This study constructs finance journal rankings and classifications using the active scholar assessment (ASA) methodology with nested effects regression estimation. We observe some interesting changes over the past nine years and also compare the new ASA journal rankings with Scimago's SJR rankings, Thomson Reuters’ JCR rankings and ABS classifications. Responses from active finance scholars in a web survey are used to endogenously rank and classify a broad set of 102 finance journals by quality and importance. Regression estimation with nested random journal-within-tier effects enables journals in the four tier groups (A-D) to be separated into “upper”, “middle” and “lower” categories (e.g. A+, A and A-). In addition to citation-based ranking, ASA study results can provide useful information and guidance to authors and editors on active scholar perceptions of journal quality and importance, tenure & promotion committees in assessing research, and university libraries in managing their resources.

This study uses respondent data from a web-based survey of active finance scholars (45% response rate from 37 countries) to endogenously rank 83 finance journals by quality and importance. Journals are further tiered into four groups (A, B, C and D) and stratified into “upper”, “middle” and “lower” tier categories (e.g. A+, A and A−) by estimating a nested regression with random journal-within-tier effects. The comprehensive and endogenous ranking of finance journals based on the Active Scholar Assessment (ASA) methodology can help authors evaluate the strategic aspects of placing their research, facilitate assessment of research achievement by tenure and promotion committees; and assist university libraries in better managing their journal resources. Study findings from active researchers in the field also provide useful guidance to editorial boards for enhancing their journal standing.