How do successful scholars get their best research ideas? An exploration

We interview 24 marketing professors to ask how they got the ideas for 64 of their papers. More than three-quarters of the papers were inspired by holes in the literature, by a “stylized fact” that the current literature cannot explain, or by an interaction with a manager. The rest fall into several smaller categories that to a large extent can be seen as special cases of the three big ones. We describe how papers from each of the three big categories help move the literature forward. We also illustrate the range of situations contained in each category by way of several examples. Among the authors we interview, most do not use a single source. As these authors become more senior, managerial contacts play an increasing role, while the balance between literature and stylized facts appears to be unchanged.

     

The double EMG distribution and trade elasticities

Using Brazilian export data that, unlike many trade data sets, have a full record of small export sales, this paper reconsiders trade elasticities and the welfare gains from trade. Using the Brazilian data, this paper provides novel evidence on the properties of the distributions of log‐export sales and shows that the double exponentially modified Gaussian (EMG) distribution parsimoniously captures these properties. Using the double EMG distribution in a standard monopolistic competition model of trade, this paper demonstrates that data truncation, which is prevalent in many data sets, leads to an upward bias in measuring the partial elasticity of trade with respect to variable trade costs. This bias subsequently leads to the underestimation of the gains from trade by 1% to 9% depending on the extent of data truncation, a range that is commensurate with typical economic growth and large booms.     

Changes in accounting estimates: An update of priors or an earnings management strategy of “last resort”?

Evidence from prior research is mixed about whether accounting estimate changes are strategically motivated, on average, or whether they reflect new or updated information. To interpret this difference, we investigate, by category of material changes in accounting estimates, the association between estimate changes and subsequent restatements. We also explore the determinants of both income-increasing and income-decreasing estimate changes for different categories of estimate changes. We find that the motivations for and the determinants of estimate changes depend on the type of change and on whether the changes in estimates are income-increasing or income-decreasing. Overall, we conclude that when companies are motivated to bias earnings and they cannot do so by manipulating other within generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) accruals, they sometimes resort to using estimate changes. Our more detailed investigation of estimate changes at the account level suggests a more nuanced view of the determinants of changes in accounting estimates. We develop a more complete model of the determinants of changes in accounting estimates than those used in this emerging literature, which should be of interest to accounting academics, regulators, audit practitioners and audit committee members.