Voting With Their Feet

8/11/2019 Voting With Their Feet

1/27

Voting with Their Feet: In Which

Journals Do the Most Prolific Finance

Researchers Publish?

Morris G. Danielson and Jean L. Heck

The financial economics literature has experienced rapid growth over the past 40 years, triggering

a dramatic increase in the number of journals. We employ a new method to analyze the current

pecking order of finance journals. Specifically, we analyze the publication records of prolific

authors to provide evidence regarding the perceived quality of a set of 23 high-impact finance

journals. Assuming these scholars target the best research outlets, their publication records can

reveal information about their subjective rankings of the next-best alternatives to the traditionalelite finance journals. The results suggest that prolific authors are most likely to target outlets

that have raised their profile in recent years (e.g., Financial Management and Financial Analysts

Journal) and new specialized finance journals (e.g., Journal of Financial Markets, Journal of

Corporate Finance, and Journal of Financial Intermediation) when publishing outside the set of

elite journals.

The well-known cliche publish or perish has long described life in research universities.

However, as Corbett (1992) notes, the implications of this requirement, for both aspiring and

established academics, have changed dramatically in recent decades, as research benchmarks

for promotion and tenure have skyrocketed. Although most disciplines now have more journals

than during the 1950s and 1960s, competition for slots in the highest quality journals remains

fierce. For example, Danielson and Heck (2010) find that a relatively small number of authors

account for a disproportionate share of the articles in a set of 15 high-impact accounting journals.1

The changing research landscape has been particularly visible in the field of finance, where the

volume of research has grown exponentially in recent decades. Heck and Cooley (2005) report

that for 72 leading finance journals, the inaugural publication dates (and the cumulative number

of journals in operation by the end of the specified time period) are distributed as follows: prior

to 1960=3 (3), 1960-1969=4 (7), 1970-1979=11 (18), 1980-1989=12 (30), 1990-1999=

40 (70), and 2000-2005=2 (72).2

Weston (1994) notes that many of the ideas that now dominate financial theory and practice

(e.g., portfolio theory, capital budgeting, capital structure, dividend policy, efficient market

The authors thank Raghu Rau (Editor) and an anonymous referee for their constructive comments and suggestions.

Morris G. Danielson is an Associate Professor of Finance in the Haub School of Business at Saint Josephs University

in Philadelphia, PA. Jean L. Heck is an Associate Professor of Finance and the Brian Duperreault Chair for Risk

Management and Insurance in the Haub School of Business at Saint Josephs University in Philadelphia, PA.

1 Danielson and Heck (2010) report that only 13.7% of the authors appearing (at least once) in the set of 15 high-impact

accounting journals have five or more such appearances. However, these authors account for 51.1% of the appearances

across all 15 journals.

2 Bauerlein et al.(2010) find that the number of published articles across all academic disciplines continues to grow at a

3.26% annual rate. In finance, notable new titles established since 2005 include the Quarterly Journal of Finance(2011),

Review of Asset Pricing Studies (2011), Critical Finance Review (2012), andReview of Corporate Finance Studies (2012).

Financial Management Spring 2014 pages 1 - 27


2/27

2 Financial Management Spring 2014

theory, asset pricing models, option pricing theory, and agency theory) were developed during

the heart of this growth period. As the finance literature branched out in these related, but also

very different directions, new journals were established in specific topical areas (e.g., f inancial

markets, corporate finance, derivatives). Although authors now have more outlets from which

to choose before submitting a manuscript, it has become increasingly difficult to identify thosefinance journals that truly have credibility. This has complicated the task of evaluating the

research portfolios of candidates for tenure, promotion, or merit awards. This process is especially

vulnerable to error when, as is the case at many universities, some of the individuals evaluating

the research portfolios are from other disciplines (e.g., marketing or history professors evaluating

the research of a finance scholar).

In the field of finance, identifying a set of elite journals is a fairly noncontroversial task. The

Journal of Finance(JF), theJournal of Financial Economics(JFE), and theReview of Financial

Studies (RFS) appear at the top of most finance journal ranking lists and dominate the field

in terms of citations (Borokhovich, Bricker, and Simkins, 2000). Historically, theJournal of

Business(JB) and theJournal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis (JFQA) have rounded out

the set of top tier finance journals. In studies published before theRFShad firmly established

its reputation, theJB and theJFQAtypically were ranked in the top four journals specializing in

financial research (Alexander and Mabry, 1994; Zivney and Reichenstein, 1994). In later studies

(Oltheten, Theoharakis, and Travlos, 2005), theJB and theJFQA are listed just behind the top

three finance journals.

It is more difficult to specify the journals that come next. Yet this question is important as a

high-quality manuscript can be rejected by elite journals for a variety of reasons, such as space

constraints or the topic not deemed timely by the journals editorial board. Due to the intense

competition for slots in elite journals, Griffiths and Winters (2005) find that faculty members

at schools outside the top 50 research institutions typically do not have multiple publications (if

any) in the elite finance journals. Thus, it is likely that the vitae of finance professors at mostresearch universities will include at least some publications outside the top five journals.

Until the mid-1990s, journals classified in the second tier typically included the Financial

Analysts Journal(FAJ),Financial Management(FM), theFinancial Review(FR), theJournal of

Applied Corporate Finance(JACF), theJournal of Banking and Finance (JBF), theJournal of

Futures Markets (JFU), theJournal of Financial Research (JFR), and theJournal of Portfolio

Management(JPM). After the top five finance journals, these eight journals, listed alphabetically

here, are the highest ranked, dedicated finance journals (i.e., journals that publish primarily fi-

nance research) in Alexander and Mabry (1994).3 As specialized journals commenced publishing

during the 1990s (e.g.,Journal of Financial Intermediation [JFI],Journal of Financial Markets

[JFM],Journal of Corporate Finance [JCF],Journal of Empirical Finance[JEF], andEuropean

Financial Management[EFM]), at least some evidence suggests that the pecking order of finance

journals began to change. For example, Chan, Fok, and Pan (2000) rank theJEFand theJFIjust

behind theJFQAusing citation data from 1997 to 1998. Similarly, survey results in Oltheten et

al. (2005) suggest that many of the new journals had established high-quality reputations by the

early 2000s.

Given that most researchers will never publish in an elite journal, or will, at most, publish one

or two elite articles, gaining a better understanding of the perceived quality of the next-best

finance journals can help aspiring (and established) researchers make informed decisions about

3 Zivney and Reichenstein (1994) report a similar list of the next eight dedicated finance journals. However, their list

includes theJournal of Business Finance and Accounting(JBFA) and omitsJACF.


3/27

Danielson & Heck Voting with Their Feet 3

where to submit articles that cannot be placed in an elite journal. To provide such evidence, this

paper breaks from traditional journal ranking methods (e.g., citation analysis or surveys) and

focuses on the behavior of the most prolific financial researchers. In particular, which outlets are

these scholars most likely to target when publishing outside the set of elite journals? And, how

have these preferences shifted over time, as the population of high-quality finance journals hasexpanded?

To analyze the publication activity of prolific authors, we first summarize appearances by

individual author, from 1970 to 2009, in the set of 23 dedicated finance journals with the highest

worldwide ranking in Oltheten et al. (2005). We then identify two sets of prolific authors: 1)

individuals with five or more career publications across all 23 journals and 2) scholars with f ive

or more career publications in the set of five elite finance journals (JF, JFE, RFS, JFQA, andJB).

Finally, we calculate the percentage of the appearances in each of the 23 journals from 1970 to

2009, and in various sample subperiods, attributed to each set of prolific authors. This method can

identify shifts in the publication preferences of prolific authors across time, and can differentiate

between the behaviors of the two sets of prolific authors.

The results reveal that many of the traditional (i.e., established before 1990) nonelite journals

experienced noticeable declines in the percentage of appearances by prolific authors as the

expanding population of f inance journals during the 1980s and 1990s spread the research output

of prolific authors across more outlets. The most noteworthy exceptions to this trend areFMand

the FAJ, both of which benefited from evolving editorial policies that now give preference to

rigorous, empirical papers. Depending upon how prolific authors are identified (e.g., publications

across all 23 journals vs. publications in the elite five), the current ranking of finance journals,

based on the implicit votes cast by the 1990-2009 publication decisions of prolific authors, differs.

Several of the newer second tier journals (e.g.,JFIandRF) rank noticeably higher when prolific

authors are identified using only appearances in the f ive elite journals. When the prolific author

definition is broadened to include appearances in all 23 journals, the ranking of several of theolder second tier journals (e.g.,JFRandFR) improve. Thus, the publication preferences of or

publication opportunities available to different subsets of prolific authors may not be the same.

Excluding theJB, which published its last issue in 2006, and averaging the results from the

two sets of prolific authors, the 10 highest ranked f inance outlets now include the four surviving

elite journals (in order,RFS, JF, JFE, andJFQA) followed byFM, theJFM, theFAJ, theJCF, the

JACF, and theJFI. Thus, prolific authors are more likely to target outlets that have raised their

profile in recent years (e.g.,FMandFAJ) and new, specialized finance journals (e.g.,JFM, JCF,

andJFI) when publishing outside the set of elite journals.

I. Assessing Finance Journal Quality

Because quality matters, most successful researchers in finance (as well as in other fields)

strive to publish articles in elite journals, despite the long odds (Griffiths and Winters, 2005).

Although some financial researchers successfully place articles in elite accounting, economics,

or management journals, this is not an easy path to navigate either. Publishing in elite journals in

these related disciplines can be just as competitive as it is in finance (Danielson and Heck, 2010),

and finding topics that straddle the line between finance and one of these fields is no small task.

Therefore, it is likely that some high-quality f inancial research manuscripts will not find a home

in any elite journal (either in finance or a related field). When this happens, what are the next

best research outlets in the field of f inance?


4/27


A. Surveys and Citation Data

Traditionally, journal quality has been assessed using survey results (Coe and Weinstock, 1983;

Borde, Cheney, and Madura, 1999; Oltheten et al., 2005; Currie and Pandher, 2011) or citation

data (Mabry and Sharplin, 1985; Alexander and Mabry, 1994; Zivney and Reichenstein, 1994;Borokhovich et al., 2000; Chan et al., 2000; Borokhovich, Lee, and Simkins, 2011).4 However, the

effectiveness of these approaches decreases as one progresses down the pecking order of journals.

For example, some finance journal surveys (Oltheten et al., 2005) cover journal populations that

also include elite accounting and economics journals. The presence of elite journals from related

fields diverts votes from the second tier finance journals, reducing the ability of a survey to

distinguish between the nonelite finance outlets.

The ability of citation counts to reveal differences in journal quality also declines outside the

set of elite journals. An article appearing in a second tier journal can be cited less frequently

than an article of equal quality appearing in an elite journal due to snobbery, as some authors

may try to limit the number of nonelite journal articles appearing on a reference list. At the

same time, citation counts of articles appearing in some journals can be artificially inflatedif an editor asks authors of conditionally accepted papers to consider adding references to

articles previously published by that journal (Wilhite and Fong, 2012). Citation counts of nonelite

journals can be especially susceptible to such manipulation, as the author pools at these journals

typically will include less experienced researchers, who are unlikely to balk at such requests to

add gratuitous references. Since nonelite journals have lower citation counts to begin with, the

relative ranking of these journals can be influenced by this process.

B. An Alternative Ranking Approach

In contrast to these traditional approaches, this paper assesses journal quality through the

publication decisions of prolific finance authors. In particular, which journals do these scholarstarget when they cannot place a manuscript in an elite journal? The publication records of

successful researchers can shed light on journal quality for two reasons. First, authors who

publish frequently do so because they write excellent papers. The inclusion of articles by these

individuals will contribute positively to the overall quality of a journal. In addition, prolific

authors are actively involved in the research community and have educated opinions about the

relative, and evolving, quality of various journals. Assuming these authors submit articles to the

best possible outlet (based on their estimates of the probability of acceptance and the payoff

from acceptance given the career incentives the particular researcher faces), their publication

records will reveal information about their subjective ranking of journals.

We acknowledge that research quantity does not necessarily imply research quality. Indeed,

quantity and quality can act as substitutes. For example, an article by an author with few lifetime

publications can make a significant contribution to the literature. It is also true that some authors

publish numerous articles in lower level journals, with no noticeable impact on the literature.

However, it is difficult for a researcher to secure multiple appearances in the best academic

journals unless the individual continues to produce high-quality work.

To implement this approach, we define two sets of finance journals: 1) the elite five and

2) a population of the 18 next best finance journals. Together, these 23 journals comprise

our population of high-impact finance journals. We identify prolific authors based on lifetime

appearances in all 23 of these journals and, separately, by appearances within just the set of five

elite journals. We then calculate the percentage of appearances in each individual journal by the

4 As an exception, Tanner (2000) evaluates journals using information about referee quality.


5/27


two sets of prolific authors. We interpret the ranking of journals by prolific author appearances as

evidence about the authors subjective opinions about relative journal quality. We are primarily

interested in the ranking of the 18 nonelite journals.

Our approach is similar to that in Chen and Huang (2007), who assess journal quality based on

the percentage of appearances by authors affiliated with the top 20 (or 80) research institutions.In contrast, we track appearances by individual prolific authors, defined as scholars whose career

research output exceeds specific benchmarks. Thus, each researcher classified as prolific in

this study retains that status throughout his/her entire career, even if the individuals university

affiliation changes. In addition, the population of prolific authors in this study includes successful

scholars who may never have been affiliated with an elite university. Perhaps the most important

difference between this study and Chen and Huang (2007) is that we provide information about

how publication trends have evolved over the past 40 years in response to the ever increasing

number of high-quality outlets available to financial researchers.

II. Data

This study documents the publication preferences of those scholars who compiled the most

impressive research records in the field of finance from 1970 to 2009. This section identifies how

we selected the 23 finance journals evaluated in this paper, how we defined the sets of prolific

authors, and how we calculated the percentage of journal content contributed by these authors.

A. The 23 High-Impact Journals

Because there are now well over 200 finance journals, it is not practical to evaluate the rel-

ative quality of every finance journal, nor would it be informative to select prolific authors

based on publication activity across such a wide range of journal quality. Indeed, Cabells Di-

rectory of Publishing Opportunities (accessed online during July 2012) listed 144 journal titles

that include the word Finance and another 69 titles that include the word Financial. There

are also finance journals that do not include either of these words in their title (e.g., Journal

of Portfolio Management and Journal of Derivatives). We first narrow this population to the

top 40 journals that publish finance-related research using the worldwide ranking in Oltheten

et al. (2005). We reduced this list to 23 by omitting 17 journals that primarily publish articles in

accounting or economics. We exclude these titles from our set of high-impact finance journals

for two reasons. First, because our goal is to determine where prolific finance authors publish

when they cannot place an article in an elite journal (in either finance or a related field), we

exclude elite accounting and economics journals. In addition, the journal evaluation method em-ployed in this study creates a bias against journals that specialize outside the f ield of finance. In

particular, we use the percentage of appearances in a journal by prolific finance authors as an

indicator of journal quality. If this percentage is low simply because a journal publishes very few

finance-related articles, the method employed in this study would understate the quality of that

journal.5

5 For example, if we were to include journals from related fields (e.g., accounting or economics) in the set of next best

finance journals, we might find that several second tier finance journals contain a greater percentage of prolific finance

author content than do the elite journals from the related fields. If so, this result would probably say more about the

quantity of finance content in the nonfinance journals than about the quality of such content (i.e., the content of elite

economics journals is likely dominated by contributions from prolific economists and the content of the elite accounting

journals is likely dominated by contributions from prolific accounting researchers, limiting the number of finance pagesthese journals can publish).


6/27


A couple of the excluded titles, notably theJournal of Money, Credit, and Banking(JMCB),

theJournal of International Money and Finance(JIMF), and theJournal of Monetary Economics

(JME), publish a substantial amount of banking-related research and arguably could have been

included in our set of high-impact finance journals. However, these journals also publish studies

in areas (e.g., international macroeconomics, monetary policy, etc.) that are traditionally under-represented in the mainstream finance journals, potentially limiting the percentage of journal

content from prolific finance authors. Although similar arguments could be made for excluding

theJBF, the results in Alexander and Mabry (1994) reveal that articles published in theJBFare

more likely to be cited in theJF, theJFE, theRFS, and theJFQAthan are articles in theJMCB,

theJME, and theJIMF. This result suggests that theJBFhas historically published content that

is closer to mainstream finance than theJMCB, the JME, and theJIMF. Thus, we include the

JBFin our set of high-impact finance journals.6

The 23 high-impact finance journals include five elite finance journals, nine second tier journals

established prior to 1990, and nine second tier journals established in 1990 or thereafter. The

Appendix contains a complete list of these journals, including the year in which each journal

started and the acronym used to reference each journal in this paper.7 The importance of the

23 titles in our set of high-impact journals is confirmed by Keloharju (2008), who used 22 of

these journals (excluding theJournal of Applied Corporate Finance) in a sample of 29 influential

finance journals from which the 300 most cited articles in finance were identified. The seven

outlets classified as finance journals in Keloharjus (2008) study, but excluded here, include the

JMCB, theJIMF, theJME, theInternational Review of Finance, theJournal of Financial Services

Research, the Journal of Multinational Financial Management, and Finance and Stochastics.

Although all seven of these journals were included in Keloharjus (2008) initial journal sample,

only three of these journals, theJMCB, theJME, andFinance and Stochastics, published at least

one of the 300 most cited articles in finance.

B. The Prolific Authors

To identify prolific authors, we collected, from journal table of contents, author information

for all articles and notes published by the 23 high-impact journals from 1970 to 2009. We credit

authors with one appearance for each article published in these journals, regardless of the number

of coauthors on the article.8 Comments, abstracts, and book reviews are excluded from the

analysis. Because the inaugural year of 18 of the 23 journals occurs after 1970, the study includes

6 Due to the volume of economics research inJMCB,JIMF,JME, andJBF, these journals are included in some economics

journal ranking studies, such as Engemann and Wall (2009), who ranked journals based upon the (adjusted) number of

times a journal was cited in seven leading general interest economics journals.JBFranks lower in the Engemann and Wall(2009) study than doJME,JMCB, andJIMF. Combined with the results in Alexander and Mabry (1994), these results

suggest that the historical content ofJBFhas been skewed more toward finance, whereas the content ofJME,JMCB, and

JIMFhas been skewed more toward economics.

7 In 2004, theEuropean Financial Reviewwas renamedReview of Finance. This journal is listed using its old name in the

Oltheten et al. (2005) study and is listed as Review of Finance here. However, we include all publications in this journal

from its inception as the European Finance Reviewin 1997 (through 2009) in the data set.

8 Most articles published in the finance literature in recent decades, including articles written by successful researchers

from premier institutions, have two or more authors. Indeed, Fishe (1998) finds that almost 80% of the publications by

full and associate professors at the top 90 research universities are coauthored. In tables summarizing the overall research

records of these individuals, Fishe (1998) reports total article counts, rather than adjusting appearances for the number of

coauthors, presumably because of the importance of a candidates total number of publications in promotion and tenure

decisions. We acknowledge that using unadjusted appearances decreases the weighting of sole authored papers in our

study. To the extent that prolific authors are more likely than other researchers to publish sole authored work, this methodcould cause the calculated percentage of journal content attributed to prolific authors to be slightly understated.


7/27


all articles and notes published by these journals through 2009. Articles and notes published in

theJB, theFAJ, theJF, theFR, and theJFQAprior to 1970 are excluded from the analysis.

To provide information about the publication preferences of authors with varying degrees of

accomplishment, we use two different benchmarks to isolate prolific authors: 1) authors with

five or more appearances in all 23 journals and 2) authors with five or more appearances in thefive elite journals. In addition, the paper reports on the publication records of those authors with

no appearances in the elite five. By looking at these three sets of authors, the results distinguish

between the behavior of the elite of the elite (i.e., authors with multiple publications in the f ive

elite journals) and the behavior of a broader set of prolific authors (i.e., authors with multiple

publications across the entire set of 23 high-impact journals).9

C. Evaluating Prolific Author Content

The measure of journal quality used in this paper is the percentage of the total appearances

in a journal during a specified period by prolific authors. We calculate this measure for each

individual journal, for each time periodt(t= 1970-2009, 1970-1979, 1990-2009, 2000-2009,

and 10 two-year subperiods from 1980 to 1999), using Equation (1):

%Prolific Author Contentt=Appearances in Journal by Prolific Authorst

Total Journal Appearancest. (1)

When calculating the %Prolific Author Content for each periodt, we use appearances by those

authors whose research productivity exceeds the prolific author benchmark (i.e., five or more

appearances in the five elite journals; five or more publications in all 23 journals) across the entire

1970-2009 period. We acknowledge that prolific authors could be separately identified within

each subperiod. However, this method would understate prolific author content within the sample

subperiods (assuming that the relevant benchmarks remained at five appearances). For example,

an author with four appearances from 1970 to 1989 and four appearances from 1990 to 2009

would be classified as prolific across the entire 1970-2009 period, but not in any of the sample

subperiods. By identifying prolific authors based on appearances across the entire 1970-2009

period, we make the implicit assumption that the ability of a prolific researcher to identify the

best outlet for a manuscript was present throughout the individuals active research career.

Since we identify prolific authors using appearances from 1970 to 2009, our journal ranking

is based on both articles published before and those published after the individuals reached

the benchmark of five appearances. Given that the career incentives facing a researcher change

over time (e.g., aspiring academics target those journals that will carry the most weight in

tenure decisions during the early career years), individuals might target different journals as theircareers progress. To evaluate this possibility, we report on the career stage of the prolific authors

publishing in the journals during each subperiod. To do this, we identified the graduation year

for 99% of the elite prolific authors and 93% of the authors with five or more appearances across

all 23 journals. For those individuals for whom we could not identify a graduation date and for

those who do not have a Ph.D., we used the date of the authors first publication in the specified

set of journals as a proxy for the graduation date.10 For each journal, during every subperiod (t)

9 We also analyzed the publication records of two additional sets of prolific authors: 1) those with 10 or more publications

in the five elite journals and 2) those with 10 or more publications in the 23 high-impact journals. These results corroborate

the information reported in this paper.

10 Graduation year data were obtained from the Ohio State University Worldwide Directory of Finance Faculty(http://fisher.osu.edu/fin/findir), the ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database, the Prentice Hall 2004-2005 Finance


8/27


Table I. Distribution of Appearances Across All 23 Journals and the Five EliteJournals: 1970-2009

This table tabulates the cumulative distribution of appearances by authors across all 23 high-impact journals and acrossthe f ive elite journals. The journals included in these populations are listed in the Appendix. The rows of the table list

information for authors who accumulated total appearances, from 1970 to 2009 in the specified subset of journals, rangingfrom one or more appearance (1+) to 10 or more appearances (10+). Each row lists the total number (and percentage)of authors reaching the specified productivity benchmark, and the number (and percentage) of appearances attributedto these authors. For example, the 1+ row reveals that 15,868 (5,840) authors appeared at least once in the set of 23journals (f ive elite journals) from 1970 to 2009, and these authors have a total of 47,141 (16,109) appearances in the setof 23 journals (five elite journals) from 1970 to 2009. The 10+ row indicates that across all 23 journals, only 6.08%(=964/15,868) of those authors appearing at least once in the journals accumulated 10+appearances in these journals,while for the five elite journals only 4.97% (=290/5,840) of those individuals with at least one appearance in those fivejournals accumulated 10+such appearances.

All 23 Journals Five Elite Journals

Authors Percent of Appearances Percent of Authors Percent of Appearances Percent ofAuthors Appearances Authors Appearances

10+ 964 6.08% 17,122 36.32% 290 4.97% 4,610 28.62%9+ 1,137 7.17% 18,516 39.28% 354 6.06% 5,175 32.12%8+ 1,356 8.55% 20,268 42.99% 433 7.41% 5,807 36.05%7+ 1,625 10.24% 22,151 46.99% 548 9.38% 6,612 41.05%6+ 2,001 12.61% 24,407 51.77% 707 12.11% 7,566 46.97%5+ 2,499 15.75% 26,363 55.92% 904 15.48% 8,529 52.95%4+ 3,219 20.29% 29,777 63.17% 1,171 20.05% 9,619 59.71%3+ 4,401 27.74% 33,323 70.69% 1,633 27.96% 11,005 68.32%2+ 6,752 42.55% 38,025 80.66% 2,530 43.32% 12,799 79.45%1+ 15,868 100.00% 47,141 100.00% 5,840 100.00% 16,109 100.00%

analyzed, we calculate the average graduation date by summing the graduation years for theN

prolific author appearances in the journal during that time frame, and dividing this total byN.This calculation is shown in Equation (2):

Average Graduation Yeart=

N

a=1

Graduation Year for Authora

N. (2)

If the average graduation year is earlier, this signifies that the prolific authors contributing to

a journal are in a more established (later) stage of their careers. The average graduation date

can shed light on the following questions. What type of prolific author, aspiring or established,

is most likely to target each of the 23 journals in this study? In addition, have the demographic

characteristics of the authors appearing in the various journals changed over time?

III. Overall Publication Patterns (1970-2009)

Table I summarizes information about the number of authors and the number of appearances

in the complete set of 23 high-impact finance journals and in the smaller set of five elite finance

Faculty directory, and Internet searches for individual author resumes. Although graduation dates are, on average, ap-

proximately two years earlier than the year of an individuals f irst publication in these journals, the two dates list authors

in much the same order. The correlation between graduation dates and first publication years is almost 0.95 within the

population of authors with five or more elite appearances, and just under 0.90 within the larger set of individuals withfive or more appearances across all 23 journals.


9/27


journals. The table separately lists this information for authors reaching benchmarks ranging from

just one article in the specified subset of journals to authors with 10 or more such appearances.

The results in this table highlight the challenges authors face when trying to secure publications

in either set of journals.

Focusing first on the complete set of 23 high-impact journals, it is noteworthy that well overhalf of the authors appearing in these journals do so only once (57.45%= 100% to 42.55%).

Approximately 16% of the authors can claim five or more publications in these journals, and

only 6% have accumulated 10 or more appearances. Yet authors with five (10) or more articles

account for almost 56% (over 36%) of the total appearances in these journals. It is not easy to

secure a publication in any of these 23 journals, as prolific authors appear to leave few available

pages for other researchers.

As difficult as it is to publish multiple times in the set of 23 high-impact journals, Table I

suggests that it is even more of an accomplishment to appear in one of the elite five. Of the

15,868 individuals appearing in at least one of the 23 high-impact journals, only 5,840 (36.8%)

have published one or more articles in the set of five elite journals. Within this set of 5,840 elite

authors, only 15.5% have written five or more articles in the elite journals and fewer than 5% have

10 or more appearances. Authors with five (10) or more appearances account for almost 53%

(29%) of the total appearances in the five elite journals. As in the set of 23 high-impact journals,

the content of the elite five is dominated by contributions from a select group of authors.

IV. Contributions by Prolific Authors to Individual High-ImpactJournals

Table II summarizes contributions to each of the 23 high-impact journals, over the entire 1970-

2009 period, by the two sets of prolific authors: 1) authors with five or more appearances in all23 journals and 2) authors with five or more appearances in the five elite journals. In addition,

the table summarizes contributions to the 18 second tier journals by authors with no appearances

in the elite five. Table II lists the 23 journals in three groups: 1) the elite five, 2) the second tier

journals established before 1990, and 3) the second tier journals established in 1990 or thereafter.

Within each category, the journals are listed by the inaugural publication date, with the oldest

journals listed f irst.

The results in Table II confirm that the content of the five elite journals has been dominated by

contributions from prolific authors. Almost 68% of the appearances in these journals from 1970

to 2009 were penned by authors with five or more publications across all 23 high-impact journals,

whereas almost 53% were by authors with five or more appearances in the five elite journals.

The JFE has been the most exclusive of the elite five with almost 74% of its appearances by

authors with five or more appearances in the 23 high-impact journals and over 61% by scholars

with five or more elite five publications. TheJB has been the most inclusive of the elite journals

with 51.5% of its appearances by individuals with five or more appearances in the 23 high-impact

journals and just over 36% by those with five or more elite f ive publications. The percentage of

articles in theJBby prolific finance authors is slightly lower than in the other elite journals as the

original mission of theJB was to publish high-quality research from all business disciplines. Over

time though, the mix of articles in theJBgradually shifted toward topics in financial economics.

The content of the second tier journals as a whole, including both those with inaugural dates

before and after 1990, has also been dominated by contributions from prolific authors. For the

pre-1990 second tier journals, almost 51% of the appearances are by authors with five or moreappearances across all 23 journals. For the post-1990 second tier journals, 47% of the appearances


10/27


TableII.AppearancesinIndividua

lJournalbyProlificAutho

rs:1970-2009

This

tableliststhenumberandpercenta

geof1970-2

009appearancesin23journalsbyauthorswhohave:1)

fiveormoreappearancesacrossal

l23journals,

2)fiveormoreappearancesinthefive

elitejournals,and3)noappearan

cesinthefiveelitejournals.

The

tablealsolistssummaryinformationforall23

journ

als,thefiveelitejournals,thenone

litejournalsbeginningpriorto199

0,

andthenonelitejournalsbeginningin1990orthereafter.

Forexamp

le,

52.8

%(=

1,679

/3,1

77)oftheappearancesintheFinancialAnalystsJournalarebyau

thorswithfiveormoreappearance

sinall23journals,18.3

%(=581/3,1

77)areby

indiv

idualswithfiveormoreappearancesinthefiveelitejournals,and57.5%(=1,8

27/3,1

77)arebyauthorswithnoappearancesinthefiveelitejournals.

All

Appearances

%

byAuthors

Appearances

%byAuthors

Appearances

%

byAuthors

Appeara

nces

byAuthors

with5+

byAuthors

w

ith5+

byAuthors

withNo

inthisJo

urnal

with5+

inAll

Appea

rances

with5+

in

App

earances

withNo

Appearances

23Journals

inA

ll23

FiveElite

inF

iveElite

Appearances

in

FiveElite

Journals

inFiveElite

All2

3journals

47,14

1

26,3

63

55

.9%

13,5

93

28.8

%

17,2

47

36.6

%

Elite

journals

JournalofBusiness

1,98

4

1022

51

.5%

720

36.3

%

0

0.0

%

JournalofFinance

6,19

9

4,2

57

68

.7%

3,4

16

55.1

%

0

0.0

%

JournalofFinancial

andQuantitative

Analysis

2,79

4

1,8

94

67

.8%

1,2

79

45.8

%

0

0.0

%

JournalofFinancial

Economics

3,24

1

2,3

87

73

.7%

1,9

79

61.1

%

0

0.0

%

ReviewofFinancial

Studies

1,89

1

1,3

37

70

.7%

1,1

35

60.0

%

0

0.0

%

Total

16,10

9

10,8

97

67

.6%

8,5

29

52.9

%

0

0.0

%

Otherjournals(pre-1

990)

FinancialAnalysts

Journal

3,17

7

1,6

79

52

.8%

581

18.3

%

1,8

27

57.5

%

FinancialReview

1,97

6

677

34

.3%

236

11.9

%

971

49.1

%

FinancialManagement

2,24

5

1,3

91

62

.0%

588

26.2

%

844

37.6

%

JournalofBusiness

Financeand

Accounting

3,30

0

1,3

56

41

.1%

145

4.4

%

2,4

36

73.8

%

JournalofPortfolio

Management

2,84

4

1,5

00

52

.7%

511

18.0

%

1,7

49

61.5

%

(Continued)


11/27


TableII.

AppearancesinIndividualJour

nalbyProlificAuthors:1970-2009(Continued)

All

Appearances

%

byAuthors

Appearances

%byAuthors

Appearances

%

byAuthors

Appeara

nces

byAuthors

with5+

byAuthors

w

ith5+

byAuthors

withNo

inthisJo

urnal

with5+

inAll

Appea

rances

with5+

in

App

earances

withNo

Appearances

23Journals

inA

ll23

FiveElite

inF

iveElite

Appearances

in

FiveElite

Journals

inFiveElite

JournalofBanking

andFinance

5,20

6

2,5

21

48

.4%

827

15.9

%

2,8

86

55.4

%

JournalofFinancial

Research

1,85

2

1,1

98

64

.7%

330

17.8

%

779

42.1

%

JournalofFutures

Markets

2,59

1

1,3

63

52

.6%

223

8.6

%

1,6

32

63.0

%

JournalofApplied

CorporateFinance

1,35

0

730

54

.1%

420

31.1

%

684

50.7

%

Total

24,54

1

12,4

15

50

.6%

3,8

61

15.7

%

13,8

08

56.3

%

Otherjournals(1990and

after)

JournalofFinancial

Intermediation

602

324

53

.8%

170

28.2

%

209

34.7

%

Ma

thematicalFinance

840

258

30

.7%

67

8.0

%

617

73.5

%

JournalofEmpirical

Finance

900

378

42

.0%

131

14.6

%

516

57.3

%

PacificBasinFinance

Journal

1,03

9

499

48

.0%

153

14.7

%

615

59.2

%

JournalofDerivatives

607

291

47

.9%

115

18.9

%

351

57.8

%

JournalofCorporate

Finance

849

469

55

.2%

205

24.1

%

344

40.5

%

EuropeanFinancial

Management

759

349

46

.0%

122

16.1

%

462

60.9

%

ReviewofFinance

447

218

48

.8%

102

22.8

%

185

41.4

%

JournalofFinancial

Markets

448

265

59

.2%

138

30.8

%

140

31.3

%

Total

6,49

1

3,0

51

47

.0%

1,2

03

18.5

%

3,4

39

53.0

%


12/27


are by authors with five or more appearances across all 23 journals. However, the second tier

journals have offered publishing opportunities to a broader set of authors than have the five

elite journals. For the pre-1990 journals, less than 16% of the appearances are by scholars with

five or more elite five appearances. For the post-1990 second tier journals, only 18.5% of the

appearances are by authors with five or more elite appearances. Within each set of second tierjournals, over 50% of the appearances are by authors with no appearances in the elite five journals.

Individuals who have never published in an elite finance journal account for less than 40% of the

total appearances in just three of the nonelite journals:FM,JFI, andJFM.

The results in Table II suggest that the two sets of second tier journals (pre- and post-1990) con-

tain similar amounts of prolific author content. However, these statistics can provide a misleading

comparison, as Table II averages publication data across all 40 years. Prior to 1990, articles that

were rejected by the five elite journals were often submitted next to the pre-1990 second tier

journals (with the exception of theJACF, all of the pre-1990 second tier journals were in place

by 1981). As the specialty finance journals began operation during the 1990s, and the pre-1990

journals faced new competition, it is possible that the publication preferences of prolific authors

changed. The next section of the paper investigates this possibility.

V. The Evolution of the Finance Literature

This section documents the evolution of prolific author content in each of the 23 journals from

1970 to 2009. We report on the publication activity of prolific authors within 12 subperiods:

1970-1979, 2000-2009, and 10 two-year periods from 1980 to 1999. For each journal, during

every subperiod analyzed, we report both the percentage of journal content attributed to each

set of prolific authors, calculated using Equation (1), and the average graduation date of those

individuals, calculated using Equation (2).We do not break the first or last decades into subperiods as the portion of the total appearances

attributed to prolific authors increases progressively from 1970 to 1979 and decreases slightly

from 2000 to 2009 for all (active) sample journals. These patterns occur because we identify

prolific authors based solely on publication activity from 1970 to 2009. This method understates

prolific author content during the early sample years, as individuals with five or more lifetime

publications in the sample journals, but less than five articles after 1970, are not classified as

prolific authors. This method also understates prolific author content during the later sample

years because in any given year, some journal articles (even in the most elite outlets) are penned

by newly minted scholars. Even though some researchers who published their first article from

2000 to 2009 will eventually surpass the benchmarks we use to identify prolific authors, notall of these individuals had done so by 2009. The effects of these distortions are minimized by

combining the activity from the f irst and last decades into 10-year subperiods.

A. The Elite Five

Table III reports the prolific author contributions to the five elite journals. Panel A lists the

total number of appearances in each of the five elite journals (and the total appearances in all

23 journals) in each of the 12 subperiods. Panel B (Panel C) analyzes publication activity by

individuals with five or more appearances in the set of all 23 journals (in the f ive elite journals).

For each subperiod, Panels B and C provide, for each journal and for the 23 journals in total, the

percentage of appearances by the defined set of prolific authors and the average graduation dateof these individuals.


13/27


Table

III.ChangingPublicationP

atterns:1970-2009(FiveEliteJournals)

This

tabledocumentstheevolutionofprolificauthorcontentineachofthe

fiveelitejournalsfrom1970to2009.

Thetablereportsonthepublic

ationactivity

ofprolificauthorswithin12subperiods:1970-1

979,

2000-2

009,

and10tw

o-yearperiodsfrom1980to1999.

PanelAliststhetotalnumberofappearancesin

each

ofthefiveelitejournals(andthet

otalappearancesinall23journals)inthe12subperiods.PanelsBan

dCanalyzepublicationactivityby

authorswith

fiveormoreappearancesinthesetofall23,

andbyindividualswithfiveor

moreappearancesinthefiveelitejournals,

respectively.Foreachsubperiod,

Panels

BandClist,

foreachjournalandforthe23journalsintotal,thepercentageofappearancesbythedefined

setofprolificauthorsand(inpar

entheses)the

avera

gegraduationdatefortheseindivid

uals.Theclassificationofindividu

alsintotheauthorpopulationsanalyzedinPanelsBandCwasbasedo

npublication

informationacrosstheentire1970-2

009

period.

All23Journals

JB

JF

JFQ

A

JFE

RFS

PanelA.TotalAppearancesbyJournalandbySubperiod

1970

-1979

4,6

54

458

1,2

98

785

164

1980

-1981

1,3

92

79

288

176

54

1982

-1983

1,5

76

81

338

146

101

1984

-1985

1,6

62

93

349

111

94

1986

-1987

1,7

72

112

274

110

142

1988

-1989

1,9

85

74

272

120

172

76

1990

-1991

2,2

68

99

312

122

141

105

1992

-1993

2,5

30

89

314

129

117

108

1994

-1995

2,7

13

80

280

134

131

117

1996

-1997

3,0

21

72

290

105

202

147

1998

-1999

3,0

78

73

322

98

215

122

2000

-2009

20,4

83

674

1,8

62

758

1,7

07

1,2

15

Total

47,1

34

1,9

84

6,1

99

2,79

4

3,2

40

1,8

90

PanelB.FiveorMoreAppearancesinAll23Journals

1970

-1979

49.6

%(1970.1

)

36.0

%(1968.8

)

56.5

%(1969.7

)

58.9

%(1

970.0

)

84.1

%(1971.4

)

1980

-1981

57.0

%(1973.4

)

35.4

%(1974.0

)

63.9

%(1973.4

)

71.6

%(1

973.4

)

83.3

%(1975.8

)

1982

-1983

62.7

%(1975.0

)

37.0

%(1975.2

)

69.2

%(1974.0

)

70.5

%(1

975.5

)

85.1

%(1976.9

)

1984

-1985

65.9

%(1976.0

)

49.5

%(1976.0

)

73.1

%(1975.3

)

74.8

%(1

976.8

)

89.4

%(1977.4

)

(Continued)


14/27


TableIII.Ch

angingPublicationPattern

s:1970-2009(FiveEliteJournals)(Continued)

All23Journals

JB

JF

JFQA

JFE

RFS

PanelB.FiveorMoreAppearancesinAll23Journals

1986

-1987

67.8

%(1977.6

)

48.2

%(1975.6

)

79.9%(1978.2

)

80.0

%(1978.0)

83.2

%(1979.4

)

1988

-1989

66.1

%(1978.9

)

58.1

%(1980.7

)

71.7%(1979.4

)

77.5

%(1979.8)

87.8

%(1980.5

)

81

.6%(1981.2

)

1990

-1991

64.1

%(1980.4

)

63.6

%(1979.5

)

77.5%(1980.7

)

78.6

%(1981.8)

80.1

%(1982.7

)

84

.8%(1982.9

)

1992

-1993

65.1

%(1981.9

)

56.2

%(1980.9

)

80.3%(1983.3

)

76.7

%(1982.8)

78.6

%(1983.6

)

78

.7%(1983.0

)

1994

-1995

64.8

%(1986.1

)

71.3

%(1984.4

)

78.6%(1984.5

)

70.1

%(1986.7)

81.7

%(1984.8

)

82

.9%(1985.0

)

1996

-1997

63.0

%(1984.8

)

61.1

%(1983.4

)

81.4%(1986.1

)

70.5

%(1986.4)

80.2

%(1985.4

)

82

.3%(1985.9

)

1998

-1999

60.0

%(1986.0

)

47.9

%(1983.9

)

77.0%(1987.6

)

73.5

%(1985.7)

80.0

%(1987.4

)

77

.0%(1987.8

)

2000

-2009

51.6

%(1992.5

)

61.0

%(1989.9

)

68.7%(1991.0

)

69.3

%(1990.2)

69.0

%(1991.5

)

68

.9%(1992.1

)

PanelC.FiveorMoreAp

pearancesinFiveEliteJournals

1970

-1979

32.3

%(1969.5

)

28.4

%(1967.9

)

43.7%

(1969.1

)

42.7

%(1969.3)

78.7

%(1971.6

)

1980

-1981

31.0

%(1972.6

)

27.8

%(1973.2

)

48.6%

(1972.9

)

48.3

%(1972.7)

75.9

%(1975.5

)

1982

-1983

35.1

%(1974.3

)

33.3

%(1974.9

)

56.2%

(1973.9

)

47.9

%(1975.1)

74.3

%(1976.8

)

1984

-1985

38.1

%(1975.2

)

38.7

%(1976.0

)

61.9%

(1975.0

)

57.7

%(1975.7)

86.2

%(1979.3

)

1986

-1987

36.4

%(1976.8

)

42.0

%(1975.7

)

64.5%

(1977.7

)

59.1

%(1977.2)

72.7

%(1979.1

)

1988

-1989

34.6

%(1977.9

)

43.2

%(1979.8

)

54.8%

(1978.8

)

53.3

%(1979.0)

78.5

%(1980.0

)

75

.3%(1981.2

)

1990

-1991

32.8

%(1979.5

)

46.4

%(1979.0

)

62.8%

(1979.9

)

51.6

%(1981.0)

65.2

%(1982.2

)

80

.0%(1982.9

)

1992

-1993

30.7

%(1981.0

)

46.5

%(1981.0

)

63.6%

(1982.8

)

51.1

%(1982.0)

65.8

%(1983.2

)

72

.2%(1982.6

)

1994

-1995

31.5

%(1982.3

)

48.7

%(1983.6

)

65.3%

(1986.3

)

48.5

%(1984.7)

71.7

%(1985.2

)

72

.6%(1982.3

)

1996

-1997

30.2

%(1983.3

)

47.2

%(1982.2

)

68.9%

(1985.6

)

47.6

%(1985.3)

66.3

%(1984.4

)

68

.7%(1985.3

)

1998

-1999

29.3

%(1984.5

)

35.6

%(1983.5

)

63.3%

(1987.2

)

41.8

%(1984.5)

62.7

%(1986.5

)

61

.4%(1987.1

)

2000

-2009

24.3

%(1987.9

)

40.2

%(1988.8

)

55.5%

(1990.3

)

42.1

%(1988.3)

54.2

%(1990.5

)

57

.0%(1991.4

)


15/27


Panel A documents the tremendous growth in the number of articles published in the finance

literature. Across all 23 journals, there were 20,483 appearances from 2000 to 2009 (an average of

4,097 every two years= 20,483/5) compared to 4,654 appearances from 1970 to 1979 (an average

of 931 every two years). The bulk of this increase can be attributed to the advent of new journals.

However, a portion of this increase can be attributed to two other factors. First, over the past40 years, the frequency of coauthored papers in the finance literature has continued to increase.

For example, the 4,654 appearances from 1970 to 1979 were associated with 3,183 articles, an

average of 1.46 authors per paper. From 2000 to 2009, the 20,489 appearances were spread over

9,656 articles, and average 2.12 authors per paper. In addition, several existing journals have, over

time, increased the number of issues (and articles) published each year. Of the five elite journals,

theJFEand theRFShave followed this strategy. In 1994 and prior years, theJFEpublished six

or fewer issues a year. From 1995 to 1997, theJFEincreased the number of issues each year,

reaching their current schedule of 12 issues a year in 1997. In 2006 and before, theRFSpublished

four issues each year. In 2007 and 2008, this number increased to six and, in 2009, the journal

started publishing 12 issues each year.

The information in Panels B and C provide a striking picture of the extent to which prolific

authors dominated the content of theJF, theJFQA, theJFE, and theRFSfrom the early 1980s

to 1999. Authors with five or more publications across all 23 journals accounted for over 70%

of the appearances in both theJFand theJFQAin every subperiod from 1984 to 1999. For the

JFEand theRFS, contributions from such authors exceeded 75% in every subperiod from the

journals inception through 1999 (Panel B). Authors with five or more publications in the five

elite journals typically accounted for over 60% of the appearances in theJF, the JFE, and the

RFSfrom 1984 to 1999 (Panel C). Although prolific author appearances (as a percentage of total

appearances) in the four surviving elite journals declined slightly from 2000 to 2009 in both

Panels B and C, these percentages will almost certainly increase retroactively in future years,

as some scholars who published their first article during the 2000s will eventually surpass theprolific author benchmarks.

Although prolific authors account for a large portion of the appearances in the elite journals,

the information in Table III suggests that these journals did not build or maintain their reputations

simply by giving preference to established scholars. In the vast majority of the subperiods in

Table III, in both Panels B and C, the average graduation year for prolific authors appearing in the

four surviving elite journals (JF,JFQA,JFE, andRFS) is approximately equal to or is later than

the average graduation year for prolific authors publishing across all 23 high-impact journals.

This result implies that the elite journals not only publish articles by the luminaries in the field

of f inance, they also help to identify and develop the next generation of prolific authors.

B. The Pre-1990 Second Tier Journals

Table IV tracks the evolution of the pre-1990 second tier journals. Panel A reports on the total

number of appearances (by subperiod) for these journals. Panels B and C analyze appearance

activity by prolific authors with five or more publications in all 23 journals and in the five elite

journals, respectively.

Panel A reveals that the average number of appearances per year in most of the traditional

second tier journals has fluctuated within relatively stable ranges across time, even as the overall

number of appearances in the finance literature has exploded. The most notable exception isJBF,

which averaged less than 150 appearances every two years during the 1980s. During the 1990s,

the average number of appearances every two years increased to almost 300 and, since 2000,this journal has averaged almost 625 appearances every two years (=3,124/5). The number of


16/27


TableIV.

Ch

angingPublicationPattern

s:1980-2009(Pre-1990Sec

ondTierJournals)

Thistabledocumentstheevolutionofprolific

authorcontentineachoftheninesecondtierjournalsthatbeganoperationprior

to1990.

Thetablereportsonthepublicationactivityof

prolificauthorswithin12subperiods:1970-1

97

9,

2000-2

009,

and10two-yearperiodsfrom1980to1999.

PanelAliststhetotalnu

mberofappearancesineachofthejournals(andthetotal

appea

rancesinall23journals)inthe12subperiods.PanelsBandCanalyzepublicationactivitybyauthorswithfiveormoreappearancesinthesetofall23,

andbyindividualswithfiveor

moreappearancesinthefiveelitejournals,

resp

ectively.

Foreachsubperiod,

PanelsBand

Clist,

foreachjournalandforthe23jour

nalsintotal,thepercentageofappearance

sbythedefined

setof

prolificauthorsand(inparentheses)theaveragegraduationdatefortheseindividuals.

TheclassificationofindividualsintotheauthorpopulationsanalyzedinPanelsBandCwasbased

onpublicationinformationacrosstheentire197

0-2

009period.

All23Journals

FAJ

FR

FM

JBFA

JPM

JBF

JFR

JFU

JACF

PanelA.TotalAppearancesbyJournalandbySubperiod

1970-

1979

4,6

54

670

141

434

259

301

104

39

1980-

1981

1,3

92

100

64

141

127

151

82

86

44

1982-

1983

1,5

76

137

77

125

118

147

107

102

97

1984-

1985

1,6

62

170

98

116

135

124

112

120

139

1986-

1987

1,7

72

183

125

131

138

148

124

122

161

1988-

1989

1,9

85

172

142

118

160

167

156

121

156

78

1990-

1991

2,2

68

175

147

130

196

156

233

122

191

82

1992-

1993

2,5

30

216

118

169

238

153

258

118

202

121

1994-

1995

2,7

13

179

134

109

277

156

294

140

175

139

1996-

1997

3,0

21

196

158

110

295

168

330

137

183

145

1998-

1999

3,0

78

190

171

132

201

160

283

124

183

136

2000-

2009

20,4

83

782

601

530

1,1

56

1,0

13

3,1

24

621

1,06

1

649

Total

47,1

34

3,1

70

1,9

76

2,2

45

3,3

00

2,8

44

5,2

07

1,8

52

2,59

2

1,3

50

PanelB.FiveorMore

AppearancesinAll23Journals

1970-

1979

50.0

%(1970.1

)

34.0

%(1967.9

)

50.4

%(1971.5

)

51.6

%(1970.3

)

32.8

%(1975.4

)

42.1

%(1970.0

)

58.7

%(1970.1

)

74.4

%(1972.9

)

1980-

1981

57.0

%(1973.4

)

39.4

%(1970.9

)

62.5

%(1973.8

)

58.2

%(1972.3

)

38.6

%(1976.1

)

54.0

%(1972.2

)

59.8

%(1973.0

)

66.7

%(1974.5

)

31.8

%(1

978.0

)

1982-

1983

62.7

%(1975.0

)

57.4

%(1973.9

)

63.6

%(1974.1

)

61.6

%(1974.3

)

48.3

%(1976.8

)

64.2

%(1974.9

)

50.5

%(1974.3

)

66.7

%(1975.4

)

58.2

%(1

973.4

)

1984-

1985

65.9

%(1976.0

)

58.7

%(1974.6

)

76.5

%(1976.4

)

71.6

%(1975.8

)

44.4

%(1976.9

)

63.7

%(1973.8

)

58.0

%(1975.5

)

72.5

%(1977.1

)

56.5

%(1

977.1

)

(Continued)


17/27


18/27


appearances inJPMandJFUalso increased in the 2000s, relative to earlier years, but to a much

lesser extent. Both of these journals averaged over 200 appearances every two years since 2000,

increasing from two-year averages of between 150 and 200 in prior years.11

As competition for high-quality manuscripts heated up in the 1980s (following the launch of

RFS) and into the 1990s (as the post-1990 journals commenced operations), many of the pre-1990 second tier journals experienced a decline in the percentage of articles attributed to prolific

authors. These declines are relatively muted when prolific authors are identified using publication

activity across all 23 journals (Panel B). The most notable declines prior to 2000 in Panel B were

experienced by theFRand theJFR. Appearances by this set of authors in theFRdecreased from

over 60% of all appearances during the 1980s (ranging from 62.5% to 76.5%) to less than 60%

of all appearances during four of the five two-year subperiods during the 1990s (ranging from

55.2% to 60.2%). Appearances by these authors in theJFR averaged over 70% during four of

the five two-year subperiods from 1984 to 1993, before declining to 62% from 1996 to 1997 and

52.4% from 1998 to 1999. Since 2000, prolific author appearances in theJBFA, theJPM, and the

JBFhave all declined by slightly more than the average across all 23 journals.

When prolific authors are defined as those individuals with five or more appearances in the five

elite journals (Panel C), the decline in prolific author content in the pre-1990 second tier journals

is more pronounced, with six journals displaying visible downward trends in such content:FR,

JBFA, JPM, JBF, JFR, andJFU. The most dramatic of these declines were felt by theFR and

theJFR. During the 1980s, contributions by this set of prolific authors averaged between 17.2%

and 28.6% of all appearances at theFR. However, since 1992 appearances by these authors have

averaged less than 9.4% of the appearances in theFR. Prior to 1990, appearances by these prolific

authors in theJFR exceeded 20% during each subperiod, averaging over 35% prior to 1980, and

just over 30% from 1988 to 1989. After 1990, however, appearances in theJFR by these authors

have averaged less than 20% in each subperiod, with a low of 8.8% from 1998 to 1999.

It is also noteworthy that the type of prolific author publishing in the FR and the JFR hasevolved. Prior to 1990, authors publishing in either of these journals had average graduation

years comparable to the average across all 23 journals in both Panels B and C. In Panel B, this

correlation has continued for both journals through 2009. In Panel C, however, the career stage

of those authors appearing in theFR and the JFR has shifted over time. From 1992 to 2009,

the average graduation year for authors appearing in theFR was at least 3.4 years earlier than

the average across all 23 journals in every subperiod except 1996-1997. For theJFR, the average

graduation year for prolific authors appearing in the journal was at least 3.5 years earlier than

the average across all 23 journals from 1998 to 2009. During the late 1970s and throughout the

1980s,JFR andFR were viewed by many to be the premier second tier finance journals. The

average graduation year data from more recent years suggests that the reputation of these journals

remains intact with at least some of the prolific authors who were active prior to 1990. However,

prolific authors in an earlier career stage (i.e., those fighting for promotion and tenure) now

appear to be less likely to target these journals. As theFRand theJFRhave lost market share

within this important segment of the prolific author population, the volume of prolific author

content in these journals has declined.

11 Prior to 1990, the JBFpublished four issues per year. The JBFthen published six issues in each year from 1990 to

1994, eight in 1995, 10 in 1996, and 12 in 1997 and all subsequent years. The JPMcontinues to publish four issues a

year (as it has since its inception). Thus, fluctuations in the number of appearances in this journal are due to year-to-year

changes in the number of articles published and the number of coauthors per paper. The JFUpublished four issues each

year until 1986, six issues each year from 1987 to 1992, eight issues from 1993 to 1999, 10 in 2000, and 12 in 2001 andall subsequent years.


19/27


Only two of the traditional second tier journals were able to maintain relatively constant shares

of prolific author content (in both Panels B and C) throughout the entire 1980-2009 period:

FMandFAJ. To remain relevant in the increasingly competitive finance literature, each of these

journals has demanded more rigorous empirical articles over time. The results in Panels B and C

suggest that these policies have worked, as the journals continue to attract submissions from bothsets of prolific authors.

Three of the journals, theFAJ, theJPM, and theJACF, specialize in applied research. Although

each of these journals publishes an impressive amount of prolific author content (in both Panels

B and C), the average graduation dates for prolific authors appearing in these journals since 1988

are typically earlier than the graduation year averages across all 23 journals, often by over four

years. These results suggest that either prolific authors delay developing this portion of their

research portfolios until later in their careers (i.e., after earning promotion and tenure) or the

perceived value of applied research is lower to scholars who have entered the field in, say, 1990

or later, than it was to individuals who started their careers in earlier years.

C. The New (Post-1990) Second Tier Journals

Table V focuses on the brief lifespan of the post-1990 second tier journals. Panel A provides the

total number of appearances (by subperiod) for these journals. Panels B and C analyze appearance

activity by prolific authors with five or more publications in all 23 journals and in the five elite

journals, respectively.

The results in Panel A reveal that much of the growth of the finance literature during the 1990s

can be attributed to these nine journals. In addition, several of these journals have continued to

fuel the growth of the finance literature into the 2000s, as they have expanded their output. For

example, the average number of appearances every two years from 2000 to 2009 has increased

by at least 30 appearances relative to the two-year averages from the 1990s for five of these

journals: Mathematical Finance (MF), JEF, Pacific Basin Finance Journal (PBFJ), JCF, and

EFM.12

The results in Panels B and C allow author characteristics to be compared before and after each

journals reputation had become established. This issue is important as journals are sometimes

launched with inaugural issues containing articles by luminaries in the field. If the outlet is

successful, contributions from such individuals will continue. However, if a journal fails to gain

widespread acceptance in the scholarly community, appearances by prolific authors will become

less frequent.

When prolific authors are defined as individuals with five or more appearances in all 23

journals, Panel B identifies five journals that were unable to sustain their early momentum:JEF,JD, EFM, andRF. For each of these journals, the percentage of journal content by this set of

prolific authors declined by over 15 percentage points from the inaugural two-year period to

2000-2009. For theJEFand theJD, the decline exceeded 30 percentage points.

When prolific authors are defined as individuals with five or more appearances in the elite

journals, Panel C identifies six journals that were unable to maintain the initial level of prolific

author content:MF,JEF,PBFJ,JD,JCF, andEFM. For each of these journals, the percentage

of journal content by this set of prolific authors declined by over 10 percentage points from the

12 For example,MFhas averaged almost 108 (=538/5) appearances every two years since 2000, compared to a previous

high of 72 in 1998-1999. However,MFcontinues to publish four issues a year, as it has since its inception. JEF(1999),

JCF(2003),PBFJ(1997), andEFM(2005) all increased their annual production schedule from four issues to five issuesin the year listed in parentheses.


20/27


21/27


inaugural two-year period to 2000-2009. Again, this decline exceeded 30 percentage points for

both theJEFand theJD.

To their credit, none of the journals launched during the 1990s appeared to give undue preference

to submissions by established, prolific authors during the early years of the journals existence.

In both Panels B and C, the average graduation date for each of the nine journals during theinitial two-year period was similar to the overall average across all journals. This suggests that

the prolific authors appearing in the new journals included roughly the same mix of established

and aspiring prolific authors as the journal population as a whole. What is noteworthy, however,

is that the type of prolific author publishing in the less successful new journals has gradually

changed over time. Panel C reveals that in 2000-2009, the average graduation year for prolific

authors (five or more elite articles) appearing inMF, thePBFJ, theJD, andEFMis approximately

four years earlier or more than the average across all journals. Thus, it appears that researchers

striving for tenure and promotion at many research universities no longer consider these journals

to be among the most desirable second tier destinations for papers that cannot be placed in an

elite journal.

VI. The Current Pecking Order of Finance Journals

What does the current pecking order of finance journals look like? The results in Table VI

address this question. Table VI ranks the 23 journals in this study based on the percentage of

1990-2009 (Panel A) and 2000-2009 (Panel B) journal content by prolific authors. The results in

Panel A rank the journals based on publication activity over a longer period and are less likely

to be distorted by short-term (nonpermanent) trends. The results in Panel B are more current.

The Panel B results also necessarily exclude the pre-2000 publications of the post-1990 second

tier journals (as all nine of these journals published their first issues prior to 2000) and focuson publishing activity after the journals reputations started taking shape. Thus, each ranking

has unique benefits, and a comparison of the two rankings can reveal recent shifts in perceived

journal quality.

Panels A and B report rankings using the two prolific author definitions individually (Columns

2 and 3) and based on a weighted-average of the two rankings (Column 1). In each case, journals

with higher percentages of content from prolific authors rank higher. The weighted-average

ranking is calculated as the sum of the percentage of appearances by the two sets of prolific

authors divided by two. Since authors with five or more appearances in the five elite journals are

included in both groups, the publication records of these authors are more heavily weighted in this

index. Column 4 lists the percentage of journal content by authors with no elite five appearances,

but does not rank the journals on this basis.

Panel A of Table VI reports that over the entire 1990-2009 period, theJF, theRFS, theJFE, the

JFQA, and theJBremain the top five journals (based on the weighted-average ranking in Column

1). Moving to the more recent 2000-2009 period, however, Panel B reveals that the RFS has

surpassed theJFin prolific author content. While, the percentage of prolific author content has

decreased in the most recent 10-year subperiod in each of theRFS, theJF, theJFE, and theJFQA,

these declines are modest. As previously discussed, these declines are caused, in part, by the fact

that the population of authors publishing articles from 2000 to 2009 includes some individuals at

the beginning of their research careers, who have not yet accumulated enough publications (but

will at some future date) to be classified as prolific using the benchmarks defined in this study.

After the top four surviving journals (excluding theJB), the top 10 surviving journals, based onthe weighted-average rankings in Column 1, include the same titles in Panels A and B of Table VI,


22/27


Table VI. The Current Pecking Order of Finance Journals

This table presents the current ranking of journals based on the percentage of journal content by prolific authors, where

prolific authors are identified based upon appearances accumulated over 1970-2009. Panel A analyzes journal content

during the most recent 20-year period (1990-2009), while Panel B reports on the most recent 10-year period (2000-2009).

In each panel, Column 2 ranks journals based on appearances by authors having five or more appearances in all 23 journals.Column 3 ranks journals using appearances by authors with five or more appearances in the five elite journals. Column

1 ranks journals using a simple weighted-average of the appearance percentages in Columns 2 and 3. For example, the

weighted-average appearances by prolific authors in the Review of Financial Studies in Panel A is 64.8% (= [70.2% +

59.4%]/2). Not all of the percentages in Column 1 can be recalculated exactly from the appearance information in Columns

2 and 3, as listed here, due to rounding. In each panel, the journals are listed based upon the ranking in this column. The

table also lists the percentage of journal content by authors with no appearances in the five elite journals (Column 4), but

does not rank the journals on this basis.

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4

Weighted- % by Authors % by Authors % by Authors

Average with 5+ with 5+Elite with No Elite

Appearances by Appearances Appearances Appearances

Prolific Authors in All 23

% Rank % Rank % Rank %

Panel A. Appearances in Individual Journal by Prolific Authors: 1990-2009

Journal of Finance 65.2% 1 72.0% 1 58.5% 2 0.0%

Review of Financial

Studies

64.8% 2 70.2% 3 59.4% 1 0.0%

Journal of Financial

Economics

63.3% 3 70.3% 2 56.3% 3 0.0%


and Quantitative

Analysis

57.1% 4 70.0% 4 44.2% 4 0.0%

Journal of Business 49.6% 5 60.2% 7 39.0% 5 0.0%Financial

Management

46.4% 6 65.8% 5 26.9% 9 35.8%


Markets

45.0% 7 59.2% 8 30.8% 7 31.1%

Journal of Applied

Corporate Finance

42.8% 8 54.2% 12 31.4% 6 50.9%


Intermediation

41.0% 9 53.8% 13 28.2% 8 34.7%

Journal of Corporate

Finance

39.7% 10 55.2% 11 24.1% 10 40.5%

Financial Analysts

Journal

39.0% 11 57.7% 9 20.3% 12 54.6%


Research

38.1% 12 61.9% 6 14.3% 18 46.2%

Review of Finance 35.8% 13 48.8% 16 22.8% 11 41.4%

Journal of Derivatives 33.4% 14 47.9% 18 18.9% 13 59.2%

Journal of Portfolio

Management

32.4% 15 50.2% 15 14.5% 17 68.1%

Financial Review 32.2% 16 56.3% 10 8.2% 20 54.0%

Pacific Basin Finance

Journal

31.4% 17 48.0% 17 14.7% 15 59.2%

European Financial

Management

31.0% 18 46.0% 20 16.1% 14 60.9%

Journal of Banking

and Finance

30.1% 19 46.6% 19 13.6% 19 58.5%

Journal of Futures

Markets

29.2% 20 51.4% 14 7.1% 22 65.8%

(Continued)


23/27


Table VI. The Current Pecking Order of Finance Journals (Continued)

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4

Weighted- % by Authors % by Authors % by Authors

Average with 5+ with 5+Elite with No Elite

Appearances by Appearances Appearances Appearances

Prolific Authors in All 23

% Rank % Rank % Rank %

Panel A. Appearances in Individual Journal by Prolific Authors: 1990-2009

Journal of Empirical

Finance

28.3% 21 42.0% 21 14.6% 16 57.3%

Journal of Business

Finance and

Accounting

22.0% 22 41.2% 22 2.8% 23 74.8%

Mathematical Finance 19.3% 23 30.7% 23 8.0% 21 73.5%

Panel B. Appearances in Individual Journal by Prolific Authors: 2000-2009

Review of Financial

Studies

63.0% 1 68.9% 3 57.0% 1 0.0%

Journal of Finance 62.1% 2 68.7% 4 55.5% 2 0.0%


Economics

61.6% 3 69.0% 2 54.2% 3 0.0%


and Quantitative

Analysis

55.7% 4 69.3% 1 42.1% 4 0.0%

Journal of Business 50.6% 5 61.0% 6 40.2% 5 0.0%

Financial

Management

45.9% 6 65.0% 5 26.8% 8 35.1%


Markets

45.5% 7 60.0% 7 30.9% 6 31.1%

Financial Analysts

Journal

40.0% 8 59.0% 8 20.9% 11 54.2%

Journal of Corporate

Finance

39.3% 9 56.5% 10 22.1% 10 41.5%

Journal of Applied

Corporate Finance

39.3% 9 49.2% 13 29.4% 7 55.1%


Intermediation

38.8% 11 51.5% 12 26.1% 9 36.7%


Research

35.1% 12 57.5% 9 12.7% 16 48.0%

Review of Finance 34.4% 13 47.9% 15 20.9% 12 43.7%

Financial Review 32.1% 14 56.1% 11 8.1% 20 56.4%

European Financial

Management

30.3% 15 45.0% 17 15.5% 13 63.3%

Journal of Derivatives 29.5% 16 43.8% 19 15.2% 14 64.8%

Journal of Portfolio

Management

28.9% 17 46.0% 16 11.7% 17 73.3%

Journal of Empirical

Finance

28.0% 18 42.9% 20 13.1% 15 59.1%

Journal of Futures

Markets

27.4% 19 48.6% 14 6.2% 21 71.6%

Pacific Basin Finance

Journal

26.9% 20 44.2% 18 9.5% 19 67.3%

Journal of Banking

and Finance

26.0% 21 41.8% 21 10.2% 18 53.5%

Journal of Business

Finance andAccounting

19.1% 22 35.9% 22 2.2% 23 79.1%

Mathematical Finance 15.6% 23 26.3% 23 4.8% 22 79.9%


24/27


but in a slightly different order. Across the entire 1990-2009 period, the journals on this list are

(in order):FM,JFM,JACF,JFI,JCF, andFAJ. From 2000 to 2009, this ranking now reads:FM,

JFM,FAJ,JCF,JACF, andJFI. It is noteworthy that the journals ranked from fifth to tenth place

include just one pre-1990 general interest journal (FM), three specialty journals with inaugural

dates after 1990 (JFI,JCF, andJFM), and two journals that focus on applied finance (FAJandJACF). The inclusion of theFAJand theJACFon these lists confirms that prolific authors consider

applied finance to be an integral part of the literature. In addition, the volume of prolific author

content in these journals sets a high-quality benchmark that contributions from other authors must

meet.

As with the five elite journals, most of the nonelite journals experienced slight declines in

prolific author content from 2000 to 2009 (Panel B) relative to 1990-2009 (Panel A). The largest

of these declines was for the PBFJ (=4.5% =31.4% to 26.9%). Only seven of the journals

experienced a decline of less than one percentage point, or an increase, in prolific author content

(FAJ, JFM, FR, JEF, JCF, FM, andEFM). As prolific author content declined in the nonelite

journals, most of these journals published more content by individuals who have never published

an elite five article (Table VI, Column 4). For five journals, the percentage of appearances by

authors who have not published an elite five article increased by more than five percentage points

between Panel A and Panel B of Table VI (JD,JPM,PBFJ,JFU, andMF). The largest of these

increases was for the PBFJ(=8.1% =67.3% to 59.2%). In only three journals (FM, FAJ, and

JBF) did the percentage of journal content by authors who have never published an elite article

decline from 1990 to 2009 to 2000 to 2009. These changes certainly are caused, in part, by the

shifting population of active finance researchers, as the 2000-2009 population of appearances

includes contributions by individuals who ultimately will be classified as prolific, but have yet to

meet the benchmarks defined in this paper. However, these changes could also be due, in part, to

the ever-increasing population of finance journals, which has spread prolific author content over

a wider number of journal titles.Perhaps the most interesting pieces of information in Table VI are the differences between the

ranking of the nonelite journals when appearances in all 23 journals determine prolific authors

and when appearances in just the elite five are used as the benchmark. When prolific authors

are identified using appearances across all 23 journals, theJFRand theFR move into the top

10 surviving journals (in both Panels A and B), replacing theJACFand the JFI. When only

appearances in the five elite journals are used to isolate prolific authors, th

Documents

Voting With Their Feet