Journal rankings are frequently used as a measure of both journal and author research quality. Nonetheless, debates frequently arise because journal rankings do not take into account the underlying diversity of the finance research community. This study examines how factors such as a researcher's geographic origin, research interests, seniority, and journal affiliation influence journal quality perceptions and readership patterns. Based on a worldwide sample of 862 finance academics, we find remarkable consistency in the rankings of top journals. For the remaining journals, perception of journal quality differs depending on the researcher's geographic origin, research interests, seniority, and journal affiliation.

The accounting research community has frequently been described as being both diverse and focused on local issues. At the same time, increasing pressure is being placed on researchers to publish in internationally highly regarded journals. Since faculty evaluations depend on journal rankings, such rankings need to take into account the diversity of the research community. Therefore, this study examines how contextual factors such as a researcher's location and research orientation may influence journal quality perceptions and readership patterns based on an international sample of 1,230 accounting academics. The perceived quality of journals is measured across a number of dimensions, including journal familiarity, average rank position, percent of respondents who classify a journal as top tier, and readership. The results support that a significant variation in journal quality perceptions exists based on a researcher's geographic origin, research orientation, and affiliation with a journal.