Potential model misspecification bias: Formative indicators enhancing theory for accounting researchers

This paper describes why and when formative factors, in combination with reflective measures, can be used in accounting research to better represent complex theoretical constructs. We argue that the exclusive use of reflective factors constrains theory development and may lead to imprecise measurement. We provide a review of 66 published research papers from Accounting, Organization and Society, The Accounting Review, Contemporary Accounting Research, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Accounting, Auditing, & Accountability Journal, Behavioral Research in Accounting, International Journal of Accounting, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Management Accounting Research, Abacus, and Journal of Management Accounting Research using Structural Equation Models (SEM) from 1992 to 2008 to illustrate improvement of misspecification bias in leading accounting journals. Our findings suggest that most of the studies modeled constructs that did not include formative indicators.     

Threshold citation analysis of influential articles,journals, institutions and researchers in accounting

We use a threshold citation approach to measure the influence of articles, journals, institutions and researchers in accounting research. The Journal of Accounting Research, the Journal of Accounting and Economics and Accounting Review are the 3 most influential journals in accounting research. The 3 most influential institutions in accounting research are the University of Chicago, the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Michigan, while the 3 most frequently cited authors in accounting research are Richard G. Sloan, Robert E. Verrecchia and Paul M. Healy.     

Is accounting a global or a local discipline? evidence from major research journals

Accounting research is torn between two competing forces. On the one hand, a quest for general results and internationalization of financial markets calls for a global approach and international co-operation. On the other hand, domestic institutional settings call for research that deals with the relevant problems of the existing accounting systems. In this paper we address the issue of how global or local the accounting research community currently is through an analysis of empirical studies published by six leading English language accounting research journals from the U.S.A., Europe and Australia, during the period 1984–1993. Our findings indicate that accounting still is a rather local discipline by nature: both empirical evidence and authors are significantly clustered along country lines. We find that 77% of papers fall in a category where the origin of the researcher, data and the journal, is the same. Especially there is a close link between the origin of the researcher and that of the data. The interpretation of the empirical findings lead us to a view of competing research élites. A powerful and currently dominating U.S. academic élite is centred around The Accounting Review, the Journal of Accounting Research and the Journal of Accounting and Economics; and an emerging, mostly European élite around Accounting, Organizations and Society. The functioning of research élites produces competing quality criteria which are intertwined with methodological and cultural issues. The emerging “policentric oligarchy” of research élites helps to remove institutional barriers to the knowledge production process and offers legitimate outlets for a wider range of approaches.     

Developments in accounting regulation: A synthesis and annotated bibliography of evidence and commentary in the 2009 academic literature

In this article, we synthesize in annotated bibliography form, recent regulation-related findings and commentaries in the academic literature. This annotated bibliography is one in a series of bibliographies that summarizes regulation-related academic research. We reviewed academic outlets such as The Accounting Review, The Journal of Accounting Research, The Journal of Accounting and Economics, Accounting Horizons, The Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, The Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, The Journal of Business, Finance & Accounting, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, and Research in Accounting Regulation. We annotate results of regulation-related research studies and key points from regulation-related commentaries.     

Developments in accounting regulation: A synthesis and annotated bibliography of evidence and commentary in the 2010 academic literature

In this article, we synthesize in annotated bibliography form, recent regulation-related findings and commentaries in the academic literature. This annotated bibliography is one in a series of bibliographies that summarizes regulation-related academic research. We reviewed academic outlets such as The Accounting Review, The Journal of Accounting Research, The Journal of Accounting and Economics, Accounting Horizons, The Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, The Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, The Journal of Business, Finance & Accounting, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, and Research in Accounting Regulation. We annotate results of regulation-related research studies and key points from regulation-related commentaries.     

Ranking Journals Using Social Science Research Network Downloads

I use a new approach to rank journals, namely the number and percent frequency of articles a journal publishes that are heavily downloaded from the Social Science Research Network (SSRN). I rank 18 accounting and finance journals, and I identify five journals not considered by the two most recent major published ranking studies of publications by accounting faculty, namely (in rank order): Journal of Financial Economics, Review of Accounting Studies, Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Journal of Corporate Finance, and Journal of International Financial Management and Accounting. I show that financial accounting faculties are more likely to post their working papers to SSRN, and papers posted by financial faculties generate more downloads. I mitigate this bias in favor of the financial area by providing separate rankings based on authors in the financial versus non-financial areas.     

Accounting education literature review (1991–1997), part II: students,educational technology,assessment and faculty issues

This paper updates literature reviews by Rebele et al. (1991)and Rebele and Tiller (1986)by reviewing a subset of the accounting education literature published during the period 1991–1997. In a preceding paper (Part I), Rebele et al. (1998)reviewed accounting education articles related to two topics: curriculum and instructional approaches. In this paper (Part II), we review articles related to the topics of students, educational technology, assessment and faculty issues, published primarily in the following five journals: Journal of Accounting Education, Issues in Accounting Education, The Accounting Educators' Journal, Accounting Education: A Journal of Theory, Practice and Research and Accounting Perspectives. Recommendations for future research are offered at the end of each major section. An appendix identifies instructional cases and educational resources published in accounting education journals during the 1991–1997 period.     

Accounting education literature review (1991–1997), part I: Curriculum and instructional approaches

This paper updates the work of Rebele, Stout, and Hassell (A review of empirical research in accounting education: 1985–1991. Journal of Accounting Education, I, 167–231, 1991) and Rebele and Tiller (Empirical research in accounting education: A review and evaluation. In A. C. Bishop, E. K. St. Pierre and R. L. Benke (Eds), Research in Accounting Education, 1–54. Harrisonburg, VA: Center for Research in Accounting Education, James Madison University, 1996) by reviewing a subset of the accounting education literature published during the period 1991–1997. Specifically, we review articles (both empirical and nonempirical) related to the accounting curriculum and instructional approaches in accounting that were published in the following journals: Journal of Accounting Education, Issues in Accounting Education, The Accounting Educators' Journal, and Accounting Education: A Journal of Theory, Practice and Research. A second paper, Part II, will review articles published in these same journals during the period 1991–1997 on the topics of assessment, use of technology, students, faculty concerns, cases, and instructional resources.     

Ranking accounting journals using dissertation citation analysis: A research note

Prior literature on accounting journal rankings has provided different journal lists depending on the type of examination (citations- vs. survey-based) and the choice of journals covered. A recent study by Bonner, Hesford, Van der Stede, and Young (2006) [Bonner, S., Hesford, A., Van der Stede, W. A., & Young, M. S. (2006). The most influential journals in academic accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(7), 663–685] documents disproportionately more citations in the financial accounting area, suggesting a financial accounting bias in the accounting literature. We use citations from accounting dissertations completed during 1999–2003 to provide a ranking of accounting journals. The database allows us to assess the research interests of new accounting scholars and the literature sources they draw from. Another innovation is our ranking of accounting journals based on specialty areas (auditing, financial, managerial, tax, systems, and other) and research methods (archival, experimental, modeling, survey, and other). To mitigate the financial accounting bias documented by Bonner et al. (2006), we derive a ranking metric by scaling (normalizing) the journal citations by the number of dissertations within each specialty area and research method. Overall, the top journals are, JAR, AOS, TAR, and JAE. We also provide evidence that top journal rankings do vary by specialty area as well as by research methods.     

Accounting information systems research: Is it another QWERTY?

This article examines the research within accounting information systems (AIS) as found in articles published in leading accounting, management information systems, and computer science journals from 1982 to 1998. Trend analysis is performed on AIS articles found in the following journals: The Journal of Information Systems; Advances in Accounting Information Systems; Journal of Accounting Research; The Accounting Review; Journal of Accounting and Economics, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory; Behavioral Research in Accounting; Journal of Management Accounting Research; Management Science; MIS Quarterly; Decision Sciences; Information Systems Research; and Communications of the ACM, among others. The trend analysis is structured across underlying theory, research method, and information systems lifecycle topics of AIS articles in these journals. This article identifies the extant research streams in AIS, where AIS research has been published from 1982 to 1998, and seeks to provide insight into the question: should AIS exist as its own separate research domain? Is AIS research like the QWERTY keyboard (David, 1985), widely adopted due to popular demand, but ineffective and inefficient, with a better AIS research and teaching model available?     

Accounting Research in Abacus,A&F,AAR, and AJM from 2008–2015: A Review and Research Agenda

This paper uses bibliographic mapping techniques to map the research conversation in four Pacific Basin accounting journals listed on the Social Sciences Citation Index (Abacus, Accounting and Finance, Australian Accounting Review, and the Australian Journal of Management). We identify the main research streams in these journals as Accounting Standards, Environmental Accounting, Earnings Management, Disclosure, Conservatism, Auditing, Impairment, Cost of Capital, and Corporate Governance. We critically review each research stream, identify emerging research trends, and suggest an agenda for future research on accounting in the Pacific Basin.     

No premature closures of debates,please: A response to Ahrens

In this response to Ahrens [Ahrens, T. (2008). Overcoming the subjective–objective divide in interpretive management accounting research. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(2–3), 292–297.] we clarify both the motivation and the core points of the Kakkuri-Knuuttila et al. [Kakkuri-Knuuttila, M.-L., Lukka, K., & Kuorikoski, J. (2008). Straddling between paradigms: A naturalistic philosophical case study on interpretive research in management accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33(2–3), 267–291.] paper. We remind the management accounting academia that we should be careful not to close prematurely examinations and debates on issues, which are not yet truly resolved.     

Setting realistic expectations for publishing in leading accounting research journals

At most colleges and universities, an accounting academic's publication record is a primary consideration in promotion and tenure decisions. Many institutions encourage and expect faculty members to publish in leading accounting research journals. No longer limited to institutions with strong research orientations, these expectations often become an informal part of promotion and tenure guidelines at other colleges and universities. This article evaluates the use of such criteria in light of a five-year study (1978–1982) of several attributes of academics who have published in two leading research journals, The Accounting Review and The Journal of Accounting Research. The objective is to initiate dialogue and promote reasonable expectations among and between accounting faculty and administrators.     

Accounting and Finance at forty: a retrospective evaluation

Accounting and Finance has evolved from a news bulletin to a full-grown refereed academic journal that has published papers written by authors from Australia, New Zealand, the United States of America, Canada, Europe and Asia. The Journal published its 41^st volume in 2001 and that anniversary issue coincides with the beginning of the new millennium. As part of the celebration of this important milestone, this article reviews the Journal's evolution, the variety of papers published and the Journal's impact on accounting and finance research in the Asia Pacific region. Data for 394 papers published in the Journal by 570 authors are analysed. I find that the distribution of institutions and authors that have published in the Journal is highly skewed, with the top five (11) institutions accounting for 35 per cent (51 per cent) of the published papers in the Journal. Similarly, 8 per cent of the authors have published 26 per cent of the articles in the Journal. Analysis of the citation pattern indicates that Accounting and Finance does not have much impact on research published in the Asia Pacific region, with the Journal accounting for only 1.06 per cent of all citations in the selected Asia Pacific journals. Sub-period analysis indicates that not even the establishment of the editorial board in the latter half of the 1990s has helped improve the impact of the Journal on research published in the Asia Pacific region. However, compared with other Asia-Pacific journals, Accounting and Finance has the strongest impact on publications in the selected journals. The impact is even stronger in the latter half of the 1990s. Also, the impact of Accounting and Finance on the more recent journals in the Asia Pacific region is stronger than that of the other more established journals.     

An empirical study of the evidence for contingency theories of management accounting systems in conditions of rapid change

This paper continues the theme of Jones (Accounting, Organizations & Society, 10, 177–200, 1985) which described the findings of an empirical study of the changes introduced into management accounting systems following acquisition. It adopts a contingency theory perspective of the findings; relates them to existing hypotheses; and introduces a test of the theory involving measurement of the control relationships established between acquisition partners. Theoretical expectations for the adaptation of effective post- acquisition MAS are developed and related to success/failure.     

Book Review Section

Book reviewed in this article: K.J. Leo, C.J. Lambert & J. W. Sweetig Advanced Company Accounting James Guthrie, Lee Parker and David Shand, The Public Sector: Contemporary Readings in Accounting and Auditing Contemporary Issues in Accounting Research, Edited by Bhabatosh Baerjee (IAA Research Foundation 1991) Funds and Portfolio Management Institutions: An International Survey. Edited by Stefano Preda, Elsevier Barfield, J.T., Raiborn C.A. and Dalton M.A. Cost Accounting— Traditions and Innovations (1991) John Hoggett and Lew Edwards, Financial Accounting in Australia Second Edition. (John wiley & Sons, Brisbane 1990)     

Accounting journals and the ABS quality ratings

This study aims to look behind the quality ratings for accounting journals, listed in the ABS Academic Journal Quality Guide (Kelly, Morris, Rowlinson and Harvey, 2009). Significant variations exist in the perceptions of journal quality across the six UK business schools that contribute ratings to the ABS guide, with the most optimistic perceptions tending to come from those schools whose ratings are more highly correlated with quality scores for critical and interpretive research, as reported in Lowe and Locke's (2005) article in Accounting, Organizations and Society (30:1, 81–98). Pessimistic perceptions are more likely to exist in those schools whose ratings are more highly correlated with Lowe & Locke's scores for functional and capital markets research paradigms. There are also notable variations in journal ratings across time. Given that perceptions vary so much across schools, paradigms and time, how much credence can be given to any single rating system for journal quality? This study concludes that if the ABS guide is to be used by university decision-makers or heads of school then the ABS ratings for any given year need to be treated with extreme caution and with an appropriate recognition of their intrinsic limitations.