Get documents about "Who Is Publishing An Analysis of Finance Research Productivity In
Document Sample
Who Is Publishing? An Analysis of Finance Research Productivity
In the European Region
KAM C. CHAN
Western Kentucky University
CARL R. CHEN*
University of Dayton
THOMAS L. STEINER
University of Dayton
Key Words: Research, finance, European universities
JEL Classification: G00, Z00
* Contact author: Carl R. Chen, Department of Economics and Finance, University of Dayton,
Dayton, OH 45469-2251, Tel: 937-229-4591, Fax: 937-229-2477, E-mail: chen@udayton.edu.
Helpful comments from an anonymous referee and programming assistance from Christine Lai
are gratefully acknowledged. We are responsible for any remaining errors.
October 2002 (this version).
Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, forthcoming.
Who Is Publishing? An Analysis of Finance Research Productivity
In the European Region
Abstract
This study ranks the research productivity in finance across European universities and
researchers using a set of 15 finance journals during the decade of the 1990s. A Journal of
Finance-equivalent-page-count productivity measure was used to address differences in article
lengths while the measure facilitates adjustments for co-authorships and co-affiliations. A total
of 219 universities are ranked. During the sample period from 1990 to 1999, the top three
universities are London Business School, City University Business School, and Lancaster
University. An interesting finding is that the UK universities dominate the top-20 ranking.
However, UK's dominance is significantly reduced when the Journal of Business Finance and
Accounting, a UK-based journal, is excluded from the analysis. Other non-UK European
universities gain further ground when only the top-4 journals are used as the basis for the
rankings. Our analysis also shows that a majority of the top 20 European universities have made
significant progress in research productivity over the period 1990-99. Additionally, we compare
the top European universities to those in North America. The top European university, London
Business School, compares to the 24th and 25th ranked North American universities for the period
from 1990 to 1999; it compares to the 15th and 16th ranked North American universities for the
more recent sub-period from 1995 to 1999. The top researcher is Henri Servaes from London
Business School.
2
Who Is Publishing? An Analysis of Finance Research Productivity
In the European Region
1. INTRODUCTION
Academic research in finance contributes to the reputation capital of finance programs,
business schools, and universities in various ways. A measurement of research success can be an
important input into the monitoring and decision processes within academics that nurtures the
reputation capital. An individual’s and/or institution’s research success may (a) help universities
generate grants and gifts, (b) provide help to administrators in making hiring, promotion, and
salary adjustment decisions, and (c) provide information for enrollment decisions made by
college bound and, especially, graduate school bound students. The importance of academic
research means that the process of ranking academic programs and institutions has become an
increasingly important and interesting effort in many regions throughout the world. In the
United Kingdom, research assessment exercises (RAEs) have been conducted approximately
every five years since 1989. The RAE process consists of a board of peers reviewing
standardized forms and documenting research productivity by departments in UK universities.
The departments are then ranked on a scale from “1” to “5-star” based upon the research quality.
The consequence of the rankings have a direct affect on university funding. A total of 173 UK
institutions took part in the 2001 RAE. The RAE process has apparently stimulated at least a
belief by UK academics that research by individuals and departments in these universities has
improved (Brinn, Jones, and Pendlebury, 1996, 2001b). Commenting on the results of the
assessment, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Warwick said: "…Our overall average has
3
again increased, this time to 4.4…It is a very special achievement to improve our average,
particularly since many of our new staff are young: the future is theirs."1
In the US, Business Week ranks top business schools and US News & World Report ranks
all universities as well as top specialty programs. A recent issue of Duke Magazine notes, “Love
them or hate them, college rankings appeal to a culture that worships consumer choice and is
seduced by prestige value” (Duke Magazine, September-October, 2001, p.3). During the month
that college rankings are released, the US News & World Report website reports more than 40
million hits. Many universities and colleges take the ranking so seriously that they consider it a
benchmark for academic planning. For example, Ohio State University specifies in its academic
plan that ten of the university’s programs be ranked in the top-ten in the nation within a ten-year
period and one of the benchmarks used is the US News & World Report ranking. Other
universities do not hesitate to capitalize on the ranking by publicizing it on their website.
Georgia State University’s website, for example, clearly states “Robinson’s Executive MBA
program was ranked 20th world wide by Business Week”.
The enthusiasm for such program rankings has also crossed other national boundaries in
recent years. It was reported that, at the request of the council of public and independent
universities, a US News & World Report team traveled to Spain to discuss the ranking of the
Spanish academic institutions (Duke Magazine, 2001). Furthermore, in January 2001, the
Financial Times published its newest ranking of the top 100 MBA programs in the world
(Financial Time, Jan 22, 2001, p. 1-2). The Financial Times reinforced the importance of
research productivity in forming their rankings. In a recent issue, they state: “Harvard Business
School … has been knocked from the number one spot in the Financial Times ranking of MBA
1
http://www.warwick.ac.uk/research.rae/.
4
programs… Replacing it is the Wharton School at the Pennsylvania University which earned its
ranking through strong research capabilities and the international diversity of its students”
(Financial Times, January 22, 2001, page 1).
Studies that publish assessments of research records are extensive and cut across various
business disciplines and geographical boundaries. While the RAEs provide one measure of
insight into the UK experience, no analysis has been completed more broadly on UK and other
European finance programs. Our study fills this void while completing four tasks. First, we
provide an analysis of research productivity in finance programs and authors among European
universities. We use data collected from a set of 15 core finance journals as the basis for the
ranking. We measure research productivity both in terms of page counts and numbers of articles.
Our analysis also allows us to assess the concentration of research productivity across
institutions. Second, we compare the leading UK and other European universities to the North
American universities to gauge the relative performance of the European universities. Third, we
study the progress of the research productivity of these European universities over the ten-year
period to measure changes in productivity. Fourth, we provide a ranking of individual authors
for the European universities. In brief, this study provides several interesting perspectives on
research productivity in finance in the European region.
The remainder of our paper is organized as follows: Section 2 provides a literature
review. Section 3 details the data and methodology used in the study. Section 4 reports the
findings of the analysis. Section 5 provides concluding remarks and summary findings.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
5
Studies on the assessment of academic research have a deep and broad history with many
alternative ranking objectives. An early economics example by Cleary and Edwards (1960)
provides an assessment of departments and their publications in the American Economic Review.
Klemkosky and Tuttle (1977) provide a similar type of an assessment for the finance discipline
in studying publications in the Journal of Finance. Weaver (1975) also provides a parallel
assessment in management by studying contributions to the Academy of Management Journal.
Besides these early papers that assess contributions to a discipline’s leading journal, recent
research in literature production may generally be placed into the following categories: (a)
research on a specific business discipline, (b) research on faculty, programs, departments,
institutions, and/or journals, (c) research criteria for faculty promotion, and (d) research
productivity in different regions of the world.
With respect to studies on research production in different disciplines, Brown and
Gardner (1985), Brown (1996), Weber and Stevenson (1981) are examples of accounting
research; Collins, Cox, and Stango (2000), Graves, Marchland, and Thompson (1982), on the
other hand, provide examples of economics research; Alexander and Mabry (1994),
Borokhovich, Bricker, and Simkins (1994a), Borokhovich, Bricker, Brunarski, and Simkins
(1998), Chung and Cox (1990), Zivney and Bertin (1992) are examples in finance.
The major class of studies provides rankings on various academic organizational
structures including faculty, programs, departments, institutions, and journals. For example,
faculty, programs, and departments in accounting are assessed by Bazley and Nikolai (1975),
Brown (1996), and Weber and Stevenson (1981). Marketing departments are ranked by Clark
(1985). Rankings of individual economics faculty and programs can be found in House and
6
Yeager (1978), Conboy, Dusansky, and Kildegarrd (1995), Scott and Mitias (1996), and
Dusansky and Vernon (1998).
In finance, rankings on faculty, programs, departments, institutions, and journals can be
found in Niemi (1987), Ziveny and Bertin (1992), Alexander and Mabry (1994), Borokhovich,
Bricker, Brunarski, and Simkins (1995, 1998), and Fishe (1998).2 Niemi (1987) tracks
institutional contributions over the period 1975 to 1986. Zivney and Bertin (1992) provide a
performance assessment of finance doctorates over a 25-year period. Their study also provides
insight into predicting future publication productivity that might be interesting to administrators
and committees in charge of tenure decisions. Alexander and Mabry (1994) use citations to
evaluate journals and individual authors based upon data from four top finance journals over the
years from 1987 to 1991. They identify the fifty most frequently cited journals and the fifty most
frequently cited authors and articles. Borokhovich, Bricker, Brunarski, and Simkins (1995)
examine 661 North American academic institutions over the period from 1989 to 1993 and find a
high institutional concentration of research productivity. They find that 40 institutions account
for over 50 percent of all articles published in a set of 16 leading journals. Borokhovich,
Bricker, Brunarski, and Simkins (1998) find a significant and positive relation between research
productivity and a business school’s reputation. Finally, Fishe (1998) investigates the research
standards for full professors in the Ph.D. granting institutions.
Studies on publication records also provide institutions with benchmarks for promotion
decisions. Examples are Englebrecht, Govind, and Patterson (1994) in accounting, and Zivney
and Bertin (1992) in finance. Interestingly, Zivney and Bertin (1992) conclude that publishing
2
Other researchers study the citation pattern, the distribution, and the quality of various journals.
For example, Chung and Cox (1990) analyze patterns in productivity, Borokhovich, Bricker, and
Simkins (1994a, 1994b) analyze journal influence and streams of financial research, respectively.
7
one article per year in a large set of finance, accounting, economics, and other business journals
is a truly remarkable feat, and it is only met by 5% of their sample of college faculty members.
While the previous studies primarily examine research productivity on US academic
organizations fewer studies have been published on non-US academic organizations. This later
group includes offerings from Brown (1996), Carmona, Cutierrez, and Camara (1999) who
analyze European accounting programs; Cottingham and Hussey (2000), and Gray, Haslam, and
Prodhan (1987) who rank UK accounting programs; Malouin and Outreville (1987), Frey and
Eichenberger (1993), Kirman and Dahl (1994), Elliott, Greenaway, and Sapsford (1998), and
Kalaitzidakis, Mamuneas, and Stengos (1999) who assess European economics programs; Chan,
Chen, and Steiner (2001) who rank the Asia-Pacific finance programs. Indeed the academic
research in ranking European finance program is virtually lacking with the exception that some
important efforts have been made to rank programs and institutions through the research
assessment exercises (RAEs) at the UK universities. Other European countries also have similar
assessment programs (e.g., Finland). A number of papers have reported the results and
perceptions of the exercises (Whittington, 1993, 1997, and Brinn, Jones, and Pendlebury,
2001b). Generally the UK and other European academics have perceived the process in a
favourable light with respect to motivating research efforts. Nevertheless, there is not a well-
focused study on the finance research productivity among the European academic institutions.
Our study fills this gap.
3. DATA AND METHODOLOGY
8
Our objective is to investigate finance research productivity across various European
universities and researchers. To this end, two critical steps must be defined – the selection of
journals to form our sample of research and the measurement of research productivity.
We manually gather data on research efforts from a set of 15 core finance journals. They
are: the Journal of Finance, the Journal of Financial Economics, the Review of Financial
Studies, the Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Financial Management, the Journal
of Financial Research, the Journal of Banking and Finance, the Journal of Portfolio
Management, Financial Analysts Journal, Financial Review, the Journal of Financial
Intermediation, the Journal of Financial Services Research, the Journal of Futures Markets, the
Journal of International Money and Finance, and the Journal of Business Finance and
Accounting.
The list of journals from which we define our population of research outlets is based
upon the following reasoning and criteria: (1) The journals must have been published for the
entire ten years period of our study from 1990 through 1999. (2) Alexander and Mabry (1994)
define a group of 50 top research outlets based upon citations in four top finance journals
(Journal of Finance, Journal of Financial Economics, Journal of Financial and Quantitative
Analysis, and Review of Financial Studies). Of the 15 journals in our sample, 13 are the same as
Alexander and Mabry’s sample with the remaining 37 journals on their list being largely
comprised of specialty publications (e.g. working papers), general interest publications (e.g. Wall
Street Journal), and economics publications (e.g. American Economic Review). Indeed only one
“finance-focused” journal, Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, is on the list of Alexander and
Mabry (1994) but not included in our list. We do not include this journal because it was not
included in prior research on departmental rankings (e.g., Borokhovich et al, 1995). Moreover,
9
the journal’s mission and commercial sponsors changed during the 1990s. On the other hand,
our list of 15 journals includes two journals not on the list of Alexander and Mabry (1994) and
they are the Journal of Financial Intermediation and the Journal of Financial Services
Research3. Both journals have a special focus and are well regarded within the banking/financial
services literature. (3) Borokhovich, Bricker, Brunarski, and Simkins (1995) use a set of journals
nearly identical to ours. Indeed, our lists are the same with the exceptions that the Journal of
Money, Credit, and Banking is replaced by the Journal of Financial Intermediation and the
Journal of Business is omitted from our list.4 (4) The sample list of 15 includes journals that are
more focused as well as others that are more general in nature. For example, we include the
Journal of Futures Markets, the Journal of Portfolio Management, and the Journal of Banking
and Finance as specialty research outlets. We include the Journal of Finance, the Journal of
Financial Economics, the Review of Financial Studies, and the Journal of Financial and
Quantitative Analysis as more general finance research outlets. The Journal of Business Finance
and Accounting is the only “European-based” finance journal on our list. Other European-based
journals either are not listed in Jean Heck’s Finance Literature Index or have not been published
for more than 10 years.
3
In Chan, Fok, and Pan (2000), Journal of Financial Intermediation and Journal of Financial
Service Research were ranked 7th and 17th in terms of impact factors excluding self-citation. See
their Exhibit 4.
4
We replaced Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking by the Journal of Financial
Intermediation because the former publishes mostly monetary economics research. Following
the suggestion of the reviewer, Journal of Business is excluded from our sample because it is not
a pure finance journal; it also publishes research in other business topics, such as marketing and
management. The rankings excluding Journal of Business is not materially different from
rankings including this journal. This is reasonably due to the fact that Journal of Business does
not publish large numbers of articles. Results including Journal of Business, however, are
available upon request from the authors.
10
From each of our 15 journals over the period from 1990 to 1999, we manually collect
information on authors’ names, authors’ affiliations, and page counts for each full article
(comments, book reviews, and letters to editors are excluded).5 Our primary measure of research
productivity is an adjusted page count with the page count adjusted in a number of ways. First,
we adjust the gross page count based upon JF-equivalent pages. We do this by randomly
sampling three typical pages from each journal without equations, footnotes, or graphs and then
adjusting all page counts to conform to the Journal of Finance average. For example, the
Journal of Finance has 582 words on an average page based upon our approach while the
Journal of Financial Economics has only 507 words on an average page. Consequently, the
adjustment factor of 0.8711 (= 507/582) is used if an author publishes in the Journal of Financial
Economics. Similarly, an adjustment factor of 1.00 (=582/582) is used if an author publishes in
the Journal of Finance.6
Second, we make adjustments to the page count to consider the number of co-authors.
For example, if an article has two authors, we divide the total page count by 2 and allocate half
the page count to each author. A similar allocation approach is used for papers with more than 2
authors while a paper published without any co-authors would have the total page count fully
allocated to the single author. Third, we make adjustments to the page count due to multiple
5
On many occasions departmental affiliations are not provided in articles. In addition, there is no
reliable way to identify departmental affiliations of all authors. Thus, it is possible that an article
may be originated from a non-finance researcher (e.g. economics or accounting). Because we
frame our conclusions in terms of the strength of finance programs at different schools, the
conclusions may indeed overstate the contributions of the finance program at each school.
Nevertheless, it is reasonable to believe that finance articles published by other discipline
researchers also provide an enhancement to the reputation of that finance program at a given
school.
6
Because Financial Review altered its printing in 1998, we adjusted the page counts for this
publication differently for articles published before and after the change.
11
affiliations. If an author has two affiliations then we divide the total page count by 2 and allocate
half of the total to each affiliation. In many instances we had both multiple authors and multiple
affiliations for each author. For example, if a paper has two authors (A and B) with the first
author (A) having two affiliations (V and W) and the second author (B) having three affiliations
(X, Y and Z), then 25% of the total page count would be allocated to affiliation V and affiliation
W, and 16.67% of the remaining total page count would be allocated to affiliations X, Y, and Z.
Moreover, in dividing the individual credit, 50% of the total page count would be allocated to
researcher A and 50% of the total page count would be allocated to researcher B.7
In total, for the period from 1990 to 1999, the 15 sample journals contain 6,399 articles
written by 5,271 authors from 816 universities and 675 non-academic institutions with
107,933.83 JF-equivalent pages. Among these articles, there are 219 universities from the
European region (26.96% of the total academic institutions, or approximately 14.71% of the total
institutions) with 638 authors (12.10% of all authors) who wrote 628.87 weighted articles (9.83%
of all articles), and 11,506.18 JF-equivalent pages (10.66% of all pages).
7
Sample data was checked for accuracy after it was collected. Two issues emerged. First, it was
evident that in many cases authors published different articles using alternative ways to present
their name. For example, David R. Smith might also be presented as DR Smith or D.R. Smith on
other articles. We made a diligent effort to allocate page count credit to an individual despite
this difficulty. We did this by first ordering the sample data by author name and then manually
looking through the data a number of times to proof read the authors’ identify. The problem,
indeed, surfaced in literally hundreds of cases. We next investigated the affiliation of each of the
“name” presentations. For example, if David R. Smith, DR Smith, and D.R. Smith were all at
the same university then we adjusted the individual’s name in our database to be homogenous
and give credit for each of the articles to the same person. A second problem emerged from the
affiliation names. Because some university names can either be presented differently or went
through a name change, we made a similar effort to make sure proper credit was allocated by
assigning a “single” name for all affiliations. For example, K.U. Leuven and Catholic University
of Leuven represent the same institution and we appropriately formed a “single” affiliation name
for this university in our database.
12
Although there are different ways to rank the research productivity of an institution, we
choose the JF-equivalent page count as a primary measure for a number of reasons. First, a
popular quality measurement, i.e., Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) impact factor, is not
available for all finance journals. For example, the index is not available for the Financial
Analysts Journal, among others. Second, a finance journal’s impact factor may be affected by
citations outside the finance field (Borokhovich, Bricker, and Simkins, 2000). Third, the citation
factor often is biased in favour of subject matter in the corporate finance area (Borokhovich,
Bricker, and Simkins, 2000). Fourth, although we also report the adjusted article count, we
believe that the adjusted page count is a better measurement. The adjusted page count measure
has been adopted in prior research. Moreover, Borokhovich, Bricker, and Simkins (2000) find
shorter papers to have less influence than full articles. Thus, the issue of differential quality
among journals is mitigated by using the adjusted page counts. This is because papers published
in the top tier journals are, on average, longer than articles in lesser journals. Therefore, the
adjusted page count method implicitly takes journal influence into account. For example, a
typical Journal of Finance full-length article runs 35 – 40 pages, while a typical Financial
Review article has approximately 15 pages (11.5 JF-equivalent pages). Finally, we did not use
“per capita productivity”; as a result, our findings may underestimate the research productivity of
smaller institutions. We contend that institutional reputation is more strongly impacted by
aggregate academic power while per capita productivity has less influence on the reputation of
an institution.
4. RESULTS FROM RANKING THE FINANCE PROFESSION IN EUROPE
(i) General Rankings
13
Table 1 reports the rankings of the top 20 European universities over the 1990 to 1999
period using the weighted JF-equivalent page count. Also reported in the table are the weighted
article and the unweighted article counts. We report unweighted and weighted article count in
addition to weighted JF-equivalent page count only for references because prior studies use these
measures. Clearly, the unweighted article count inflates an individual and an institution’s
research productivity when co-authorships and multiple affiliations exist. Moreover, the
weighted article count is inferior to the weighted page count because it fails to take into
consideration article length, and thus count could not mitigate the differential journal influence
and journal quality. Nevertheless, the difference in the relative rankings based upon these
alternative productivity measures is small. For example, the rank correlation between the
weighted article count and the JF-equivalent page count is 92.7%.
London Business School received the top ranking with a total weighted JF-equivalent
page count of 696.76. The remaining top five institutions are: City University Business School
(with 512.54 weighted pages), Lancaster University (with 420.41 weighted pages), the
University of Strathclyde (with 383.47 weighted pages), and the University of Manchester (with
362.37 weighted pages). Among the top 20 universities in Table 1, the top six are all located in
the UK. In total, there are 13 UK universities with rankings among the top 20. Among these 13
UK universities, six have submitted themselves to the 2001 RAE under the Unit of Assessment
number 44 (Accounting and Finance), and all six received either a 5 or a 5-star ranking.8 For the
remainder of the institutions, France has two universities and the Netherlands, Finland, Belgium,
Norway, and Sweden each have one university with a ranking in the top 20. In terms of
8
The University of Bristol, the University of Exeter, London School of Economics, the
University of Manchester, the University of Glasgow, and the University of Strathclyde. See
http://www.rae.ac.uk/criteria/crit44.htm
14
weighted and unweighted number of articles, the top 10 universities are the same as those ranked
by JF-equivalent pages with only small changes in the relative rankings. In Appendix 1, we also
report European universities that are ranked from 21 to 100 based on JF-equivalent pages.
Moreover, Figure 1 presents a graph that details the distribution of research. The research
productivity distribution is skewed. For example, the top 5, top 10, and top 20 schools receive
credit for approximately 21%, 33%, and 49% of the research in our study, respectively. This
concentration result is slightly more skewed yet similar to North American universities where the
top 5, top 10, and top 20 schools receive credit for approximately 14%, 22%, and 35% of the
research, respectively.
The dominance illustrated by the UK institutions in Table 1 may be due to (a) the
governmental research assessment exercises among UK universities, (b) the faculty size of the
UK universities,9 and (c) a possible sample bias for UK universities due to the inclusion of a UK-
based journal (i.e., Journal of Business Finance and Accounting) in our sample. The
consequence of a home base bias due to the inclusion of JBFA is addressed in the next section.
(ii) Rankings Excluding the UK-Based Journal
There is little doubt that British authors may have a tendency to publish more of their
research in the Journal of Business Finance and Accounting (JBFA), which is the only UK and
European based (specifically, UK-based) journal in our sample. Similar evidence is found in
9
We made a head count of the faculty size based upon the name list shown on the web pages of
the top-20 universities. Indeed, UK universities generally have larger faculty size than other
European universities. For example, London Business School has 28 faculties, City University
Business School has 27, while the top-seed French university (INSEAD) has 22, and the second-
ranked French university (HEC) has only 17. As argued in Section 3, however, institutional
reputation often is measured by aggregate academic power. Therefore, faculty size does produce
a bias in favour of larger universities.
15
economics journals. For example, the UK-based Economic Journal is found to be favoured by
the UK authors (Kalaitzidakis, Mamuneas, and Stengos, 1999). Brinn, Jones, and Pendlebury
(2001) also find that UK accounting and finance academics strongly believe that there is a barrier
of entry into the major US journals and it is easier to publish in the UK-based journals. Given
the evidence, including JBFA, therefore, creates a bias in favour of UK universities.10
To examine if there may be a possible home bias in the ranking of universities due to the
inclusion of JBFA, we also conduct a similar analysis without JBFA. The results of the top-20
universities are presented in Table 2. In Appendix 2, we also report European universities that
are ranked from 21 to 100. The first column gives the ranking without JBFA while the second
column produces the ranking of the same institution when JBFA was included in the analysis.
The rank correlation between the ranking with and without JBFA is high (0.8187). This suggests
that an institution with a high (low) ranking when JBFA is excluded in the analysis would also
likely exhibit a high (low) ranking when JBFA is included in the analysis. Nevertheless, after
removing JBFA from the analysis, although UK institutions still have a strong presence in the
top-20 list, significant changes are observed. Despite the fact that London Business School and
City University Business School still retain their 1-2 positions, eight universities ranked in the
top-20 shown in Table 1 are no longer listed in Table 2. Among the eight universities de-listed,
seven are UK universities. The only non-UK university de-listed is the University of Vaasa
(Finland). The home bias can be clearly seen from the dramatic changes in the rankings for the
10
We thank the reviewer to mention this issue.
10
See Alexander and Mabry (1994) for this selection.
16
following UK universities: University of Manchester (from 5th ranked to 42nd); University of
Exeter (from 11th ranked to 91tst), and University of Bristol (from 14th ranked to not-ranked). UK
universities, therefore, generally fall, but non-UK universities improve after excluding the JBFA
from the analysis. Clearly, some of the UK universities benefit from a home-based journal being
included in the sample.
Another issue arises due to the fact that all 15 journals are written in English that will
create some bias in favour of English speaking authors and institutions. However, the bias in the
results from journal selection may be moderate. For example, in Table 3, we report institutional
rankings based upon only the top-4 journals. Among the top-20 institutions, only four are UK
institutions. In effect, non-English speaking programs are equally prevalent. Four French and
four Dutch institutions are also on the top-20 list. Hence, the selection of English-based journals
could be argued to create only a moderate bias. On the other hand, if we include non-English
based journals (e.g., German or French based), a bias would also exist that may possibly be more
severe. In the next section, we further investigate the influence of using the top-4 journals for our
analysis.
(iii) Rankings Using the Top-Four Finance Journals
Although we use 15 major finance journals in our basic study, some may point out that
quality differentials between these 15 journals exist. Indeed, this is one of the reasons that we
use JF-equivalent page counts to mitigate the journal quality differential. However, to further
address this issue, we also rank the top-20 European universities based upon publications that are
11
This argument is supported by the fact that a few European based finance journals only
emerged in recent years. For example, the European Financial Review, an official journal of the
European Finance Association is only in its 5th year of publication.
17
generally perceived to be the top four finance journals (Journal of Finance, Journal of Financial
Economics, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, and Review of Financial Studies).11
We report these results in Table 3. Comparing these results with those presented in Tables 1 and
2, the most significant change is the further reduction in the number of UK universities in the
top-20 list. In effect, only four British universities are still ranked in the top-20. French and
Dutch universities gain seats in the top-20 list. British universities that dropped out of the list
(from Table 2 list) are University of Strathclyde, University of Wales-Swansea, and University
of Warwick. The strong presence of British universities on the top-20 list reported in Table 1,
therefore, is likely to be the result of (1) including a UK-based journal, and (2) being stronger in
quantity than in quality. Although this result is consistent with the finding in Brinn, Jones, and
Pendlebury (2001a) that UK academics are less likely to publish in top US journals because of
their belief of an entry barrier, it is not consistent with the objective of RAEs, which presumably
emphasizes quality over quantity.
Alt
hough one might make the argument from this assessment that the UK universities are stronger
in quantity than in quality, one should be cautioned that London Business School is consistently
the number one ranked university among the European universities irrespective the methods of
measuring12. London Business School's overwhelming JF-equivalent page counts (369.88) in the
top-4 journals easily outnumbers the second and the lesser ranked universities even on a per
capita basis. London School of Economics, which received a 5-star RAE ranking in year 2001
also performs well. While measuring research output based upon the top-4 journals adds another
18
dimension to the study, one should be cautious in interpreting the results for two reasons. First,
only 63 European universities have ever published one unweighted article in the top-4 finance
journals. In effect, the majority of them have only one unweighted article. Rankings based upon
one or two articles over a 10-year period are extremely unreliable. Second, this ranking method
implicitly assumes a zero weight to the other 11 journals; only a handful of very top-notch
universities will probably consider the benchmark of the top-4 to be more legitimate.
(iv) Comparison with the North American Universities and Comparison Across Time Periods
Since European universities have increased research effort in more recent years through
quality assessment programs such as RAEs, Tables 4 and 5 compare the top 20 European
universities to the North American universities. The comparable JF-equivalent page counts for
North American universities are calculated with a similar methodology. Table 4 provides a
comparison based upon the entire sample period from 1990 through 1999. In this Table, London
Business School is comparable to either the University of Florida (24th ranked North American
universities) or Arizona State University (25th ranked). Similarly, City University Business
School is comparable to either Carnegie Mellon University (34th ranked North American
universities) or Texas A&M University (35th ranked).
Because the development in finance research in most European countries has emerged
only in recent years,13 our analysis from 1990-99 may underestimate the more recent research
productivity of the European institutions. Therefore, Table 5 provides the same type of
12
Comparing Tables 1 and 2, London Business School had the same number of JF-equivalent
pages. It is because, during 1990-99, London Business School faculty did not publish in Journal
of Business Finance and Accounting.
19
comparison based upon the more recent period from 1995 through 1999. In Table 5, London
Business School’s rank is substantially improved and now is comparable to the University of
California at Berkeley (15th ranked university in North America) and the University of Texas-
Austin (16th ranked). City University Business School is comparable to the University of Florida
(26th ranked) and the University of Iowa (27th ranked). Lancaster University, which is ranked
3rd during the period from 1995 to 1999, is comparable to Georgetown University (32nd ranked)
and Vanderbilt University (33rd ranked). Besides providing perspective and an interesting
comparison, Tables 4 and 5 show a clear strengthening of research productivity among the top
European universities during the period from 1995 to 1999 as compared with 1990 to 1994. For
example, from Table 4, across the entire decade of the 1990s (1990-1999), the yearly average
weighted JF-equivalent pages for London Business School is 39.37 while the same yearly
average is 99.98 for the last five years of the 1990s (1995-1999).
The improvement of the top 20 European universities in terms of research productivity is
best shown in Table 6, which reports the percentage increase in research productivity. For
example, the percentage increase in weighted JF-equivalent pages and weighted number of
articles for the period 1995-1999 relative to the 1990-1994 period is shown to be positive in 16
of the top 20 universities. London Business School showed an increase of 153.92% in JF-
equivalent pages while the largest increase was gained by Norwegian School of Management
with an increase of 834.15%, followed by the University of Warwick (633.93%). Clearly, the
Norwegian School of Management not only shows improvement in their quantity of research but
also their quality of research as indicated by their 4th ranked status in Table 3. Nearly 60% of the
Norwegian School of Management’s JF-equivalent page counts come from the top-4 journals.
Impressively, the average percentage increase in JF-equivalent pages for the top 20 universities
20
is 192%. Similar conclusions exist when the weighted number of articles is used as the
productivity measure. Moreover, the research productivity improvement does not seem to be
concentrated in only a few institutions and the result seems insensitive to the sample of journals
used in the assessment. For example, instead of using 15 journals, we also used the “top-4”
journals to examine the pattern of productivity changes. Although we do not report the results in
a table, we find that among the 63 institutions that have published at least one article in this set of
journals, 46 institutions (73%) show improvement over the second half of the 1990s, while only
17 institutions (27%) experience a decline in productivity. Moreover, the results using this
alternative journal sample show the productivity improvements are by no means limited to UK
institutions. Among the top performers are ESSEC (France), Norwegian School of Economics
and Business (Norway), the Universite de Toulouse (France), the University of Groningen
(Germany), and the University of Vienna (Austria). We attribute the broad scope of this
improvement in research productivity across European institutions to a number of factors such as
the development of the European financial markets (i.e. the growth in the money and capital
markets) that may stimulate the expansion of academic finance programs and research. Another
potential factor is the adoption of research quality assessment programs such as UK’s RAEs.
(v) Ranking of Authors
In addition to institutional rankings, we show in Table 7 the ranking of the top 20
individual authors with affiliations to the European universities in Table 7. London Business
School, Lancaster University, and Norwegian School of Management each have multiple
researchers in the top 20. Other top-20 authors are fairly spread out among the other leading
European universities. We should point out, however, that certain European authors show a
21
preference for European-based journals. For example, Peter Pope (number 2 ranked author) has a
larger than average concentration in the Journal of Business Finance and Accounting (JBFA).
This is also found in economics research (Kalaitzidakis, Mamuneas, and Stengos 1999), which
reports a heavy concentration of UK authorship in the Economic Journal. Due to the selection of
our sample journals, the ranking of some individuals will tend to be influenced by these
individual research preferences.
5. CONCLUDING REMARKS
This study ranks the finance research productivity among the European universities using
a set of 15 core finance journals during the decade of 1990s. Weighted JF-equivalent page
counts are used to account for different lengths in articles and the measure facilitates adjustments
for co-authorships and co-affiliations. A total of 219 universities are ranked.
We find several interesting results. Using the publication information of all 15 core
finance journals, the top five European universities are London Business School, City University
Business School, Lancaster University, the University of Strathclyde, and the University of
Manchester respectively. In addition, the inclusion of a UK-based journal biases the ranking in
favour of UK universities. When only the top-4 journals are used to rank the top-20 universities,
the presence of UK universities diminishes while the presence of other European universities
increases. Nevertheless, London Business School retains its number one ranking irrespective of
the sample of journals. Moreover, the distribution of publications is highly skewed as the top 5,
top 10, and top 20 universities account for 21%, 33%, and 49% of all the total JF-equivalent
pages, respectively. In comparison, research productivity of top European universities reaches a
similar level to those in North America. The first-ranked European university, London Business
22
School, compares to the 24th and 25th ranked North American universities – the University of
Florida and Arizona State University - for the period from 1990 to 1999. London Business
School, however, show impressive improvement for the period from 1995 to 1999 where it
compares to the 15th and 16th ranked North American universities – the University of California-
Berkeley and the University of Texas-Austin. By splitting the sample into the first-five-years
(1990-94) and the second-five-years (1995-1999), we are also able to gauge the research
progress. The comparisons suggest that 80% of the top 20 European universities (16 in total)
have made significant progress during the decade of the 1990s. The largest percentage increases
in research productivity were at the Norwegian School of Management, the University of
Warwick, the University of Bristol, and the University of Exeter. The improvements may be due
to the expansion of the financial markets in the region that has lead to an increased interest in
financial research and lead to an increase in the number of finance programs offered at UK and
European universities. Moreover, an especially likely influence upon the success we document
for the UK universities is the influence of the research assessment exercises.
23
Table 1. Ranking of the Top 20 European Universities by Weighted JF-Equivalent Page
Counts in 15 Core Finance Journals
This table provides a ranking of European universities by weighted JF-equivalent pages in 15
finance journals during 1990-99. The weights are by co-authorship and co-affiliation. The
numbers of unweighted articles as well as the home country are also presented.
JF-
Weighted Unweighted equivalent
Rank Universities Country articles articles pages
1 London Business School UK 31.50 65 696.76
2 City University Business School UK 27.17 42 512.54
3 Lancaster University UK 20.87 39 420.41
4 University of Strathclyde UK 22.50 52 383.47
5 University of Manchester UK 17.83 34 362.37
6 London School of Economics UK 17.58 33 332.48
7 INSEAD France 14.33 28 293.32
8 Erasmus University Netherlands 16.66 35 271.43
9 HEC France 16.03 35 264.41
10 University of Vaasa Finland 11.75 25 208.73
11 University of Exeter UK 8.33 17 206.01
12 University of Nottingham UK 10.92 24 202.92
13 Catholic University of Leuven Belgium 9.42 22 197.56
14 University of Bristol UK 8.83 15 191.08
15 University of Glasgow UK 7.50 10 188.39
16 University of Warwick UK 11.17 18 182.07
17 University of Southampton UK 10.33 23 173.10
18 University of Cambridge UK 8.75 13 171.22
19 Norwegian School of Management Norway 7.25 15 165.36
20 Stockholm School of Economics Sweden 9.92 20 164.38
24
Table 2. European Universities in Research Productivity Based on a Set of 14 Finance
Journals (without Journal of Business Finance and Accounting)
This table provides a ranking of European universities by weighted pages in 14 finance journals
(without Journal of Business Finance and Accounting) in 1990-99. The weights are by co-
authorship and co-affiliation. The numbers of unweighted articles as well as the home country
are presented as well as the change in rankings as relative to Table 1 and Appendix 1. The rank
correlation between the rankings of universities with and without Journal of Business Finance
and Accounting is 0.8216.
Ranking JF-
without Ranking Weighted Unweighted equivalent
JBFA with JBFA Universities Country articles articles pages
1 1 London Business School UK 31.50 65 696.76
2 2 City University Business School UK 21.67 32 393.14
3 7 INSEAD France 14.33 28 293.32
4 6 London School of Economics UK 14.58 26 277.14
5 8 Erasmus University Netherlands 16.66 35 271.43
6 9 HEC France 16.03 35 264.41
7 4 University of Strathclyde UK 9.50 19 185.26
8 3 Lancaster University UK 9.53 21 173.67
9 13 Catholic University of Leuven Belgium 7.42 18 170.38
10 19 Norwegian School of Management Norway 7.25 15 165.36
11 30 University of Mannheim Germany 6.33 13 109.00
12 24 Tilburg University Netherlands 6.42 14 104.20
13 20 Stockholm School of Economics Sweden 6.25 14 104.19
14 32 University of Limburg Belgium 5.58 13 97.14
15 35 University of Amsterdam Netherlands 5.67 12 95.96
16 36 Universitat Bern Switzerland 4.75 11 94.48
17 37 Université de Toulouse France 3.17 7 92.52
18 21 Helsinki School of Economics Finland 5.83 8 86.45
19 28 University of Wales-Swansea UK 5.33 7 84.60
20 16 University of Warwick UK 5.50 10 83.38
25
Table 3: Top 20 European Universities in Research Productivity that are Based on Top-4
Journals
This table provides a ranking of European universities by weighted pages in top-4 finance
journals (i.e., Journal of Finance, Journal of Financial Economics, Journal of Financial and
Quantitative Analysis, and Review of Financial Studies) during 1990-99. The weights are by co-
authorship and co-affiliation. The numbers of unweighted articles as well as the home country
are presented. There are 63 European universities that published at least one unweighted articles
in the top-4 finance journals. The correlation coefficient between JF-equivalent pages in top four
journals and in the 15 finance journals for the top 20 European universities is 0.46.
JF-
Weighted Unweighted equivalent
Rank Universities Country articles articles pages
1 London Business School UK 14.50 32 369.88
2 INSEAD France 6.25 13 144.35
3 London School of Economics UK 4.33 9 117.61
4 Norwegian School of Management Norway 3.25 8 98.73
5 HEC France 4.86 11 98.67
6 Université de Toulouse France 2.50 5 75.94
7 Universitat Bern Switzerland 2.50 6 62.76
8 University of Amsterdam Netherlands 2.00 5 54.77
9 City University Business School UK 2.00 2 50.00
10 ESSEC France 2.00 2 49.70
11 Erasmus University Netherlands 2.13 7 45.23
12 University of Vienna Austria 1.50 2 43.54
13 Lancaster University UK 2.33 6 38.71
14 European University Institute Italy 1.25 3 33.10
15 University of Groningen Netherlands 1.00 1 31.25
16 Tilburg University Netherlands 1.42 4 27.76
17 Stockholm School of Economics Sweden 0.92 3 26.81
18 University of Cyprus Cyprus 1.00 1 26.13
19 Helsinki School of Economics Finland 1.00 1 24.39
20 Université Catholique de Louvain Belgium 1.00 2 24.08
26
Table 4. A Comparison of the Top 20 Leading European Universities with North American Universities in 1990-99 in
Weighted JF-Equivalent Pages Counts.
The leading European universities are compared with universities in the North America in terms of weighted total JF-Equivalent page
counts. The weights are by co-authorship and co-affiliation.
Europe North America
Weighted JF
Rank Universities pages Rank Universities Weighted JF pages
1 London Business School 696.76 24/25 University of Florida/Arizona State University 715.71/682.40
2 City University Business School 512.54 34/35 Carnegie Mellon University/Texas A&M University 522.70/508.48
3 Lancaster University 420.41 52/53 University of Alabama/Florida Atlantic University 430.10/417.21
4 University of Strathclyde 383.47 57/58 Wilfrid Laurier University/Emory University 388.67/367.99
5 University of Manchester 362.37 60/61 University of Minnesota/University of Utah 362.89/348.90
6 London School of Economics 332.48 67/68 University of Arizona/Clemson University 334.10/331.07
7 INSEAD 293.32 77/78 University of Memphis/University of Tennessee 295.78/292.22
8 Erasmus University 271.43 82/83 Texas Tech University/Simon Fraser University 272.19/271.10
9 HEC 264.41 83/84 Simon Fraser University/Rice University 271.10/263.36
10 University of Vaasa 208.73 105/106 University of New Orleans/University of North Texas 209.01/200.24
11 University of Exeter 206.01 105/106 University of New Orleans/University of North Texas 209.01/200.24
12 University of Nottingham 202.92 105/106 University of New Orleans/University of North Texas 209.01/200.24
13 Catholic University of Leuven 197.56 107/108 University of Kentucky/Queen’s University 199.67/195.53
14 University of Bristol 191.08 109/110 George Mason University/Rider University 193.76/189.07
15 University of Glasgow 188.39 110/111 Rider University/San Diego State University 189.07/187.06
16 University of Warwick 182.07 114/115 University of Kentucky/San Diego State University 199.67/196.36
27
17 University of Southampton 173.10 117/118 University of Dayton/Texas Christian University 175.78/158.72
18 University of Cambridge 171.22 117/118 University of Dayton/Texas Christian University 175.78/158.72
19 Norwegian School of Management 165.36 117/118 University of Dayton/Texas Christian University 175.78/158.72
20 Stockholm School of Economics 164.38 117/118 University of Dayton/Texas Christian University 175.78/158.72
28
Table 5. A Comparison of the Leading European Universities with North American Universities in 1995-99 in Weighted JF-
Equivalent Pages Counts.
The leading European universities are compared with universities in the North America in terms of weighted total JF-Equivalent page
counts. The weights are by co-authorship and co-affiliation.
Europe United States and Canada
Weighted JF
Rank University pages Rank University Weighted JF pages
1 London Business School 499.89 15/16 UC-Berkeley/University of Texas-Austin 506.79/485.75
2 City University Business School 358.43 26/27 University of Florida/University of Iowa 364.69/327.12
3 Lancaster University 287.02 32/33 Georgetown University/Vanderbilt University 287.86/286.86
4 University of Manchester 233.40 50/51 University of Utah/Northern Illinois University 241.48/232.02
5 London School of Economics 222.92 54/55 University of Arizona/University of Minnesota 226.06/221.93
6 Erasmus University 178.95 64/65 University of California-Irvine/University of Oregon 183.35/175.51
7 University of Exeter 167.14 73/74 Emory University/Fordham University 167.87/166.93
8 University of Warwick 160.24 76/77 University of Toronto/University of Colorado 160.29/157.69
9 University of Bristol 160.02 76/77 University of Toronto/University of Colorado 160.29/157.69
10 University of Nottingham 156.77 78/79 Clemson University/Simon Fraser University 157.19/155.86
11 Norwegian School of Management 149.37 79/80 Simon Fraser University/Tulane University 155.86/147.92
12 University of Reading 144.99 81/82 University of Kentucky/McMaster University 147.32/143.73
13 University of Glasgow 140.86 85/86 University of Alberta/Oklahoma State University 141.37/140.59
14 University of Cambridge 136.29 88/89 University of Memphis/Princeton University 139.50/135.58
15 University of Southampton 134.27 89/90 Princeton University/Brigham Young University 135.58/131.84
16 University of Strathclyde 131.97 89/90 Princeton University/Brigham Young University 135.58/131.84
Brigham Young University/Case Western Reserve
17 Tilburg University 130.09 90/91 University 131.84/130.69
29
18 INSEAD 128.15 92/93 Washington State University/Suffolk University 128.35/127.88
19 Catholic University of Leuven 122.85 96/97 SUNY-Buffalo/North Carolina State University 124.86/120.64
20 University of Vaasa 111.93 100/101 Old Dominion University/Northeastern University 114.53/109.86
30
Table 6. Research Productivity Progress of the Top 20 European Universities from 1990-94 to 1995-99.
This table compares the research productivity progress of the top 20 European universities from 1990-94 to 1995-99. Percentage
increase (+) or decrease (-) of weighted JF-equivalent pages and weighted number of articles are calculated.
1990-94 1995-99 % increase
JF- JF- In In JF-
Weighted Unweighted equivalent Weighted Unweighted equivalent In weighted unweighted equivalent
Rank University articles articles pages articles articles pages articles articles pages
1 London Business School 9.58 16 196.87 21.92 49 499.89 128.70% 206.25% 153.92%
2 City University Business School 8.67 12 154.11 18.50 30 358.43 113.46% 150.00% 132.57%
3 Lancaster University 8.17 16 133.39 12.70 23 287.02 55.51% 43.75% 115.17%
4 University of Strathclyde 15.33 35 251.49 7.17 17 131.97 -53.26% -51.43% -47.52%
5 University of Manchester 7.50 12 128.97 10.33 22 233.40 37.78% 83.33% 80.97%
6 London School of Economics 6.00 11 109.56 11.58 22 222.92 93.06% 100.00% 103.47%
7 INSEAD 8.83 15 165.17 5.50 13 128.15 -37.74% -13.33% -22.42%
8 Erasmus University 5.83 13 92.49 10.83 22 178.95 85.57% 69.23% 93.49%
9 HEC 10.83 24 157.85 5.19 11 106.55 -52.05% -54.17% -32.50%
10 University of Vaasa 5.25 11 96.80 6.50 14 111.93 23.81% 27.27% 15.62%
11 University of Exeter 2.50 5 38.87 5.83 12 167.14 133.33% 140.00% 329.94%
12 University of Nottingham 4.08 7 46.14 6.83 17 156.77 67.35% 142.86% 239.76%
13 Catholic University of Leuven 4.42 10 74.71 5.00 12 122.85 13.21% 20.00% 64.45%
14 University of Bristol 2.00 2 31.07 6.83 13 160.02 241.67% 550.00% 415.10%
15 University of Glasgow 2.00 2 47.53 5.50 8 140.86 175.00% 300.00% 196.35%
16 University of Warwick 1.50 3 21.83 9.67 15 160.24 544.44% 400.00% 633.93%
17 University of Southampton 2.50 4 38.83 7.83 19 134.27 213.33% 375.00% 245.77%
18 University of Cambridge 2.00 3 34.93 6.75 10 136.29 237.50% 233.33% 290.19%
19 Norwegian School of Management 1.00 2 15.99 6.25 13 149.37 525.00% 550.00% 834.15%
20 Stockholm School of Economics 5.67 10 83.25 4.25 10 81.14 -25.00% 0.00% -2.54%
31
Table 7. The Top 20 Authors in European Universities in Terms of Weighted Total JF-
Equivalent Pages (1990-99)
This table gives the top 20 authors in European universities.
JF-
Weighted Unweighted equivalent
Rank Author Universities articles articles pages
1 Servaes, Henri London Business School 6.50 10 137.13
2 Pope, Peter F Lancaster University 6.25 14 108.72
3 O'Hanlon, John Lancaster University 4.67 6 97.40
4 Rydqvist, Kristian Norwegian School of Management 4.83 8 94.07
5 Laitinen, Erkki K University of Vaasa 3.50 4 93.68
6 Dumas, Bernard HEC/Duke University/CEPR 4.00 8 89.34
Stockholm School of Economics /
7 Eckbo, B Espen Norwegian School of Management 4.00 7 88.10
8 Biais, Bruno Université de Toulouse 2.83 5 87.35
9 Yadav, Pradeep K University of Strathclyde 4.83 11 86.06
10 Boot, Arnoud WA University of Amsterdam 4.67 8 85.17
11 Thomas, Stephen H University of Southampton 5.25 14 84.16
12 Loderer, Claudio F Universitat Bern 3.50 8 83.15
13 Fulghieri, Paolo INSEAD/CEPR 3.50 7 82.72
14 Clare, Andrew D University of Reading 5.00 12 80.84
15 Solnik, Bruno HEC 4.83 8 78.80
16 Nyborg, Kjell G London Business School 2.33 4 78.06
17 Paudyal, Krishna Glasgow Caledonian University 3.50 8 77.13
18 Strong, Norman C University of Manchester 3.67 7 77.05
19 Franks, Julian R London Business School 3.50 8 75.65
20 Sercu, Piet Catholic University of Leuven 3.67 7 74.38
32
Figure 1. Cumulative percentage of JF-equivalent pages
This graph provides a cumulative percentage of research productivity based upon the ranking of
the universities. For example, the top five universities generate approximately 21% of the JF-
equivalent pages. The top ten universities generate approximately 33% of the JF-equivalent
pages.
100%
cumulative percentage of JF-pages
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1 20 39 58 77 96 115 134 153 172 191 210
Ranking of Universities (from high to low)
33
APPENDIX 1. European Universities That are Ranked from 21 to 100 in Research
Productivity
This table provides a ranking of European universities by weighted pages in 15 finance journals
in 1990-99. The weights are by co-authorship and co-affiliation. The numbers of unweighted
articles as well as the home country are presented.
Weighted Unweighted JF-equivalent
Rank Universities Country articles articles pages
21 Helsinki School of Economics Finland 9.67 15 160.87
22 University of Wales-Aberystwyth UK 9.50 18 156.95
23 University of Reading UK 9.58 21 156.15
24 University of London UK 8.17 18 150.67
25 Tilburg University Netherlands 7.75 17 130.09
26 University of Cyprus Cyprus 5.75 11 125.90
27 Brunel University UK 7.17 14 116.05
28 University of Wales-Swansea UK 7.08 12 112.91
29 University of Essex UK 7.70 11 111.51
30 University of Mannheim Germany 6.33 13 109.00
31 Glasgow Caledonian University UK 6.00 10 107.95
32 University of Limburg Belgium 6.33 15 105.88
33 Cardiff University UK 5.67 10 104.81
34 University of Stirling UK 5.37 14 101.71
35 University of Amsterdam Netherlands 5.67 12 95.96
36 Universitat Bern Switzerland 4.75 11 94.48
37 Université de Toulouse France 3.17 7 92.52
38 University of Hull UK 4.83 10 84.30
39 University of Leeds UK 4.50 10 83.36
40 Universita L. Bocconi Italy 3.92 7 83.24
41 ESSEC, Paris France France 3.33 5 76.20
42 University of Dundee UK 4.83 11 75.36
Norwegian School of Economics Norway
43 and Business Administration 5.33 12 74.04
44 University of Liverpool UK 4.75 9 72.89
45 University of Bath UK 3.17 5 72.16
46 University of Edinburgh UK 3.17 6 70.05
47 Université Paris-Dauphine France 4.58 9 69.34
48 University of Birmingham UK 5.33 8 68.73
49 University of Newcastle UK 3.83 8 67.63
50 University of Groningen Netherlands 3.00 5 65.59
51 Loughborough University UK 3.00 4 63.08
52 University of Wales-Bangor UK 4.00 9 60.99
53 Free University of Brussels Belgium 3.75 8 59.56
54 University College Dublin Ireland 2.67 4 58.45
55 Queen's University of Belfast Ireland 3.33 5 58.28
56 University of Aberdeen UK 2.50 4 57.76
57 Swedish School of Economics Sweden 3.50 7 56.79
58 Universitia di Brescia Italy 2.50 3 56.25
34
59 University of Kent UK 1.00 2 53.80
60 University of Vienna Austria 2.00 3 52.60
61 Université Catholique de Louvain Belgium 3.33 5 51.37
62 Chalmers University of Technology Sweden 1.00 1 50.48
63 Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Spain 2.67 7 49.60
64 European University Institute Italy 1.75 4 49.09
65 Arhus University Denmark 2.50 5 47.45
66 University of Ulster UK 3.00 6 46.30
67 University of Bradford UK 2.50 4 42.23
68 Maastricht University Belgium 3.46 10 41.74
69 University of Durham UK 3.33 5 38.28
70 Odense University Denmark 1.83 4 33.18
71 University of Rome Italy 2.00 4 33.16
72 University of Venice Italy 1.17 3 32.35
73 Sheffield University UK 2.25 5 32.28
74 Universitat Pompeu Fabra Spain 1.50 2 32.09
75 University of Ghent Belgium 1.50 3 32.04
76 Université de Lausanne Switzerland 1.50 2 31.84
77 University of Athens Greece 2.08 6 31.28
78 Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University Germany 1.00 2 30.20
79 University of Paris XII France 1.00 1 29.50
80 Copenhagen Business School Demark 1.50 2 29.06
81 Oxford University UK 1.75 4 28.27
82 University of West England UK 1.00 1 28.15
83 University of West London UK 2.00 3 27.63
84 University of Bergamo Italy 1.00 1 26.65
85 Universitat Heidelberg Germany 1.00 1 25.11
86 Universita di Bologna Italy 1.00 2 25.01
87 Stockholm University Sweden 1.83 4 24.82
88 Dublin City University Ireland 1.50 2 24.79
89 Universitat Hamburg Germany 1.00 2 24.70
90 Universitat Konstanz Germany 2.00 3 24.46
91 Academy of Finland Finland 1.00 2 24.27
92 London Guildhall University UK 1.50 2 24.14
93 Universidad del Pais Vasco France 1.42 6 23.76
94 University of Pavia Italy 1.33 3 23.37
95 National University of Ireland Ireland 1.00 1 23.30
96 Birkbeck College UK 1.00 4 23.07
97 Universidade Catolica Portuguesa Portugal 1.00 2 22.77
98 Rijksuniversiteit Limburg Belgium 1.33 3 22.56
99 Universidade do Minho Portugal 1.00 1 22.56
100 Universidad Publica de Navarra Spain 1.17 3 22.55
35
APPENDIX 2. European Universities that are Ranked from 21 to 100 in Research
Productivity Based on a Set of 14 Finance Journals (without Journal of Business Finance
and Accounting)
This table provides a ranking of European universities by weighted pages in 14 finance journals
(without Journal of Business Finance and Accounting) during 1990-99. The weights are by co-
authorship and co-affiliation. The numbers of unweighted articles as well as the home country
are presented as well as the change in rankings relative to Table 1 and Appendix 1. The rank
correlation between the rankings of universities with and without Journal of Business Finance
and Accounting is 0.8187.
Ranking JF-
without Ranking Weighted Unweighted equivalent
JBFA with JBFA Universities Country articles articles pages
21 40 Universita L. Bocconi Italy 3.92 7 83.24
22 17 University of Southampton UK 4.50 11 76.51
23 41 ESSEC, Paris France France 3.33 5 76.20
24 25 University of Cyprus Cyprus 3.75 7 74.20
Norwegian School of Economics and Norway
25 43 Business Administration 4.33 10 70.16
26 47 Universite Paris-Dauphine France 4.58 9 69.34
27 50 University of Groningen Netherlands 3.00 5 65.59
28 51 Loughborough University UK 3.00 4 63.08
29 22 University of Reading UK 3.42 9 59.72
30 12 University of Nottingham UK 4.17 10 56.90
31 57 Swedish School of Economics Sweden 3.50 7 56.79
32 58 Universitia di Brescia Italy 2.50 3 56.25
33 59 University of Kent UK 1.00 2 53.80
34 60 University of Vienna Austria 2.00 3 52.60
35 61 Université Catholique de Louvain Belgium 3.33 5 51.37
36 48 University of Birmingham UK 4.00 6 51.25
37 64 European University Institute Italy 1.75 4 49.09
38 18 University of Cambridge UK 3.00 4 45.26
39 15 University of Glasgow UK 2.00 2 43.74
40 68 Maastricht University Belgium 3.46 10 41.74
41 63 Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Spain 1.67 4 40.86
42 5 University of Manchester UK 2.33 5 38.94
43 27 Brunel University UK 2.17 4 37.41
44 53 Free University of Brussels Belgium 2.75 5 37.24
45 34 University of Stirling UK 2.00 3 37.20
46 31 Glasgow Caledonian University UK 2.83 4 37.08
47 45 University of Bath UK 1.83 3 36.89
48 65 Arhus University Denmark 2.00 4 36.77
49 44 University of Liverpool UK 2.42 5 34.71
50 71 Odense University Denmark 1.83 4 33.18
51 72 University of Rome Italy 2.00 4 33.16
52 73 University of Venice Italy 1.17 3 32.35
53 75 Universitat Pompeu Fabra Spain 1.50 2 32.09
36
54 77 Université de Lausanne Switzerland 1.50 2 31.84
55 78 University of Athens Greece 2.08 6 31.28
56 79 Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University Germany 1.00 2 30.20
57 80 University of Paris XII France 1.00 1 29.50
58 10 University of Vaasa Finland 2.50 8 28.33
59 84 University of West London UK 2.00 3 27.63
60 76 University of Ghent Belgium 1.25 2 26.70
61 85 University of Bergamo Italy 1.00 1 26.65
62 82 Oxford University UK 1.50 3 26.57
63 22 University of Wales-Aberystwyth UK 2.17 5 26.38
64 86 Universitat Heidelberg Germany 1.00 1 25.11
65 87 Universita di Bologna Italy 1.00 2 25.01
66 90 Universitat Hamburg Germany 1.00 2 24.70
67 91 Universitat Konstanz Germany 2.00 3 24.46
68 93 London Guildhall University UK 1.50 2 24.14
69 94 Universidad del Pais Vasco France 1.42 6 23.76
70 69 University of Durham UK 2.33 4 23.72
71 95 University of Pavia Italy 1.33 3 23.37
72 97 Birkbeck College UK 1.00 4 23.07
73 98 Universidade Catolica Portuguesa Portugal 1.00 2 22.77
74 99 Rijksuniversiteit Limburg Belgium 1.33 3 22.56
75 100 Universidade do Minho Portugal 1.00 1 22.56
76 102 University of Bielefeld Germany 0.67 2 22.00
77 103 University of Paris France 2.00 2 21.57
78 42 University of Dundee UK 1.50 4 21.32
79 104 Universita di Siena Italy 1.00 2 21.19
80 105 Universidad Complutense de Madrid Spain 1.00 1 20.82
81 88 Stockholm University Sweden 1.50 3 19.97
82 107 University of Augsburg Germany 1.00 2 19.54
83 52 University of Wales-Bangor UK 1.83 5 19.25
84 108 Universitat Basel Switzerland 1.00 3 19.14
85 81 Copenhagen Business School Demark 1.00 1 18.38
86 109 Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki Greece 1.00 1 17.77
87 110 University of St. Gallen Switzerland 1.00 3 17.77
88 111 University of Helsinki Finland 1.75 3 17.61
89 113 Universita di Napoli Italy 0.50 1 17.00
90 114 University of Florence Italy 1.00 1 16.58
91 11 University of Exeter UK 1.00 2 16.55
92 117 Middlesex University Business School UK 1.50 2 16.36
93 23 University of London UK 1.83 6 16.22
94 118 Universitat Bonn Germany 1.00 2 15.99
95 119 University of Freiburg Germany 1.00 1 15.99
96 120 University of Lund Sweden 1.00 2 15.99
97 121 Aachen University of Technology Germany 1.00 1 15.62
98 89 Dublin City University Ireland 1.00 1 15.57
99 122 University of Aarhus Denmark 0.67 2 15.34
100 123 Universitat de Valencia Spain 1.00 1 14.21
37
REFERENCES
Alexander, J.C. and R.H. Mabry (1994), ‘Relative Significance of Journals, Authors, and
Articles Cited in Financial Research’, Journal of Finance vol. 49, pp. 697-712.
Bazley, J.D., and L.A. Nikolai (1975), ‘A Comparison of Published Accounting Research and
Qualities of Accounting Faculty and Doctoral Programs,’ The Accounting Review vol. 50,
pp. 605-610.
Borokhovich, K.A., R.J. Bricker, and B.S. Simkins (1994a), ‘Journal Communication and
Influence in Financial Research,’ Journal of Finance vol. 49, pp. 713-725.
___________________________________(1994b), ‘The Streams of Financial Research and
Their Interrelationships: Evidence from the Social Sciences Citation Index’, Financial
Practice and Education vol. 4, pp.110-123.
Borokhovich, K.A., R.J. Bricker, K.R. Brunarski, and B.S. Simkins (1995), ‘Finance Research
Productivity and Influence’, Journal of Finance vol. 50, pp. 1691-1717.
____________________________ (1998), ‘Finance Research Productivity and Influence by
Topic Area’, Journal of Financial Education vol. 24, pp. 8-20.
Borokhovich, K.A., R.J. Bricker, and B.S. Simkins (2000), ‘An Analysis of Finance Journal
Impact Factors’, Journal of Finance vol. 55, pp. 1457 – 1469.
Brinn, A., M.J. Jones, and M. Pendlebury (1996), ‘UK accounts’ perceptions of research journal
quality’, Accounting and Business Research, Summer, pp. 265-278.
___________________________ (2001a), ‘Why Do UK Accounting and Finance Academics
not Publish in Top US Journals?’ British Accounting Review vol. 33, pp. 223-232.
___________________________ (2001b), ‘The Impact of Research Assessment Exercises on
UK Accounting and Finance Faculty’, British Accounting Review vol. 33, pp. 333-355.
Brown, L.D. (1996), ‘Influential Accounting Articles, Individuals, Ph.D. Granting Institutions
and Faculties: a Citational Analysis’, Accounting Organizations and Society vol. 21 no.
7/8, pp. 723-754.
Brown, L.D., and J.C. Gardner (1985), ‘Applying Citation Analysis to Evaluate the Research
Contributions of Accounting Faculty and Doctoral Programs,’ The Accounting Review
vol. 60, pp. 262-277.
Carmona, S., I. Cutierrez, and M. Camara (1999), ‘A Profile of European Accounting Research:
Evidence from Leading Research Journals’, European Accounting Review vol. 8, pp.
463-480.
38
Chan, K.C., R.C.W. Fok, and M.S. Pan (2000), ‘Citation-Based Finance Journal Rankings: An
Update,’ Financial Practice and Education vol. 10, No. 1, pp.132-141.
Chan, K.C., C.R. Chen, and T.L. Steiner (2001), ‘Research Productivity of the Finance
Profession in the Asia-Pacific Region,’ Pacific-Basin Finance Journal vol. 9, pp. 265-
280.
Chung, K.H., and R.A.K. Cox (1990), ‘Patterns of Productivity in the Finance Literature: a Study
of the Bibliometric Distributions,’ Journal of Finance vol. 45, pp. 301-310.
Clark, G.L. (1985), ‘Productivity Rankings of Institutions Based on Publication in Eight
Marketing Journals,’ Journal of Marketing Education vol. 7, pp. 12-23.
Cleary, F.R. and D.J. Edwards (1960), ‘The Origins of the Contributions to AER During the
Fifties’, American Economic Review vol. 50, pp. 1011-1014.
Collins, J.T., R.G. Cox, and V. Stango (2000), ‘The Publishing Patterns of Recent Economics
Ph.D. Recipients’, Economic Inquiry vol. 38, pp. 358-367.
Conboy, M.E., R. Dusansky, D. Drukker, and A. Kildegaard (1995), ‘The Productivity of
Economics Departments in the U.S.: Publications in the Core Journals’, Journal of
Economic Literature vol. 33, pp. 1966-1971.
Cottingham, J., and R. Hussey (2000), ‘Publishing in Professional Accounting Journals:
Academic Institutional Performance 1987-1996’, The British Accounting Review vol. 32,
pp. 101-114.
Duke Magazine, September – October, 2001.
Dusansky, R. and C.J. Vernon (1998), ‘Rankings of U.S. Economics Departments’, Journal of
Economic Perspectives vol. 12, pp. 157-170.
Elliott, C., D. Greenaway, and D. Sapsford (1998), ‘Who’s Publishing Who? The National
Composition of Contributors to Some Core US and European Journals’, European
Economic Review vol. 42, pp. 201-206.
Englebrecht, T.D., I. Govind, and D. Patterson (1994), ‘An Empirical Investigation of the
Productivity of Promoted Accounting Faculty’, Accounting Horizons vol.8, pp. 45-68.
Financial Times, January 22, 2001. pp. 1-2.
Fishe, R.P.H. (1998), ‘What are the Research Standards for Full Professor of Finance?’ Journal
of Finance vol. 53, pp. 1053-1079.
Frey, B. and R. Eichenberger (1993), ‘American and European Economics and Economists’,
Journal of Economic Perspectives vol. 7, pp. 185-193.
39
Graves, P.E., J.R. Marchland, and R. Thompson (1982), ‘Economics Department Rankings:
Research Incentives, Constraints, and Efficiency,’ The American Economic Review vol.
72, pp. 1131-1141.
Gray, R.H., J. Haslam, and B. Prodhan (1987), ‘Academic Departments of Accounting in the
UK: a Note on Publication Output’, The British Accounting Review vol. 19, pp. 53-73.
House, D.R., and J.H. Yeager (1978), ‘The Distribution of Publication Success within and
among Top Economics Departments: a Disaggregate view of Recent Evidence’,
Economic Inquiry vol. 16, pp. 593-598.
Kalaitzidakis, P., T. P. Mamuneas, and T. Stengos (1999), ‘European Economics: An Analysis
Based on Publications in Core Journals’, European Economic Review vol. 43, pp. 1150-
1168.
Kirman, A. and M. Dahl (1994), ‘Economic Research in Europe’, European Economic Review
vol. 38, pp. 505-522.
Klemkosky, R.C. and D.L. Tuttle (1977), ‘The Institutional Source and Concentration of
Financial Research’, The Journal of Finance vol. 32, pp. 901-907.
Malouin, J. and J.F. Outreville (1987), ‘The Relative Impact of Economics Journals: A Cross-
Country Survey and Comparison’, Journal of Economics and Business vol. 39, pp. 267-
277.
Niemi, A.W., Jr. (1987), ‘Institutional Contributions to the Leading Finance Journals, 1975-
1986: A Note’, Journal of Finance vol. 42, pp. 1389-1397.
Siegfried, J.J. (1972), ‘The Publishing of Economic Papers and Its Impact on Graduate Faculty
Ratings,’ Journal of Economic Literature vol. 10, pp.31-49.
Scott, L.C., and P.M. Mitias (1996), ‘Trends in Rankings of Economics Departments in the U.S.:
an Update’, Economic Inquiry vol. 34, pp. 378-400.
Weaver, C.N. (1975), ‘Institutional Affiliation of Contributors to the Academy of Management
Journal’, Academy of Management Journal vol. 19, pp. 411-416.
Weber, R.P., and W.C. Stevenson (1981), ‘Evaluations of Accounting Journal and Department
Quality’, The Accounting Review vol. 56, pp. 596-612.
Whittington, G. (1993), ‘The 1992 Research Assessment Exercise’, The British Accounting
Review vol. 25, pp. 383-395.
____________ (1997), ‘The 1996 Research Assessment Exercise’, The British Accounting
Review vol. 29, pp. 181-197.
40
Zivney, T.L., and W.J. Bertin (1992), ‘Publish or Perish: What the Competition is really doing’,
Journal of Finance vol. 47, pp. 295-329.
41
NOTES
42
Related docs
