RF/JFQA/MS>>>JAE/JAR
RF vs MS vs JFQA, what is 4th in Finance?
-
MS>JFQA>>RF in US schools, based on recent tenure decisions.
MS seems to count more often than JFQA, probably because this is a college wide A, instead of just a finance department A.
JFQA is the "traditional" A- journal, and will remain so as long as the seniors who publish there remain on tenure committees.
RF is counted as a B+ at my school. In terms of quality, I'd equate it to JFQA (but nobody asked me). Europeans have a thing for RF.
-
Nowadays RF is just a collection of 10 year old abandoned papers by somewhat big shots. Half the papers get accepted in a couple of days after submission. Is that how journals are supposed to work? Does this serve the profession? Or does it just serve to curry favours for the editor?
-
Nowadays RF is just a collection of 10 year old abandoned papers by somewhat big shots. Half the papers get accepted in a couple of days after submission. Is that how journals are supposed to work? Does this serve the profession? Or does it just serve to curry favours for the editor?
+1
-
This sounds about right.
MS>JFQA>>RF in US schools, based on recent tenure decisions.
MS seems to count more often than JFQA, probably because this is a college wide A, instead of just a finance department A.
JFQA is the "traditional" A- journal, and will remain so as long as the seniors who publish there remain on tenure committees.
RF is counted as a B+ at my school. In terms of quality, I'd equate it to JFQA (but nobody asked me). Europeans have a thing for RF. -
MS clearly wins. I would say RF > JFQA. And I published in all three (different times, quite different topics). However, RF doesn't count much for our juniors AP up for tenure - that's why you still see many of us trying JF->RFS->JFE->MS->JFQA, and then RF. So MS and JFQA still dominate.
-
MS>JFQA>>RF in US schools, based on recent tenure decisions.
MS seems to count more often than JFQA, probably because this is a college wide A, instead of just a finance department A.
JFQA is the "traditional" A- journal, and will remain so as long as the seniors who publish there remain on tenure committees.
RF is counted as a B+ at my school. In terms of quality, I'd equate it to JFQA (but nobody asked me). Europeans have a thing for RF.in your wet dreams
-
I don’t see the point. The problem is not about these three journals, but corruption and cronyism in JF, RFS, and JFE. There are excellent papers, often better that those published in the top three, that are rejected because they are unlucky with bad referees or written by noname authors. There are also poor quality papers that are accepted in the top three for some crazy reasons. Having another journal that is equally respectable as the top three is important so that the monopoly of the three becomes weaker.
why can't we just agree that MS=JFQA=ROF and all of them can be counted for tenure? This is a win-win for everyone. We think finance people are smart. No, we are not. We keep fighting with each other.