This paper reports perceptions of over 1,000 accounting faculty regarding 12 accounting journals, specifically in how open they are to: (1) diverse topic areas, (2) diverse research methodologies, how effectively they produce new and useful knowledge for (3) non-academic stakeholders, and (4) academics. We find that the traditional Top 6 journals do not lead the academy along these four dimensions; in fact, some are viewed as the worst performers in these areas. Furthermore, we find that academics have a relatively poor understanding of the actual diversity of several journals. We also report how the academy perceives each journal's current value and how each journal should be valued when evaluating faculty on research productivity. We find that respondents believe the traditional Top 6 journals are and should continue to be weighted highly in faculty evaluation, but that the other journals should receive greater weighting.