|Appears in Collections:||Accounting and Finance Journal Articles|
|Peer Review Status:||Refereed|
|Title:||Publication records of accounting and finance faculty promoted to professor: Evidence from the UK|
|Publisher:||Taylor & Francis (Routledge)|
|Citation:||Beattie V & Goodacre A (2012) Publication records of accounting and finance faculty promoted to professor: Evidence from the UK, Accounting and Business Research, 42 (2), pp. 197-231.|
|Abstract:||This study investigates publication profiles of 137 accounting and finance faculty promoted to professor at UK universities during 1992–2007. On average, nine papers in established academic journals, with 5 at the highest 3*/4* quality levels in a portfolio of 20 outputs are required for promotion. Based on various theoretical perspectives, multivariate models of key performance benchmarks (quality and quantity measures) are constructed and have good explanatory power (R 2 ≥ 0.7). Publication requirements seem to have increased over time, argued to be mainly attributable to government-initiated Research Assessment Exercises. For internal promotions, there is some evidence of higher hurdles but no evidence that quality requirements differ based on gender; sub-discipline; research intensity of institution peer group; or government-initiated research ranking of unit. Similarly, the quality benchmark is not reduced for those having an increased recent publication history, a high number of non-ABS outputs or sole-authored papers. Comparison with the US suggests underlying geographically-based paradigm differences. UK promotion benchmarks are argued to have evolved through a dynamic and complex interaction between university managers, the government and the accounting and finance academic community.|
|Rights:||This item has been embargoed for a period. During the embargo please use the Request a Copy feature at the foot of the Repository record to request a copy directly from the author. You can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study. This is an Author's Accepted Manuscript of an article published in Accounting and Business Research, Volume 42, Issue 2, 2012, pp. 197-231, copyright Taylor & Francis, available online at: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/00014788.2012.673159.|
|Affiliation:||University of Glasgow|
Accounting and Finance
|final prepub version ABR 12 promo paper.pdf||540.54 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.