The research was aimed at providing the proof that journals have had a great impact in the design of finance doctoral education. This will be supported by both the empirical and statistical research that has been carried out by a group of researchers on the topic on United States universities. The variables that are involved in the research include the time scale that is the year and the type of university that the various universities, and lastly the number of articles. The researchers checked the variables from school archives and school sites and questionnaires.
Table I Business Schools Submitting Doctoral Finance Seminar Syllabi List of 33 business schools submitting syllabi for finance seminars offered during the period fall 1993 through spring 1995. Next to each school is listed the total number of articles (adjusted for Co-authorship) published from that school in a set of 16 finance journals over the period 1988-1993 as reported in the appendix of Borokhovich et a1 (1995). NA indicates not available. The period 1989-1993 as reported in Borokhovich et a1 (1995).
These totals are a count of articles, adjusted for co-authorship, published in the 16 finance journals listed in Heck’s (1994) Finance Literature Index. Among the 115 schools solicited in the survey, the responding schools listed in Table I experience higher than average research productivity as measured by published research articles. For example, the 32 responding schools (London Business School is not listed in Borokhovich et a1 (1995)) listed in Table I published an average of 17. 5 total articles, while 72 corresponding schools (10 corresponding schools are also unlisted in Borokhovich et al) published an average of 16.
3 total articles. However, a two-sample test of equality of means yields a t-statistic value of 0. 39, indicating that this difference in average articles published is statistically insignificant. Hence, we cannot reject the null hypothesis that our sample is a random selection from the population of 115 AACSB-accredited schools offering finance doctoral programs. The researchers received a total of 101 distinct seminar syllabi, where two syllabi from a single school describing essentially the same seminar offered in successive years are counted as a single syllabus.
Table I1 reports the distribution of syllabi by seminar topics. In most cases the seminar topic was clearly labeled on the syllabus, but approximately one-fourth of all syllabi required an evaluation of content to determine a predominant seminar topic. As shown in Table 11, the most popular seminar topic is Investments (38. 6 percent), followed by 2094 The Journal of Finance Table I1 Topic Distribution of Seminar Syllabi Syllabi were submitted by 33 business schools for seminars offered during the period fall 1993 through spring 1995.
Topic Number Percentage Topic Number Percentage Investments 39 38. 6 Institutions and markets 10 9. 9 Financial theory 25 24. 8 International finance 4 3. 96 Corporate finance 19 18. 8 Other 4 3. 96 Table I11 Distribution of Articles and Article Citations Joint distribution of 2,319 articles and 4,561 article citations culled from finance seminar syllabi, where multiple citations from a single school are counted as a single citation. Finance seminar syllabi were submitted by 33 business schools for doctoral seminars offered during the period fall 1993 through spring 1995.
Citations Articles Citations Articles Citations Articles Financial Theory (24. 8 percent), Corporate Finance (18. 8 percent), Institutions and Markets (9. 9 percent) and International Finance (3. 96 percent). 11. Empirical Findings A. Distribution From finance seminar syllabi submitted by the 33 schools listed in Table I, we compile a list of 2,319 journal articles generating 4,561 citations. Table I11 reports the joint distribution of articles and article citations for this original sample.
In forming this distribution, multiple citations from a single school to a single article are counted as a single citation. The distribution enumerated in Table I11 reveals that 1,288 articles were cited by only a single school and 520 articles were cited by only two schools. At the other end of this distribution, only 149 articles were cited by five or more schools and no single article was cited by more than half of the 33 schools in this sample. In an appendix, we list those articles cited by nine or more schools.
To some degree this diversity reflects partial reporting by survey participants. Nevertheless, the tabulated distribution of citations indicates considerable variation in syllabi content across finance doctoral programs. Our own review of syllabi contents suggests that this variety is a healthy manifestation of the wide ranging research interests among faculty conducting finance seminars.
Kenneth A. Borokhovich; Robert J. Bricker; Kelly R. Brunarski; Betty J. Simkins The Journal of Finance, Vol. 50, No. 5. (Dec. , 1995), pp. 1691-1717.