This paper presents rankings of accounting journals disaggregated by topical area (AIS, audit, financial, managerial, tax, and other) and methodology (analytical, archival, experimental, and other). We find that only for the financial topical area and archival methodology does the traditional top-3 characterization of the best journals accurately describe what journals publish the most-cited work. For all other topic areas and methodologies, the top-3 characterization does not describe what journals publish the most-cited work. For only analytical research does the traditional top-6 journal characterization accurately describe what journals publish the most-cited work. In AIS, the traditional top-3/-6 journals are even less representative, as only one traditional top-3 journal is listed among the six journals publishing the most-cited AIS work, and only three of the traditional top-6 journals are in this list. In addition to creating journal rankings using citations, we create rankings using a unique measure of the attention given by stakeholders outside of the academy. With this measure we find similar results; the traditional top journals are not publishing the articles that receive the most attention in some topical areas. The results call into question whether individuals and institutions should rely solely on the traditional top-3/-6 journal lists for evaluating research productivity and impact.

JEL Classifications: M4; M40; M41; M42; M49.

Data Availability: Requests for data may be made to the authors.

You do not currently have access to this content.