Objective research and reviews to aid investing decisions
How does "the group that is arguably best qualified, finance professors, ...assess the importance of valuation techniques, asset-pricing models, market anomalies, firm characteristics, corporate events, seasonal variables, and other information" when they invest for themselves? In their April 2007 paper entitled "What Really Matters When Buying and Selling Stocks?", James Doran and Colby Wright seek to answer this question via an email-initiated electronic survey of 4,525 finance professors at accredited U.S. universities and colleges. Using data provided by 642 qualified respondents, all with Ph.D.'s, they conclude that:
The following table, taken from the paper, ranks the mean ratings of all 642 responding finance professors for 14 stock buying/selling decision factors. On a scale of 1 (Not Important at All) to 7 (Extremely Important), none of the factors stand out as having great significance. Formal asset pricing/valuation models are near the bottom of the list. As noted above, a predominantly passive investing approach among respondents may explain the generally low mean ratings.

The following figure, also from the paper, summarizes investment asset allocations for three subsets of respondents. Active Traders buy stocks at least monthly and aim to outperform the market. Other Active Investors aim to outperform but trade less often. Passive Investors do not aim to outperform.

In summary, finance professors are mostly passive investors, but even those trying to beat the market clearly prefer popular investing indicators over formal ("academic") valuation and asset pricing models.
Although not covered by the survey, it would be interesting to know the investing results of the respondent subgroups. Do finance professors who trade actively, or otherwise try to beat the market, do so?
For related research, see Blog Synthesis: The Wisdom of Analysts, Experts and Gurus.