Purpose – The purpose of this study is to shed light on the conditions that lead academics to seek co‐authors in some cases, but not in others: i.e. to identify empirical determinants of the co‐authorship decision. Design/methodology/approach – The methodology used for this purpose is logistic regression. Specifically, data is collected on all the articles published in 25 accounting and finance journals over a five‐year period and a comparison is made on how these articles differ among them, on various dimensions across the co‐authorship choice. Findings – The findings are consistent with authors being more likely to work on a project alone when the project is conceptual or analytical, rather than empirical in nature, when the amount of work involved is small, when the author is affiliated with a highly ranked university, and when the author is a junior faculty member. Research limitations/implications – A limitation of this type of analysis is that it does not employ actual faculty perceptions about co‐authorship, but has to rely on the output of this choice (i.e. the published articles) to draw inferences. Practical implications – The results of this study have practical implications to those who write, evaluate, and study accounting and finance research, by offering them a better understanding of the conditions that determine the presence of co‐authors on a research project. Originality/value – The results of this study would be useful to decision‐makers, academic authors, journal editors, referees, and other members of the academic community, who may gain additional insights on papers and authors that conform to or deviate from the suggested norms.
EuroMed Journal of Business – Emerald Publishing
Published: Sep 21, 2010
Keywords: Authorship; Serials; Finance and accounting