• Selected
• Entire List

Abstract:
Ranking of colleges, programs, departments and faculty has reached a feverish pitch in recent years. Missing from the vast list of rankings is research covering doctoral programs in finance. This study ranks 91 U.S. finance doctoral programs based on productivity of current finance department faculty, graduates of those programs, and a survey of doctoral program directors/chairs. The resulting rankings should be of value to those seeking to earn a finance doctorate in the future as well as satisfy the natural curiosity of finance faculty regarding bragging rights on their respective doctoral programs.

Finance, Doctoral, Program, Rankings

Abstract:
This paper presents an update of an earlier paper published in the Journal of Finance Literature [Cooley and Heck, 2005] that ranked authors over an earlier 50-year period. There is a remarkable group of prolific authors detailed in this study update: included are 977 prolific authors with 6 or more appearances in seven leading finance journals and 983 prolific authors with 10 or more appearances in 26 core finance journals. These authors demonstrate great durability in navigating the vagaries of referees and the demands of editors. They represent a small minority of thousands of authors during the period 1959 to 2008. Besides satisfying a natural curiosity of who the prolific authors are, examination of extreme performance provides perspective on research productivity in finance, as do the reported distributional statistics. The findings help in the formation of realistic expectations about scholarly work.

Leading Authors, Finance Literature

Abstract:
The prolific authors identified in this study are truly remarkable: 626 prolific authors in five leading accounting journals and 620 prolific authors in twenty five core accounting journals examined. These authors demonstrate great durability in navigating the vagaries of referees and the demands of editors. They represent a small minority of thousands of authors during the half century 1959 to 2008. Besides satisfying a natural curiosity of who the prolific authors are, examination of extreme performance provides perspective on research productivity in accounting, as do the reported distributional statistics. The findings help in the formation of realistic expectations about scholarly work.

Prolific Authors, Leading Authors, Accounting

Abstract:
The prolific authors identified in this study are truly remarkable: 332 prolific authors in seven leading finance journals, 350 prolific authors in sixteen core finance journals, and 367 prolific authors in all of the 72 finance journals examined. These authors demonstrate great durability in navigating the vagaries of referees and the demands of editors. They represent a small minority of thousands of authors during the half century 1953 to 2002. Besides satisfying a natural curiosity of who the prolific authors are, examination of extreme performance provides perspective on research productivity in finance, as do the reported distributional statistics. The findings help in the formation of realistic expectations about scholarly work.

Prolific Authors

Abstract:
Given the prestige enjoyed by several economic departments, there is a natural curiosity regarding their contributions to the economic literature. This paper analyzes the appearance of all academic institutions worldwide in the eight leading economic journals, the "Blue Ribbon Eight," from 1991 to 2005. We cite those institutions who appear the most, and analyze the composition of appearances across all eight journals to assess their degree of diversity. While it is tempting to use these measures as a ranking of institutions, the analysis is meant to be purely an historical appreciation of the contributions of these admirable institutions.

Prolific Economic Departments, Elite Journals

Abstract:
Shareholder wealth maximization is accepted by most financial economists as the appropriate objective for financial decision-making. Recently, wealth maximization has been criticized by a growing array of opponents for condoning the exploitation of employees, customers, and other stakeholders, and encouraging short-term managerial thinking. Although these critics are misguided, proponents of shareholder theory have helped to create this confusion by exhorting managers to maximize the firm's current stock price. Because a firm's stock price can be manipulated in the short-term, incentives to increase a firm's current stock price can distort operating and investment decisions. When wealth maximization is properly defined as a long-term goal, it is not as narrowly focused as critics believe. The main prescription of shareholder theory-invest in all positive net present value projects-benefits not only shareholders, but also key stakeholders including employees and customers.

shareholders, stakeholders, wealth maximization