Hit papers significantly outperform the citation benchmark for their cohort. A paper qualifies
if it has ≥500 total citations, achieves ≥1.5× the top-1% citation threshold for papers in the
same subfield and year (this is the minimum needed to enter the top 1%, not the average
within it), or reaches the top citation threshold in at least one of its specific research
topics.
An Empirical Evaluation of Accounting Income Numbers
19684.4k citationsRay Ball, Philip BrownJournal of Accounting Researchprofile →
The effect of international institutional factors on properties of accounting earnings
20002.6k citationsRay Ball, S.P. Kothari et al.Journal of Accounting and Economicsprofile →
Earnings quality in UK private firms: comparative loss recognition timeliness
20041.9k citationsRay Ball, Lakshmanan ShivakumarJournal of Accounting and Economicsprofile →
Incentives versus standards: properties of accounting income in four East Asian countries
20031.7k citationsRay Ball, Ashok Robin et al.Journal of Accounting and Economicsprofile →
International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS): pros and cons for investors
This map shows the geographic impact of Ray Ball's research. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Ray Ball with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Ray Ball more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Ray Ball. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by Ray Ball. The network helps show where Ray Ball may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Ray Ball
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Ray Ball.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Ray Ball based on the total number of
citations received by their joint publications. Widths of edges
represent the number of papers authors have co-authored together.
Node borders
signify the number of papers an author published with Ray Ball. Ray Ball is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Ball, Ray, et al.. (2016). The Inflationary Mechanism in the U.K. Economy. American Economic Review. 66(4). 467–484.1 indexed citations
4.
Ball, Ray, Joseph Gerakos, Juhani T. Linnainmaa, & Valeri V. Nikolaev. (2015). Deflating profitability. Journal of Financial Economics. 117(2). 225–248.187 indexed citations
Ball, Ray, S.P. Kothari, & Valeri V. Nikolaev. (2012). On Estimating Conditional Conservatism. The Accounting Review. 88(3). 755–787.195 indexed citations
8.
Ball, Ray, Ashok Robin, & Joanna S. Wu. (2003). Incentives Versus Standards: Properties of Accounting Income in Four East Asian Countries. SSRN Electronic Journal.165 indexed citations
9.
Ball, Ray, Andrew Keating, & Jerold L. Zimmerman. (1998). Commitment, Historical Cost Accounting and Accounting Depreciation. SSRN Electronic Journal.1 indexed citations
10.
Ball, Ray & Eli Bartov. (1998). How Naive Is the Stock Market's Use of Earnings Information?. SSRN Electronic Journal.36 indexed citations
11.
Ball, Ray, S.P. Kothari, & Charles E. Wasley. (1998). Is Research On Trading Rules Implementable? The Case Of Short-Term Contrarian Strategies. SSRN Electronic Journal.
12.
Kothari, S.P. & Ray Ball. (1993). Economic determinants of the relation between earnings changes and stock returns. 68(3). 622–638.107 indexed citations
13.
Ball, Ray & Clifford W. Smith. (1992). The Economics of accounting policy choice. McGraw-Hill eBooks.19 indexed citations
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive
bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global
research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include
incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and
delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in
Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.