ABSTRACT

This study creates citation-based rankings for accounting institutions by topical areas (AIS, audit, financial, managerial, tax, and other) and methodologies (archival, analytical, experimental, and other) extending prior count-based ranking studies that disaggregate rankings by topic and methodology. We report separate rankings for different year windows (previous six years, 12 years, and since 1990) and only give institutions credit for authors who currently work for the institution. We show that disaggregated citation-based rankings are important as the correlations for some topic areas and methodologies with an overall ranking are modest. We also show that the correlation for citation-based and count-based rankings can differ significantly in some situations suggesting the importance of considering both types of rankings in decision making.

Data Availability: Requests for data may be made to the authors.

You do not currently have access to this content.