LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Kenneth E. Anderson Department of Accounting and Information Management, University of Tennessee, TN, USA Anne L. Christensen College of Business, Montana State University, MT, USA Mary Ann Hofmann Walker College of Business, Appalachian State University, NC, USA Ira Horowitz University of Florida, FL, USA Cynthia M. Jackson Accounting Group, College of Business Administration, Northeastern University, MA, USA Rex Karsten Department of Management, University of Northern Iowa, IA, USA Claire K. Latham Department of Accounting, College of Business, Washington State University, WA, USA Tracy S. Manly School of Accounting, University of Tulsa, OK, USA James J. Maroney Accounting Group, College of Business Administration, Northeastern University, MA, USA William A. Raabe Ohio State University, OH, USA Timothy J. Rupert Accounting Group, College of Business Administration, Northeastern University, MA, USA vii Dennis Schmidt College of Business, Montana State University, MT, USA Craig T. Schulman Department of Economics, Texas A&M University, TX, USA Deborah W. Thomas Department of Accounting, Sam M. Walton College of Business, University of Arkansas, AR, USA Gerald E. Whittenburg School of Accountancy, College of Business Administration, San Diego State University, CA, USA LIST OF CONTRIBUTORSviii EDITORIAL BOARD Kenneth E. Anderson University of Tennessee Caroline K. Craig Illinois State University Anthony P. Curatola Drexel University Ted D. Englebrecht Louisiana Tech University Philip J. Harmelink University of New Orleans D. John Hasseldine University of Nottingham Peggy A. Hite Indiana University-Bloomington Beth B. Kern Indiana University-South Bend Gary A. McGill University of Florida Janet A. Meade University of Houston Michael L. Roberts University of Colorado-Denver David Ryan Temple University Dan L. Schisler East Carolina University Toby Stock Ohio University ix AD HOC REVIEWERS Lawrence Brown Georgia State University Michael Calegary Santa Clara University Deborah Garvey Santa Clara University Jeffrey Gramlich University of Southern Maine Robert Halperin Hong Kong Polytechnic University Cherie Hennig Florida International University Mary Ann Hofmann Andrews University Yongtae Kim Santa Clara University Bruce Lubich University of Maryland – University College Steven Matsunaga University of Oregon John Phillips University of Connecticut Debra Sanders Washington State University Michael Schadewald University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee Jerrold Stern Indiana University Robert Yetman University of California – Davis xi STATEMENT OF PURPOSE Advances in Taxation is a refereed academic tax journal publis hed annually. Academic articles on any aspect of Federal, state, local, or international taxation will be considered. These include, but are not limited to, compli- ance, education, law, planning, and policy. Interdisciplinary research in- volving economics, finance, or other areas also is encouraged. Acceptable research methods include any analytical, behavioral, descriptive, legal, quantitative, survey, or theoretical approach appropriate to the project. Manuscripts should be readable, relevant, and rigorous. To be readable, manuscripts must be understandable and concise. To be relevant, manu- scripts must be directly related to substantive issues inherent in the system of taxation. To be rigorous, manuscripts should scrupulously follow the ten- ants of sound research design and execution. Conclusions must follow log- ically from the evidence and arguments presented. Reasonable assumptions and logical development are essential for theoretical manuscripts. AIT welcomes comments from readers. Additional information regarding the journal is available at the Advances in Taxation link at http://cms.scu.edu/business/accounting/ait.cfm Editorial correspondence pertaining to manuscripts should be forwarded to: Professor Suzanne Luttman Santa Clara University Accounting Department 500 El Camino Real Santa Clara, CA 95053 Suzanne Luttman Series Editor xiii AN EXAMINATION OF TAX SCHOLARS’ PUBLICATIONS Anne L. Christensen and Claire K. Latham ABSTRACT This study examines the research productivity of three samples of tax scholars with accounting Ph.Ds. We compare publication activity in the pre-tenure period for each sample and in the first 25, 15, and 10 years for scholars whose careers began in 1977/1978, 1987/1988, and 1993/1994, respectively. The percentage of publications in ‘‘academic’’ journals in the pre-tenure period has increased from 38 to 42 to 47 percent for the 77/78, 87/88, and 93/94 tax scholars, respectively. The average number of ac- ademic and professional publications combined were 3.51 for 77/78 scholars, 5.87 for 87/88 scholars, and 4.00 for 93/94 scholars. INTRODUCTION Has the publication activity of tax accounting scholars changed over time? In a study of where the 25 most productive accounting faculties published from 1973 to 1977, Windal (1981, p. 656) states, ‘‘Tax specialists, of course, tend to publish in tax journals.’’ He then identifies tax journals as The Journal of Taxation, Taxes, and the Tax Adviser, a selection which indicates that he expects tax scholars to publish their research primarily in ‘‘profes- sional’’ journals, i.e., journals read primarily by tax practitioners. Kozub, Sanders, and Raabe (1990) studied publication productivity by business Advances in Taxation, Volume 17, 3–35 Copyright r 2007 by Elsevier Ltd. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1058-7497/doi:10.1016/S1058-7497(06)17001-5 3 school tax faculties from 1981 to 1988 in eight academic and 22 professional journals. They found that faculty members at eight of the 35 most prolific tax publication schools published primarily in ‘‘academic’’ journals, i.e., journals direct ed toward academic audiences. Yet, at the three most pro- ductive schools in their study, the tax scholars also published a significant number of articles in professional journals. The purpose of this study is to examine the overall publication produc- tivity of tax scholars and to determine how much tax scholars publish in tax, accounting, and other professional and academic journals in different stages of their careers. Individuals listed in Prentice-Hall Accounting Faculty Di- rectories (Hasselback, 1978–1997) with a teaching or research interest in tax are designated tax scholars. 1 It is important to develop an understanding of tax scholars’ publication activity because it is closely linked to promotion and tenure decisions (Henderson, Ganesh, & Chandy, 1990) as well as salary (Gomez-Mejia & Balkin, 1992). This information also may be helpful in setting performance goals for and evaluating tax scholars at different stages of their careers. There is increasing emphasis on assessment in university settings, including assessing publica tion activity across scholars at different stages in their careers (Swanson, 2004). In keeping with this growing in- terest, our purpose is to capture a broad range of publication activity across different journal classifications from the careers of scholars who have em- phasized tax as a specialty. Across universities, differences in focus and standards can signal that publications in some journal s are more highly valued than those in other journals (Schultz, Meade, & Khurana, 1989 ; Cargile & Bublit z, 1986). As the mission of a particular school changes over time, so too may its em- phasis on publications in different types of journals. Some universities may emphasize and reward publication in professional journals as building bridges to the professional tax community. Other universities may empha- size publication in academic journals as expanding the boundaries of knowledge and the reputation of the school. Still other schools may value publications in educational journals as a means of improving pedagogy. The degree to which work in other business disciplines is acknowledged also varies among universities (Swanson, 2004). While there appears to be no single standard for all universities for the publication activities of tax schol- ars, we can see how much and where these scholars have successfully pub- lished in different time periods in the past. This study contributes to the tax scholar research productivity literature by examining intradisciplinary and interdisciplinary publications in a wide range of journals in several different time periods. We provide measures of ANNE L. CHRISTENSEN AND CLAIRE K. LATHAM4 research productivity in tax, accounting, and non-tax/non-accounting jour- nals in early as well as later time periods in scholars’ careers. Publication activity in the highest-rated accounting journals is noted. Our productivity measures are further divided into separate measures of publications in journals with primarily professional or academic readership, thereby ex- tending the discussion raised in prior literature. We select three samples of tax scholars who received an accounting Ph.D. and then took tenure track positions at U.S. universities. We then examine their publication records in the first seven years of their careers as well as during later time periods. We refer to scholars in the first seven years of their careers as new scholars. The ‘‘93/94’’ sample consists of 1993 and 1994 graduates, the ‘‘87/88’’ sample of 1987 and 1988 graduates, and the ‘‘77/78’’ sample of 1977 and 1978 graduates. We then search ABI Inform, CCH Federal Tax Articles, the EconLibrary Database, and the Social Science Citation Index to develop publ ication records for each member of our sam- ples. 2 We classify academic publications into three categories based on the journals in which the articles appeared (1) tax, (2) accounting, and (3) non- tax/non-accounting journals. We adopt the same classification strategy for publications in professional journals. We also create a separate category for publications in education journals. Academic and professional journals are then differentiated on the basis of primary readership, which is determined on the basis of publications such as Cabell’s Directory of Publishing Op- portunities in Acco unting: 2001–2002. In terms of overall productivity, we find that the 93/94 new tax accounting scholars published an average of 4.0 articles in the first seven years of their careers compared to 5.87 articles for the 87/88 scholars and 3.51 for the 77/78 scholars. We observe that while publications in professional journals continue to be a significant part of tax scholars’ research portfolios, the percentage of publications in academic journals has increased from 38 to 42 to 47 percent, respectively for 77/78, 87/88, and 93/94 new tax scholars. In the latter part of their careers, the percentage of publications in academic journals for the 77/78 and 87/88 scholars declines slightly, but not signifi- cantly. In addition, we find that the aggregate number of articles published in The Accounting Review by tax scholars in the first seven years of their careers decreased from twelve to nine to four by the 77/78, 87/88, and 93/94 scholars, respectively. The remainder of this article is organized as follows. The next section describes the motivation and research questions. We then discuss the re- search design followed by the results. The paper concludes with a discussion of the findings and implications for future research. An Examination of Tax Scholars’ Publications 5 MOTIVATION AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS Overall Research Productivity Measures Kozub et al. (1990) provide evidence on the publication activity of business school tax faculty in 30 journal s (eight academic and 22 professional ) from 1981–1988. Their study is one of the few studies that specifically examines the productivity of tax faculty and it includes many more tax journals than any prior study. Christensen, Finger, and Latham (2002) show that research productivity measures are affected by the number and type of journals in- cluded. Their study documents considerably greater research productivity for new accounting scholars when publications in non-accounting journals are included in the productivity measures. This held true for scholars em- ployed at both accounting doctoral and non-doctoral granting institutions. As our starting point, we determine the research productivity of new tax scholars using productivity measures that include publications from an ex- tensive list of journals. The first research question is: Question 1. How productive are new tax scholars when the productivity measures include publications from an extensive list of tax, accounting, and non-accounting journals? We compute the average number of publications per new scholar in all types of journals as wel l as in academic and professional journals. These averages are computed separately for the 9 3/94, 87/88, and 77/78 scholars. We further divide the samples into individuals employed at accounting doctoral granting and non-doctoral granting schools be cause prior research shows higher research productivity levels for the doctoral granting schools (Christensen et al., 2002; Read, Rama, & Raghunandan, 1998; Englebrecht, Iyer, & Patterson, 1994; Campbell & Morgan, 1987; Milne & Vent, 1987). 3 Differences in Productivity Measures for Publications in Professional and Academic Journals Windal ( 1981) suggested that tax facu lty would direct their pub lication efforts toward a professional au dience. However, Kozub et al. (1990) find evidence o f significant tax faculty publication efforts directed at both professional and academic audiences. Bricker and Previts (1990) provide evidence that as the nature of the professoriate changed and accounting scholars were required t o have doctorates, accounting scholars shifted their research efforts toward ques- tions of interest t o an academic audience rather than a p rofessional audience. ANNE L. CHRISTENSEN AND CLAIRE K. LATHAM6 They sugges t that this shift may have isolated the ac ademic community from the practice community. We examine whether new tax scholars, who started their careers in three different time periods, in clude pub lications in pro fessional journals in their research portfolios. Hence, o ur second question is: Question 2. Has the quantity of new tax accounting scholars’ publications in professional journals changed over time? If we find that tax scholars who received their degrees at different points in time publish a substantial amount in professional journals as well as in academic journals, it suggest s that tax scholars have not become isolated from the professional tax community. Publications in Highest Rated Journals New scholars’ publication records are evaluat ed in terms of both quantity and quality. A number of studies have measured perceptions of the quality of accounting, business, and tax journals over the years (Swanson, 2004 ; Brown & Huefner, 1994; Hall & Ross, 1991; Hull & Wright, 1990; Raabe, Kozub, & Sanders, 1987). Although schools and individuals do differ in perceptions of which journals are of highest quality, we can use the con- sistently top-rated journals from prior studies to observe the frequency with which tax scholars publish in specific journals and whether there have been changes in publication rates over time. Thus our third research question is: Question 3. Has the tendency for new tax scholars, as a group, to publish in the highest rated tax and accounting journals changed over time? We provide information on the number of articles published by new tax scholars in highly rated as well as common outlets. Timing within Careers: Academic and Professional Publications The importance of publishing in academic journals has increased over time (Ettredge & Wong-On-Wing, 1991; Hagerman & Hagerman, 1989; Campbell & Morgan, 1987). Such pressure may lead tax scholars to focus their early research efforts on empirical or theoretical work publishable in academic journals. However, there is also pressur e to have a sufficient number of publications in particular time periods. Zivney, Berton, and Gavin (1995, p. 11) found that only 40 percent of accounting graduates publish in academic accounting journals and 23 percent publish in what they define as the top three accounting journals (The Accounting Review, Journal An Examination of Tax Scholars’ Publications 7 [...]... Publications in Professional Journals 10 0% % of 14 4 Cum % # % of 15 6 Cum.% 10 3 6 12 9 16 17 22 16 15 11 7 6.9 2 .1 4.2 8.3 6.3 11 .1 11. 8 15 .3 11 .1 10.4 7.6 4.9 6.9 9.0 13 .2 21. 5 27.8 38.9 50.7 66.0 77 .1 87.5 95 .1 100.0 22 7 5 14 15 14 18 14 12 8 9 18 14 .1 4.5 3.2 9.0 9.6 9.0 11 .5 9.0 7.7 5 .1 5.8 11 .5 14 .1 18.6 21. 8 30.8 40.4 49.4 60.9 69.9 77.6 82.7 88.5 10 0.0 14 4 10 .7 13 .7 17 .4 26 .1 34 .1 44 .1 55.8 67.8... (2) 4 (4) 0 1 (1) 12 (10 ) 0 3 (2) 3 (3) 8 (4) 3 (3) 0 4 (3) 3 (3) 4 (2) 0 4 (3) 9 (5) 1 (1) 17 (7) 7 (3) 3 (2) 5 (4) 15 (6) 0 0 6 (5) 0 2 (2) 2 (1) 4 (4) J of Taxation (19 15) Tax Adviser (19 10) Tax for Acct /PTSb (19 38) Taxes (19 23) 3 (2) 17 (7) 12 (9) 8 (5) 10 (7) 16 (8) 17 (9) 23 (11 ) 4 (3) 18 (10 ) 25 (10 ) 15 (7) 17 (9) 44 (14 ) 28 (11 ) 36 (10 ) 0 9 (2) 0 7 (4) 7 26 17 14 (6) (15 ) (11 ) (11 ) 15 Publications... 22 1 25 4 36 3 20 7 12 14 26 6 17 4 15 29 11 7 21 23 6 15 10 2 13 14 14 14 1 5 8 9 6 12 13 9 7 4 4 7 6 7 6 8 2 5 7 2 1 7 14 15 9 10 0 3 8 1 2 5 14 4 6 14 7 5 270 15 8 96 252 506 51 177 12 7 29 15 9 325 15 3 93 31 67 93 18 1 ANNE L CHRISTENSEN AND CLAIRE K LATHAM 93/94 87/88 77/78 93/94 87/88 77/78 93/94 87/88 77/78 93/94 87/88 77/78 93/94 87/88 77/78 93/94 87/88 77/78 (1) (1) (1) (2) (2) (2) (1) (1) (1) ... 2 .19 1. 68 1. 00 1. 90 4.04 2.00 5.05 9.53 6.00 12 .29 3.82 3.00 3 .19 3.74 3.00 3.90 1. 92 1. 00 2.48 2.09 2.00 1. 92 3 .13 3.00 2.38 5 .12 2.00 6.50 1. 32 1. 00 1. 64 1. 17 1. 00 1. 34 0.53 0 1. 02 0.65 0 1. 27 1. 04 0 1. 69 1. 21 1.00 1. 69 0.82 1. 00 0.87 3.96 3.00 4.67 2.96 1. 00 3.69 0.55 0 1. 04 3.78 7.35 1. 00 3.00 6.68 16 . 21 2.50 2.00 2.75 2.87 2.00 2.89 1. 11 0.00 2. 21 1.03 1. 00 1. 69 3.00 1. 00 4.82 An Examination of Tax... 33 18 26 20 25 22 19 19 13 14 14 16 14 8.3 10 .5 5.8 8.3 6.4 8.0 7.0 6 .1 6 .1 4.2 4.5 4.5 5.0 4.5 313 19 .1 29.6 35.4 43.7 50 .1 58 .1 65 .1 71. 2 77.3 81. 5 86.0 90.5 95.5 10 0.0 10 0% Panel C: 77/78 sample (N ¼ 45 scholars) Year Relative to Graduation All Publications % of 664 Cum % 10 7 23 22 28 19 24 25 30 42 1. 5 1. 1 3.5 3.3 4.2 2.9 3.6 3.8 4.5 6.3 1. 5 2.6 6 .1 9.4 13 .6 16 .5 20 .1 23.9 28.4 34.7 # % of 216 ... 28.4 34.7 # % of 216 3 1 5 6 13 8 12 12 10 17 1. 4 0.5 2.3 2.8 6.0 3.7 5.6 5.6 4.6 7.9 Publications in Professional Journals Cum % # % of 448 Cum.% 1. 4 1. 9 4.2 7.0 13 .0 16 .7 22.3 27.9 32.5 40.3 7 6 18 16 15 11 12 13 20 25 1. 6 1. 3 4.0 3.6 3.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 4.5 5.6 1. 6 2.9 6.9 10 .5 13 .8 16 .3 19 .0 21. 9 26.3 31. 9 19 Pre-Ph.D 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Publications in Academic Journals An Examination of Tax Scholars’... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 20 Table 3 (Continued ) Panel C: 77/78 sample (N ¼ 45 scholars) Year Relative to Graduation All Publications % of 664 Cum % Total 26 27 28 27 33 31 22 30 38 18 17 28 30 28 27 10 14 3.9 4 .1 4.2 4 .1 5.0 4.7 3.3 4.5 5.7 2.7 2.5 4.2 4.5 4.2 4 .1 1.5 2 .1 664 10 0% 38.6 42.7 46.9 51. 0 56.0 60.7 64.0 68.5 74.2 76.9 79.4 83.6 88 .1 92.3 96.4 97.9 10 0.0 # % of 216 6 9 7 11 11 12 8 9 14 3... 4.2 3.2 5 .1 5 .1 5.6 3.7 4.2 6.3 1. 4 2.8 3.2 1. 9 2.8 2.8 3.2 1. 4 216 10 0% Publications in Professional Journals Cum % # % of 448 Cum.% 43 .1 47.3 50.5 55.6 60.7 66.3 70.0 74.2 80.5 81. 9 84.7 87.9 89.8 92.6 95.4 98.6 10 0.0 20 18 21 16 22 19 14 21 24 15 11 21 26 22 21 3 11 4.5 4.0 4.7 3.6 4.9 4.2 3 .1 4.7 5.4 3.3 2.5 4.7 5.8 4.9 4.7 0.6 2.5 36.4 40.4 45 .1 48.7 53.6 57.8 60.9 65.6 71. 0 74.3 76.8 81. 5 87.3... 8 9 10 Publications in Academic Journals Total 46 53 39 48 37 39 36 32 26 25 21 23 24 26 8.8 10 .2 7.5 9.2 7 .1 7.5 6.9 6 .1 5.0 4.8 4.0 4.4 4.5 5.0 522 17 .8 28.0 35.5 44.7 51. 8 59.3 66.2 72.3 77.3 82 .1 86 .1 90.5 95.0 10 0.0 10 0% 20 20 21 22 17 14 14 13 7 12 7 9 8 12 9.6 9.6 10 .0 10 .5 8 .1 6.7 6.7 6.2 3.3 5.7 3.3 4.3 3.8 5.7 209 15 .8 25.4 35.4 45.9 54 .1 60.8 67.5 73.7 77.0 82.8 86 .1 90.4 94.3 10 0.0 10 0%... Assoc (19 79) Adv In Taxation (19 87) National Tax J (19 48) 25 (13 )a 4 (4) 2 (2) 18 (13 ) 10 (7) 3 (3) 4 (4) 0 2 (2) 16 (10 ) 7 (6) 1 (1) 18 (11 ) 2 (1) 5 (5) 7 (6) 2 (2) 4 (3) Acct Horizons (19 87) Acct Org & Soc (19 76) Accounting Review (19 26) Cont Acct Res (19 84) J of Acct & Econ (19 79) J Acct & Pub Pol (19 82) J of Acct Research (19 63) 3 (3) 0 4 (3) 2 (2) 5 (3) 5 (5) 5 (4) 5 (4) 0 9 (6) 3 (3) 2 (1) 2 (2) . (6) 10 (7) 4 (3) 17 (9) 0 Tax Adviser (19 10) 17 (7) 26 (15 ) 16 (8) 18 (10 ) 44 (14 ) 9 (2) Tax. for Acct. /PTS b (19 38) 12 (9) 17 (11 ) 17 (9) 25 (10 ) 28 (11 ) 0 Taxes (19 23) 8 (5) 14 (11 ) 23 (11 ) 15 . 1. 04 1. 21 Median 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 0 1. 00 1. 00 3.00 3.00 1. 00 2.00 3.00 2.00 1. 00 1. 00 0 0 0 1. 00 Standard deviation 2.28 3 .16 2 .10 1. 54 2.30 5.38 3 .19 3.90 2.48 1. 92 2.38 6.50 1. 64 1. 34 1. 02 1. 27 1. 69. ¼ 51 scholars) J. of Am. Tax Assoc. (19 79) 25 (13 ) a 18 (13 ) 4 (4) 16 (10 ) 18 (11 ) 7 (6) Adv. In Taxation (19 87) 4 (4) 10 (7) 0 7 (6) 2 (1) 2 (2) National Tax J. (19 48) 2 (2) 3 (3) 2 (2) 1 (1)