Most cited papers on corporate board practices published in Corporate Ownership and Control Journal

Dear colleagues – members of Virtus international scholar network!

The editorial team of Virtus Interpress is grateful to you as members of our international scholar network for your commitment to the scholarly research and interest in the papers published in our journals. We realize our role to contribute to improving the papers through reviewing, editing and its disseminating within the international network of scholars in various ways, for example, our conferences or thematic collections of papers we compose and distribute systematically.

We decided to prepare a top list of the most cited papers devoted to corporate board issues published in Corporate Ownership and Control journal. Below is a list of papers with reference to their current Google Scholar citations.

  1. Ayuso, S., & Argandoña, A. (2009). Responsible corporate governance: Towards a stakeholder board of directors? Corporate Ownership & Control, 6(4), 9-19. http://doi.org/10.22495/cocv6i4p1. Quantity of citations: 166.
  2. Kao, L., & Chen, A. (2004). The effects of board characteristics on earnings management. Corporate Ownership & Control, 1(3), 96-107. http://doi.org/10.22495/cocv1i3p9. Quantity of citations: 139.
  3. Kyereboah-Coleman, A., & Biekpe, N. (2007). The relationship between board size, board composition, CEO duality and firm performance: Experience from Ghana. Corporate Ownership & Control, 4(2), 114-122. http://doi.org/10.22495/cocv4i2p11. Quantity of citations:117.
  4. Darmadi, S. (2011). Board diversity and firm performance: The Indonesian evidence. Corporate Ownership & Control, 8(2-4), 450-466. http://doi.org/10.22495/cocv8i2c4p4. Quantity of citations: 113.
  5. Chen, C. W., Barry Lin, J., & Yi, B. (2008). CEO duality and firm performance - an endogenous issue. Corporate Ownership & Control, 6(1), 58-65. http://doi.org/10.22495/cocv6i1p6. Quantity of citations: 94.
  6. Nguyen, H., & Faff, R. (2007). Impact of board size and board diversity on firm value: Australian evidence. Corporate Ownership & Control, 4(2), 24-32. http://doi.org/10.22495/cocv4i2p2. Quantity of citations: 90.
  7. Kyereboah-Coleman, A., & Biekpe, N. (2006). Do boards and CEOs matter for bank performance? A comparative analysis of banks in Ghana. Corporate Ownership & Control, 4(1), 119-126. http://doi.org/10.22495/cocv4i1p10. Quantity of citations: 61.
  8. Eklund, J. E., Palmberg, J. & Wiberg, D. (2009). Ownership structure, board composition and investment performance. Corporate Ownership & Control, 7(1), 120-130. http://doi.org/10.22495/cocv7i1p11. Quantity of citations: 52.
  9. Davidson, W. N., & Rowe, W. (2004). Intertemporal endogeneity in board composition and financial performance. Corporate Ownership & Control, 1(4), 49-60. http://doi.org/10.22495/cocv1i4p4. Quantity of citations: 52.
  10. Chin, T., Vos, E., & Casey, Q. (2004). Levels of ownership structure, board composition and board size seem unimportant in New Zealand. Corporate Ownership & Control, 2(1), 119-128. http://doi.org/10.22495/cocv2i1p9. Quantity of citations: 44.
  11. Abdullah, S. N., Mohamad, N. R., & Mokhtar, M. Z. (2011). Board independence, ownership and CSR of Malaysian large firms. Corporate Ownership & Control, 8(2-4), 467-483. http://doi.org/10.22495/cocv8i2c4p5. Quantity of citations: 43.
  12. Alshimmiri, T. (2004). Board composition, executive remuneration, and corporate performance: The case of REITs. Corporate Ownership & Control, 2(1), 104-118. http://doi.org/10.22495/cocv2i1p8. Quantity of citations: 43.
  13. Ujunwa, A., Nwakoby, I., & Ugbam, C. O. (2012). Corporate board diversity and firm performance: Evidence from Nigeria. Corporate Ownership & Control, 9(2-1), 216-226. http://doi.org/10.22495/cocv9i2c1art6. Quantity of citations: 41.
  14. Hutchinson, M., & Zain, M. M. (2009). Internal audit quality, audit committee independence, growth opportunities and firm performance. Corporate Ownership & Control, 7(2), 50-65. http://doi.org/10.22495/cocv7i2p4. Quantity of citations: 41.
  15. Tulung, J. E., & Ramdani, D. (2018). Independence, size and performance of the board: An emerging market research. Corporate Ownership & Control, 15(2-1), 201-208. http://doi.org/10.22495/cocv15i2c1p6. Quantity of citations: 34.
  16. Collin, S.-O. (2008). The boards functional emphasis - A contingency approach Corporate Ownership & Control, 6(2), 73-88. http://doi.org/10.22495/cocv6i2p7. Quantity of citations: 28.
  17. Kostyuk, A. (2003). Board practices: An international review. Corporate Ownership & Control, 1(1), 102-111. http://doi.org/10.22495/cocv1i1p7. Quantity of citations: 27.
  18. Lazarides, T., Drimpetas, E., & Dimitrios, K. (2009). Executive board members’ remuneration: A longitudinal study. Corporate Ownership & Control, 6(3), 94-103. http://doi.org/10.22495/cocv6i3p9. Quantity of citations: 25.
  19. Al-Mamun, A., Yasser, Q. R., Rahman, M. A., Wickramasinghe, A., & Nathan, T. M. (2014). Relationship between audit committee characteristics, external auditors and economic value added (EVA) of public listed firms in Malaysia. Corporate Ownership & Control, 12(1-9), 899-910. http://doi.org/10.22495/cocv12i1c9p12. Quantity of citations: 23.
  20. Rost, K., Salomo, D., & Osterloh, M. (2008). CEO appointments and the loss of firm-specific knowledge - Putting integrity back into hiring decisions. Corporate Ownership & Control, 5(3), 86-98. http://doi.org/10.22495/cocv5i3p10. Quantity of citations: 23.
  21. Windram, B., & Song, J. (2004). Non-executive directors and the changing nature of audit committees: Evidence from UK audit committee chairmen Corporate Ownership & Control, 1(3), 108-115. http://doi.org/10.22495/cocv1i3p10. Quantity of citations: 23.
  22. Karami, A. (2005). An exploration of the chief executive officers’ (CEOs) perception of strategic management process: The case of British high tech SMEs Corporate Ownership & Control, 2(4), 62-69. http://doi.org/10.22495/cocv2i4p5. Quantity of citations: 22.