Premium
Producing Spaces for Academic Discourse: The Impact of Research Assessment Exercises and Journal Quality Rankings
Author(s) -
Northcott Deryl,
Linacre Simon
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
australian accounting review
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.551
H-Index - 36
eISSN - 1835-2561
pISSN - 1035-6908
DOI - 10.1111/j.1835-2561.2010.00079.x
Subject(s) - quality (philosophy) , accounting , scope (computer science) , accounting research , originality , relevance (law) , public relations , perception , diversity (politics) , exploratory research , distribution (mathematics) , political science , business , sociology , psychology , social science , qualitative research , philosophy , epistemology , neuroscience , computer science , law , programming language , mathematical analysis , mathematics
This study examines the impact of national research assessment exercises (NRAEs) and associated journal quality rankings on the development, scope and sustainability of the academic journals in which accounting research is disseminated. The reported exploratory study focused on the United Kingdom (UK), Australia and New Zealand as three countries in which NRAEs are well developed or imminent. Data were collected via a survey of authors, interviews with journal editors, and feedback from publishers responsible for producing academic accounting journals.The findings suggest that, despite cynicism around the reliability of published journal quality rankings, the entrenchment of NRAE ‘rules’ and journal quality perceptions has changed authors’ submission choices and left lower ranked journals struggling with a diminished quantity and quality of submissions. A clear perception is that NRAEs have done little to improve the overall quality of the accounting literature, but are impeding the diversity, originality and practical relevance of accounting research.Although strategies are suggested for meeting these challenges, they require strategic partnerships with publishers to enhance the profile and distribution of emerging journals, and depend on the willingness of accounting researchers to form supportive communities around journals that facilitate their research interests. The alternative may be a withering of the spaces for academic discourse, a stifling of innovation and a further entrenchment of current perceptions of what counts as ‘quality’ research.