and Reichenstein (1994). Again, all statistics are

significant at the 1% level. It can be seen that the rank correlation is the highest between

our study and Zivney and Reichenstein’s as manifested by 91 percent. This seems

partially due to the small sample of well-established journals employed in their study,

which are less likely to have significant variations in journal ranks.9

IV. Is AAI Sensitive to Different Definitions of x and (x + y)?

A. Ranking when only US academics are considered in dataset x and (x + y)

As has already been pointed out in Section II, the method of Harless and Reilly

(1998) and Gorman and Kanet (2005), which are in favor of journals that publish more

articles written by non-US academics, may have induced bias in examining journal

rankings. To investigate the extent of this bias, in this section we proceed to re-rank all 41

journals with a narrower set of x and (x + y), with the former including top-80 US

academics and the latter excluding non-academics as well as non-US academics. That is,

only US academics contribute to the numerator and the denominator is Equation (1).

9 Gorman and Kanet (2005) find lower correlations between AAI-based ranking and other rankings in a set of operations management journals. We attribute their lower efficacy to the bias that results from the exclusion of non-US academics and non-academics in their study.

17

Results of this new ranking method are reported in Table 7. The new AAIs and the

corresponding new ranking positions are presented in Column 2 and 3. For comparison

purpose, we also report the original rankings from Table 4 in Column 4. It is clearly

indicated that the narrower definitions of xi and (xi + yi) produce some results deceptively

favoring journals with disproportionately large non-US academics. For example,

European Journal of Finance ranks unexpectedly number one under this “US only”

dataset, but is only placed 37 with our method. Similar patterns can be perceived in

European Financial Review, European Financial Management, and International

Finance. By computing the Spearman rank correlation between this new AAI and our

original AAI, we find that the correlation coefficient is 0.625. More importantly, the rank

correlation between Oltheten et al.’s (2005) survey-based ranking and this new AAI is a

much smaller 0.4044. Therefore, the model proposed by Harless and Reilly (1998), and

later embraced by Gorman and Kanet (2005), is likely to conceal a significant degree of

distortion tilting toward journals with large number of non-US authorships.10

B. Ranking when the top-institution pool is enlarged

In this section, we enlarge the dataset to top-100 institutions instead of the

previous top 80 institutions (worldwide) in x. As can be seen in the Appendix, the top-80

set includes only 9 non-US academic institutions, but 8 more non-US academics show up

when additional 20 universities are added. The expansion of dataset x by 20%, therefore,

enhances the presence of non-US academics by almost 90%. Examining Table 8,

however, we find that the pecking order of these 41 finance journals does not appear to

10 Theoretically, this bias can be lessened by increasing the number of articles used to compute the AAI. However, the bias still exists even for a very large set of articles. Furthermore, some journals do not have enough issues and articles to form a very large database.

18

change much after the top-institution pool is broadened to 100. Three journals, however,

benefit from this larger pool of top-institutions, namely, Journal of Empirical Finance,

Journal of Behavior Finance, and Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, with the first journal

moving up 5 ranks, the second 10 ranks, and the third 8 ranks. The Spearman rank

correlation between this new AAI and the original AAI based upon top-80 institutions is

0.9655 with an asymptotic standard error of 0.0197.

C. Ranking when the top-institution pool is reduced

In this section, we reduce the dataset to top-60 institutions instead of the previous

top 80 institutions (worldwide) in x. As can be seen in the Appendix, the top-60 set

includes only 5 non-US academic institutions. Examining Table 9, however, we find that

the pecking order of these 41 finance journals also does not appear to change much after

the top-institution pool is narrowed to 60. This is particularly true for the top-10 journals,

with the same set of journals remaining except minor alterations in the pecking order. For

example, Journal of Finance claims the crown, while Financial Management is now

ahead of Financial Analysts Journal by one place. The top-10 journal list, therefore, is

robust to the changes in the size of the top-institution set. Two journals evidence more

significant changes in terms of rank. Journal of International Money and Finance moves

up 7 places from 32 to 25, while Review of Financial Economics moves down 7 places

from 24 to 31. The Spearman rank correlation between this new AAI and the original

AAI based upon top-80 institutions is 0.9645 with an asymptotic standard error of 0.015.

D. Ranking when all non-academics are excluded

Since our dataset x includes only academic institutions, while dataset (x + y)

contains all types of author affiliations, this measure may penalize journals that have

19

larger percentage of non-academic writers. This bias, if any, is theoretically small

because few non-academic institutions can qualify as top contributors to finance research

although collectively they might be significant. In this section, we re-calculate AAIs by

changing dataset (x + y) to include only academic institutions, and the results are

presented in Table 10. The top-10 journal set shows little variation as a result of this

change. Some journals, like International Finance, Journal of Portfolio Management,

and Journal of Fixed Income, benefit more from this new alternative. As expected, these

journals have more non-academic authorships. The Spearman rank correlation between

our original ranking and this new ranking is 0.9297 with an asymptotic standard error of

0.0419.

V. Conclusions

Traditional journal rankings are either based on survey or impact factors

constructed from citations. Survey-based ranking suffers from self-serving bias, home

bias, surveyors’ “slow-fading memory” about older journals, and the lack of familiarity

about newer journals if the researchers are no longer research-active. Citation-based

ranking system has its own limitations, too. Not only it is very time-consuming to

construct, the choice of the number of cited journals to compose the impact factor is also

debatable. Impact factor is also not immune from manipulation. Moreover, besides the

short citation window, many finance journals are not included in the Social Science

Citation Index. Comparison of impact factors across different subject areas can be

misleading. For example, is it sensible to compare the impact factor of insurance journals

with that of traditional finance journals?

20

This paper ranks 41 popular finance journals based upon a new method −Author

Affiliation Index. We define AAI as the ratio of articles authored by faculties at the

world’s top 80 finance programs divided by the total number of articles by all authors.

This journal ranking method, therefore, provides the academics with an alternative

measurement of journal quality in addition to the traditional survey-based and citation-

based journal ratings. The efficacy of AAI-based journal ranking, however, depends on a

number of factor inputs including the definition of top-institution dataset, and the

decision to include/exclude non-US academics and non-academic authors. For example,

the AAI model used in Harless and Reilly (1998) and Gorman and Kanet (2005)

considers only US academics, which inevitably introduces bias against journals in which

the majority contributors are US academics. We demonstrate that such bias is not trivial.

Similarly, including/excluding non-academics also has influence over journals that have

heavy non-academic representations. We argue in this paper that our definition of the

AAI reduces or eliminates these biases.11

According to our analysis of AAI, Journal of Finance, Review of Financial

Studies, Journal of Financial Economics, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis,

and Journal of Business are the top five finance journals, being consistent with the

ranking results in a recent survey-based study by Oltheten et al. (2005) as well as some

citation-based studies.

11 One may suspect that lower ranked journals can manipulate AAI by rejecting articles written by authors affiliated with lesser institutions. Although we cannot preclude such possibilities, it is not very likely for two reasons. First, as long as the journal is blind refereed, the editor will find it hard to persistently reject a well-received article although it is written by a lower-ranked institution’s author. After all, AAI is not the only criteria to journal ranking, and a good quality article tends to have greater impact factor. Second, the limited supply of articles written by authors affiliated with top-ranked institutions will render the lower-ranked journals unable to print if they insist on publishing only articles that enhance AAI. The publishers often show their concerns when the manuscript flows are interrupted.

21

The results from AAI also point out that Journal of Corporate Finance, Journal

of Financial Markets, Financial Analysts Journal, Financial Management, and Journal

of Financial Intermediation join force to complete the top-10 list. Three of these five

journals are newer journals and are not ranked in the majority of the earlier studies. Even

when they are ranked by some studies, the lack of familiarity with these journals tends to

result in lower ranking positions for newer journals in a survey-based ranking system

although they may be better ranked in citation-based studies. The AAI-based journal

ranking, especially top-10 journals list, is very robust to different definitions of the

numerator as well as the denominator of Equation (1), with one exception when only US

academics are entered into the equation. We have demonstrated that the bias may come

from such a narrower definition originally proposed by Harless and Reilly (1998) and

later adopted in Gorman and Kanet (2005).

Our AAI-based journal ranking is highly correlated with the findings in prior

studies. For example, the Spearman rank correlation between our ranking and Oltheten et

al.’s (2005) is at 76% which is statistically significant at the conservative confidence

level of 1% or better. The correlations with rankings drawn from other studies are also

reasonably high and significant. Therefore, when properly constructed, AAI offers an

easy and credible way to supplement the existing journal ranking methods. This is

particularly useful for junior faculties who are seeking the right journals to submit their

work and are unable to justify the quality of such journals to their peers because these

journals are not ranked in existing studies. We thus offer the finance academics a sensible

and feasible alternative method to rank finance journals.

22

References

Alexander, J.C., and R.H. Mabry, 1994. Relative Significance of Journals, Authors, and Articles Cited in Financial Research,” Journal of Finance 49, 697-713. Amin, M., and M. Mabe, 2000. Impact Factors: Use and Abuse, Perspectives in Publishing, 1, Elsevier Science. Borde, S.F., J.M. Cheney, 1999. A Note on Perceptions of Finance Journal Quality. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 89-96. Borokhovioch, K.A., R.J. Bricker, K.R. Brunarski, and B.J. Simkins, 1995. Finance Research Productivity and Influence. Journal of Finance, 49, 1691-1717. Cabell, D.W.E., 2005. Cabell’s Directory of Publishing Opportunities in Economics and Finance. Cabell’s Publishing Inc. Beaumont, Texas. Chan, K.C., R.C.W. Fok, and M.S. Pan, 2000. Citation-Based Finance Journal Ranking: An Update. Financial Practice and Education, 132-141. Chan, K.C., C.R. Chen, and T.L. Steiner, 2002. Production in Finance Literature, Institutional Reputation, and Labor Mobility in the Academia: A Global Perspective. Financial Management, 31, 131-156. Chan, K.C., C.R. Chen, and P.P. Lung, 2005. A Global Ranking of Finance Programs by Finance Literature Productions: 1991-2004. Conference paper, Financial Management Association 2005 Annual Meeting. Gorman, M.F., and J.J. Kanet, 2005. Evaluating Operations Management-Related Journals via the Author Affiliation Index. Manufacturing and Service Operations Management 7, 3-19. Harles, D., and R. Reilly, 1998. Revision of the Journal List for Doctoral Designation. Unpublished report, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, http://www.bus.vcu.edu/economics/harless/harlessp.htm. Heck, J.L., 1999. Finance Literature Index, 6th edition, Irwin/McGraw Hill. Jobber, D., and P. Simpson, 1988. A Citation Analysis of Selected Marketing Journals. International Journal of Research in Marketing 5, 137-142. Monastersky, R., 2005. The Number That’s Devouring Science, Chronicle of Higher Education, A12 - 17.

23

Oltheten, E., V. Theoharakis, and N.G. Travlos, 2005. Faculty Perceptions and Readership Patterns of Finance Journals: A Global View. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 40, 223-239. Todorov, R., and W. Glanzel, 1988. Journal Citation Measures: A Concise Review. Journal of Information Science 14, 47-56. Zivney, T.L., and W. Reichenstein, 1994. The Pecking Order in Finance Journals. Financial Practice and Education, 77-87.

24

Table 1

AAI Calculations Based upon Harless and Reilly Contribution to both numerator and denominator are calculated based upon Equation (1) where only US academic institutions are considered. Article Author Affiliations Contribution to Contribution to Numerator Denominator 1 Harvard, Duke 1.00 1.00 2. Harvard, Alabama 0.50 1.00 3. Harvard, Alabama, CUNY-Hunter 0.33 1.00 4. Harvard, JP Morgan 0.50 0.50 5. Harvard, U Kuwait 0.50 0.50 6. Harvard, Alabama, 0.33 0.67 JP Morgan 7. U Kuwait, Alabama 0.00 0.50 8. U Kuwait, U Nairobi 0.00 0.00 9. Alabama, CUNY-Hunter 0.00 1.00 10. JP Morgan, Fed 0.00 0.00 Total: 3.16 6.17 AAI = 3.16/6.17 = 0.51 ________________________________________________________________________ Note: Institutions with bold face font are assumed from a set of top-notch universities.

25

Table 2 AAI Calculation Based upon Harless and Reilly Is Biased in Favor of Non-US and Non-academic Authorship Contribution to both numerator and denominator are calculated based upon Equation (1) where only US academic institutions are considered. Panel A: Journal with more non-US and non-academic authorship

Article Author Affiliations Contribution to Contribution to Numerator Denominator 1 Harvard, Duke 1.00 1.00 2. Harvard, JP Morgan 0.50 0.50 3. Harvard, U Kuwait 0.50 0.50 4. U Kuwait, U Nairobi 0.00 0.00 5. JP Morgan, Fed 0.00 0.00 Total: 2.00 2.00 AAI = 2.00/2.000 = 1.00 Panel B: Journal with US academic authorship only

Article Author Affiliations Contribution to Contribution to Numerator Denominator 1 Harvard, Duke 1.00 1.00 2. Harvard, Alabama 0.50 1.00 3. Harvard, CUNY-Hunter 0.50 1.00 4. Alabama, CUNY-Hunter 0.00 1.00 5. Auburn, Villanova 0.00 1.00 Total: 2.00 5.00 AAI = 2.00/5.000 = 0.40 ________________________________________________________________________ Note: Institutions with bold face font are assumed from a set of top-notch universities.

26

Table 3 AAI Calculations Based upon Our Definition of Dataset x and (x + y). Based upon Equation (1), data set x includes top-80 finance programs worldwide; while data set (x + y) includes authors from all affiliations. ________________________________________________________________________ Article Author Affiliations Contribution to Contribution to Numerator Denominator 1 Harvard, Duke 1.00 1.00 2. Harvard, Alabama 0.50 1.00 3. Harvard, Alabama, CUNY-Hunter 0.33 1.00 4. Harvard, JP Morgan 0.50 1.00 5. Harvard, U Kuwait 0.50 1.00 6. Harvard, Alabama, 0.33 1.00 JP Morgan 7. U Kuwait, Alabama 0.00 1.00 8. U Kuwait, U Nairobi 0.00 1.00 9. Alabama, CUNY-Hunter 0.00 1.00 10. JP Morgan, Fed 0.00 1.00 Total: 3.16 10.0 AAI = 3.16/10.0 = 0.316 ________________________________________________________________________ Note: Institutions with bold face font are assumed from a set of top-notch universities.

27

Table 4 Ranking of Finance Journals Based upon AAI

∑∑∈

∈

+=

mi iii

mi iij nyx

nxAAI

/)(/

Where xi is drawn from the top-80 university set x, (xi + yi) includes authors from all affiliations, and m=60

Journal Rank Journal Title AAI1 Journal of Finance 0.8031 Review of Financial Studies 0.8033 Journal of Financial Economics 0.7094 Journal of Fin and Quantitative Analysis 0.5995 Journal of Business 0.5586 Journal of Corporate Finance 0.5117 Journal of Financial Markets 0.4848 Financial Analysts Journal 0.3729 Financial Management 0.370

10 Journal of Financial Intermediation 0.35311 Mathematical Finance 0.29412 Journal of Risk and Insurance 0.29213 European Finance Review 0.28614 Journal of Financial Research 0.27215 Journal of Derivatives 0.25016 Journal of Financial Services Research 0.24717 Fin Markets, Institutions and Instruments 0.24218 Journal of Computational Finance 0.23918 Journal of Empirical Finance 0.23920 Financial Review 0.20621 Review of Quantitative Fin and Acct 0.20322 European Financial Management 0.19923 Journal of Banking and Finance 0.19724 Review of Financial Economics 0.19425 Quarterly Review of Econ and Fin 0.18926 Journal of Fixed Income 0.18127 International Finance 0.17228 Journal of Portfolio Management 0.15829 Journal of Futures Markets 0.15030 International Review of Econ and Finance 0.14730 Journal of Behavioral Finance* 0.14732 Journal of International Money and Finance 0.14233 Multinational Finance Journal 0.13334 J of Multinational Financial Management 0.12835 Journal of Int. Fin Markets, Inst. & Money 0.11936 Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 0.11437 European Journal of Finance 0.09738 Journal of Business Fin and Acct 0.09439 International Review of Financial Analysis 0.07140 Global Finance Journal 0.04241 Applied Financial Economics 0.028

* 51 articles since first issue in 2003

28

Table 5 Comparison of Different Ranking Studies This table compares AAI ranking of finance journals with prior studies. Ranks reported for comparison studies may not correspond to original ranks after the exclusion of non-finance journals. Journal Title AAI Oltheten Borde Chan Zivney BorokhovichJournal of Finance 1 1 1 1 2 3Review of Financial Studies 1 3 5 3 4 2Journal of Financial Economics 3 2 3 2 1 1Journal of Fin and Quantitative Analysis 4 4 2 5 5 5Journal of Business 5 5 4 4 3 4Journal of Corporate Finance 6 9 NR 18 NR NRJournal of Financial Markets 7 16 NR NR NR NRFinancial Analysts Journal 8 8 9 10 6 8Financial Management 9 7 8 11 7 7Journal of Financial Intermediation 10 10 13 7 NR NRMathematical Finance 11 17 NR 8 NR NRJournal of Risk and Insurance 12 23 6 22 NR NREuropean Finance Review 13 20 NR NR NR NRJournal of Financial Research 14 12 10 16 10 12Journal of Derivatives 15 21 NR 12 NR NRJournal of Financial Services Research 16 NR 20 15 8 13Fin Markets, Institutions and Instruments 17 NR 26 NR NR NRJournal of Computational Finance 18 NR NR NR NR NRJournal of Empirical Finance 18 11 NR 6 NR NRFinancial Review 20 14 19 21 13 10Review of Quantitative Fin and Acct 21 NR 18 26 NR NREuropean Financial Management 22 24 NR NR NR NRJournal of Banking and Finance 23 6 7 9 11 11Review of Financial Economics 24 NR 24 NR NR NRQuarterly Review of Econ and Fin 25 NR NR 25 NR NRJournal of Fixed Income 26 NR 21 20 NR NRInternational Finance 27 NR NR NR NR NRJournal of Portfolio Management 28 13 11 14 9 9Journal of Futures Markets 29 24 16 17 12 8Journal of Behavioral Finance* 30 NR NR NR NR NRInternational Review of Econ & Finance 30 NR 22 NR NR NRJournal of International Money and Finance 32 18 12 13 NR 6Multinational Finance Journal 33 NR NR NR NR NRJ of Multinational Financial Management 34 NR 27 27 NR NRJournal of Int. Fin Markets, Inst. & Money 35 NR 28 NR NR NRPacific-Basin Finance Journal 36 25 NR 19 NR NREuropean Journal of Finance 37 NR NR NR NR NRJournal of Business Fin and Acct 38 22 15 24 14 14International Review of Financial Analysis 39 NR NR NR NR NRGlobal Finance Journal 40 NR 25 NR NR NRApplied Financial Economics 41 NR NR NR NR NR* 51 articles since first issue in 2003; NR denotes no ranking.

29

Table 6 Spearman Rank Correlations of AAI-based and Comparison Group Ranking This table analyzes the Spearman rank correlations between the AAI-based journal ranking and prior studies which are either survey-based or citation-based. ________________________________________________________________________ Oltheten Borde Chan Borokhovich Ziveney & et al. et al. et al. et al. Reichenstein ________________________________________________________________________ Rank Correlation 0.7616 0.7445 0.7218 0.9131 0.7227 Asymptotic Standard Error (0.116) (0.111) (0.1087) (0.048) (0.1747) N 24 26 26 14 15 ________________________________________________________________________

30

Table 7 Ranking when Only US Academics are Considered in Equation (1) This table reports journal rankings when only US academics are considered in the numerator and the denominator of Equation (1). Journal Title . New AAI New Rank Original Rank European Journal of Finance 1.000 1 37 Review of Financial Studies 0.961 2 1 Mathematical Finance 0.958 3 11 European Finance Review 0.939 4 13 Journal of Finance 0.896 5 1 Journal of Financial Economics 0.883 6 2 European Financial Management 0.864 7 22 Journal of Fin and Quantitative Analysis 0.812 8 4 Journal of Financial Intermediation 0.802 9 10 Journal of Computational Finance 0.792 10 18 Journal of Business 0.715 11 5 Journal of Corporate Finance 0.713 12 6 Journal of Financial Markets 0.703 13 7 International Finance 0.702 14 27 Journal of Fixed Income 0.640 15 26 Journal of Derivatives 0.635 16 15 Journal of Empirical Finance 0.611 17 18 Journal of Portfolio Management 0.592 18 28 Journal of Banking and Finance 0.569 19 23 Journal of Risk and Insurance 0.553 20 12 Financial Analysts Journal 0.548 21 8 Journal of Financial Services Research 0.518 22 16 Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 0.507 23 36 Financial Management 0.500 24 9 Fin Mkts, Institutions and Instruments 0.497 25 17 Journal of Intl Money and Finance 0.485 26 32 Journal of Int. Fin Mkts, Inst. & Money 0.444 27 35 Multinational Finance Journal 0.436 28 33 International Review of Econ & Finance 0.388 29 30 Review of Quantitative Fin and Acct 0.361 30 21 Journal of Financial Research 0.339 31 14 Review of Financial Economics 0.328 32 24 Journal of Futures Markets 0.323 33 29 Quarterly Review of Econ and Fin 0.320 34 25 Journal of Behavioral Finance* 0.317 35 30 J of Multinational Fin Mgt 0.298 36 34 Financial Review 0.273 37 20 Journal of Business Fin and Acct 0.229 38 38 International Review of Financial Analysis 0.218 39 39 Applied Financial Economics 0.163 40 41 Global Finance Journal 0.129 41 40 * 51 articles since first issue in 2003

31

Table 8 Ranking when the Top-Institutions Pool Is Increased to 100 This table reports journal rankings when the numerator of Equation (1) includes top-100 finance programs worldwide. Journal Title New AAI New Rank Original Rank Review of Financial Studies 0.842 1 1 Journal of Finance 0.820 2 1 Journal of Financial Economics 0.731 3 3 Journal of Business 0.653 4 5 Journal of Fin and Quantitative Analysis 0.637 5 4 Journal of Financial Markets 0.564 6 7 Journal of Corporate Finance 0.550 7 6 Financial Analysts Journal 0.472 8 8 Financial Management 0.447 9 9 Journal of Financial Intermediation 0.389 10 10 Journal of Risk and Insurance 0.369 11 12 Mathematical Finance 0.361 12 11 Journal of Empirical Finance 0.341 13 18 European Finance Review 0.336 14 13 Journal of Financial Research 0.330 15 14 Journal of Derivatives 0.312 16 15 Journal of Financial Services Research 0.283 17 16 Journal of Computational Finance 0.281 18 18 Fin Mkts, Institutions and Instruments 0.272 19 17 Journal of Behavioral Finance* 0.258 20 30 Journal of Banking and Finance 0.255 21 23 Quarterly Review of Econ and Fin 0.248 22 25 Review of Quant Fin and Acct 0.244 23 21 Financial Review 0.244 24 20 European Financial Management 0.243 25 22 Review of Financial Economics 0.219 26 24 International Review of Econ & Finance 0.217 27 30 Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 0.206 28 36 Journal of Intl Money and Finance 0.203 29 32 Journal of Fixed Income 0.200 30 26 Journal of Portfolio Management 0.183 31 28 Multinational Finance Journal 0.183 32 33 Journal of Futures Markets 0.175 33 29 J of Multinational Fin Mgt 0.172 34 34 International Finance 0.172 35 27 Journal of Int. Fin Mkt, Inst. & Money 0.167 36 35 Journal of Business Fin and Acct 0.117 37 38 European Journal of Finance 0.114 38 37 Intl Review of Financial Analysis 0.096 39 39 Global Finance Journal 0.086 40 40 Applied Financial Economics 0.064 41 41 * 51 articles since first issue in 2003.

32

Table 9 Ranking when the Top-Institutions Pool Is Decreased to 60 This table reports journal rankings when the numerator of Equation (1) includes top-60 finance programs worldwide.

Journal Title New AAI New Rank Original Rank Journal of Finance 0.673 1 1 Review of Financial Studies 0.667 2 1 Journal of Financial Economics 0.666 3 3 Journal of Fin and Quantitative Analysis 0.501 4 4 Journal of Business 0.472 5 5 Journal of Financial Markets 0.447 6 7 Journal of Corporate Finance 0.439 7 6 Financial Management 0.317 8 9 Financial Analysts Journal 0.300 9 8 Journal of Financial Intermediation 0.275 10 10 European Finance Review 0.247 11 13 Mathematical Finance 0.239 12 11 Journal of Computational Finance 0.239 12 18 Journal of Financial Services Research 0.233 14 16 Journal of Risk and Insurance 0.219 15 12 Journal of Derivatives 0.200 16 15 Journal of Empirical Finance 0.200 16 18 European Financial Management 0.195 18 22 Fin Markets, Institutions and Instruments 0.178 19 17 Journal of Financial Research 0.175 20 14 International Finance 0.164 21 27 Quarterly Review of Econ and Fin 0.164 21 25 Journal of Portfolio Management 0.153 23 28 Financial Review 0.147 24 20 Journal of Intl Money and Finance 0.142 25 32 Review of Quantitative Fin and Acct 0.133 26 21 Journal of Banking and Finance 0.133 26 23 Journal of Fixed Income 0.131 28 26 Journal of Futures Markets 0.108 29 29 International Review of Econ & Finance 0.106 30 30 Review of Financial Economics 0.103 31 24 Pacific Basin Finance Journal 0.092 32 36 European Journal of Finance 0.089 33 37 Journal of Behavioral Finance* 0.082 34 30 Multinational Finance Journal 0.081 35 33 Journal of Int. Fin Markets, Inst. & Money 0.072 36 35 Journal of Business Fin and Acct 0.069 37 38 J of Multinational Financial Management 0.058 38 34 Intl Review of Financial Analysis 0.032 39 39 Global Finance Journal 0.025 40 40 Applied Financial Economics 0.019 41 41 * 51 articles since first issue in 2003

33

Table 10 Ranking when Only Academics are Included This table reports journal rankings when only academic institutions are considered in both the numerator and the denominator of Equation (1)

Journal Title AAI New Rank Original Rank Journal of Finance 0.875 1 1Review of Financial Studies 0.847 2 1Journal of Financial Economics 0.774 3 3Journal of Fin and Quantitative Analysis 0.651 4 4Journal of Business 0.574 5 5Journal of Corporate Finance 0.541 6 6Journal of Financial Markets 0.520 7 7Financial Analysts Journal 0.490 8 8Journal of Financial Intermediation 0.466 9 10Financial Management 0.391 10 9Journal of Financial Services Research 0.388 11 16International Finance 0.385 12 27Journal of Computational Finance 0.384 13 18Journal of Portfolio Management 0.358 14 28Fin Mkts, Institutions and Instruments 0.358 15 17European Finance Review 0.353 16 13Journal of Risk and Insurance 0.328 17 12Mathematical Finance 0.319 18 11Journal of Fixed Income 0.312 19 26Journal of Derivatives 0.293 20 15Journal of Financial Research 0.279 21 14Journal of Empirical Finance 0.260 22 18Journal of Banking and Finance 0.251 23 23European Financial Management 0.233 24 22Review of Financial Economics 0.232 25 24Financial Review 0.226 26 20Quarterly Review of Econ and Fin 0.221 27 25Review of Quantitative Fin and Acct 0.207 28 21Journal of Intl Money and Finance 0.182 29 32Journal of Futures Markets 0.175 30 29Intl Review of Economics & Finance 0.169 31 30Journal of Behavioral Finance* 0.169 32 30Multinational Finance Journal 0.144 33 33J of Multinational Fin Mgt 0.134 34 34Journal of Int. Fin Mkts, Inst. & Money 0.128 35 35Pacific Basin Finance Journal 0.123 36 36European Journal of Finance 0.111 37 37Journal of Business Fin and Acct 0.097 38 38International Review of Fin Analysis 0.078 39 39Global Finance Journal 0.044 40 40Applied Financial Economics 0.031 41 41* 51 articles since first issue in 2003

34

Figure 1 Converge of AAI as the number of articles increases

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Number of articles

AAI s

core

RFS

JF

JFE

FM

JFR

FR

35

Appendix. The 100 institutions with most weighted articles appeared in top-5 finance journals We report rankings based upon the top-5 finance journals. The weight is by institution and by co-authorship. The top-5 finance journals are Journal of Finance, Journal of Financial Economics, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Review of Financial Studies, and Journal of Business.

Institution Country Rank Wt number of articles

NYU US 1 130.44 U Penn US 2 108.46 U Chicago US 3 102.33 Harvard U US 4 94.17 U Michigan US 5 86.58 UCLA US 6 85.83 Columbia U US 7 65.00 Duke U US 8 59.17 MIT US 9 57.83 Northwestern U US 10 56.83 Ohio State U US 11 56.75 Stanford U US 12 53.83 Cornell U US 13 51.04 U Rochester US 14 48.20 U Southern California US 15 45.67 U Illinois US 16 45.33 U British Columbia Canada 17 40.25 London Business School UK 18 35.67 Yale U US 19 34.78 UT-Austin US 20 34.58 Purdue U US 21 34.50 U Washington US 22 34.17 Arizona State U US 23 33.58 U North Carolina US 24 33.29 UC-Berkeley US 25 32.67 Carnegie Mellon U US 26 32.58 Indiana U US 27 31.92 U Florida US 28 31.67 U Maryland US 29 31.50 Boston College US 30 29.33 Virginia Tech US 31 27.50 UW-Madison US 32 25.58 Washington U US 33 25.17 U Notre Dame US 34 24.90 Vanderbilt U US 35 24.78 Penn State U US 36 23.75 Southern Methodist U US 37 23.25

36


U Georgia US 38 22.50 U Minnesota US 39 22.50 Emory U US 40 22.25 U Utah US 41 21.92 Michigan State U US 42 21.42 Rutgers U US 43 21.33 U Iowa US 44 20.67 HK U Science and TechnologyHong Kong 45 19.96 Dartmouth College US 46 19.25 Princeton U US 47 19.00 Tulane U US 48 18.17 Georgetown U US 49 17.83 U Arizona US 50 17.50 INSEAD France 51 16.58 LSU US 52 15.75 Baruch College US 53 15.67 UC-Irvine US 54 15.50 U Toronto Canada 55 14.33 U Virginia US 56 14.21 Rice U US 57 13.96 U Oregon US 58 13.67 U Pittsburgh US 59 13.25 UC-Davis US 60 12.83 Georgia State U US 61 12.75 U Missouri US 62 12.50 U Oklahoma US 63 12.33 U South Carolina US 64 12.25 Tel-Aviv U Israel 65 12.21 U Houston US 66 11.71 McGill U Canada 67 11.17 UC-Riverside US 68 11.00 BYU US 69 10.58 Clemson U US 70 10.00 U Colorado US 71 9.92 Santa Clara U US 72 9.83 U Alberta Canada 73 9.58 U Miami US 74 9.50 Case W Reserve U US 75 9.50 Boston U US 76 9.08 Iowa State U US 77 8.83 London School of Economics UK 78 8.67 Texas A&M U US 79 8.58 SUNY-Buffalo US 80 8.50 U Cincinnati US 81 7.58

37


College William and Mary US 82 7.50 HEC France 83 7.33 Georgia Tech US 84 7.17 UW-Milwaukee US 85 7.17 Hebrew U Israel 86 7.03 Syracuse U US 97 6.67 Fordham U US 88 6.42 Oxford U UK 89 6.29 UC-San Diego US 90 6.25 Chinese U Hong Kong Hong Kong 91 6.13 North Carolina State US 92 6.08 UT-Dallas US 93 6.00 U W Ontario Canada 94 5.92 Southern Illinois U US 95 5.83 National U Singapore Singapore 96 5.58 Queen's U Canada 97 5.58 Washington State U US 98 5.33 Erasmus U Netherlands 99 5.29 George Mason U US 100 5.17

Source: Chan, Chen, and Lung (2005).

Ranking Finance Journals Using Author Affiliation Index

Documents