Knowledge Preservation in Accounting: A Citational Study

This study explores knowledge preservation in accounting research through an examination of a sample of 428 published accounting articles and their nearly 11,000 citations. The examination shows that accounting scholars tend to cite very recent literature. The small volume of cited pre-1960 literature (preponderantly from non-accounting sources) and the low incidence of historical research articles in most non-historical journals suggests that earlier accounting knowledge may become lost to future generations of accounting scholars. This conclusion implies that accounting scholars can play an important role in the preservation and dissemination of previous generations of accounting knowledge.     

International Publishing Patterns: An Investigation of Leading UK and US Accounting and Finance Journals

Abstract:   Research quality is often measured by the quality of the journals in which articles are published. This article looks at 1,867 articles published in six highly‐rated UK and six highly‐rated US academic journals from 1996 to 2000. The authors publishing in the UK journals come mainly from UK and US institutions, but just over a third come from other countries. However, almost ninety per cent of authors publishing in top US journals come from US institutions. Contributions from authors from institutions in non‐English speaking countries in these top journals are rare. The implications of this research are that although accounting is growing increasingly international, academic research, especially in the top US journals remains stubbornly nationally‐orientated.     

An analysis of the research productivity of AIS faculty

During the past 25 years, a number of articles have examined the accounting research productivity of individual faculty members and institutions. Many articles have focused on the quantity of publications, with a few incorporating a quality measurement component. Concurrently, other research efforts have examined the quality of the journals that are considered to be potential outlets for a broad, cross-section of accounting academics. These studies, taken as a whole, have provided valuable insights into the research productivity across the domain of accounting academics. The purpose of this paper is to examine research in the subdiscipline of AIS, from both a quantity and quality perspective and evaluate both institutional productivity and individual faculty productivity. Information from all AIS research published from 1982 through 1998 in 45 accounting and information systems journals was collected and analyzed. Using this data, we show which journals are considered the highest quality outlets for AIS publications, which faculty have published the most AIS research, which employing institutions are rated highest in AIS research productivity and which doctoral granting institutions are rated the highest for AIS research productivity. The findings of this study contribute to the understanding of the AIS research domain and to accounting by providing valuable insights into the quality of AIS research.     

Exploring corporate governance research in accounting journals through latent semantic and topic analyses

The literature on corporate governance (CG) has been expanding at an unprecedented rate since major corporate scandals surfaced, such as Enron, WorldCom, and HealthSouth. Corresponding with accounting's important role in CG, accounting scholars increasingly have investigated CG in recent years, so the body of literature is growing. Although previous attempts have been made to summarize extant literature on CG via reviews, none of these attempts has utilized recent developments in text analyses and natural language processing. This study uses latent semantic and topic analyses to address this research gap by analysing abstracts from 1,399 articles in all accounting journals that the Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) has rated A and A*. The ABDC journal list is widely recognized as a journal‐quality indicator across many universities worldwide. The analyses revealed 10 distinct research topics on CG in the ABDC's top accounting journals. The results presented include the five most representative articles for each topic, as distinguished by topic scores. This study carries important practice and policy implications, as it reveals major research streams and exhibits how researchers respond to various CG problems.     

Advances in international accounting: A retrospective commentary

International accounting research made huge strides over the last 30 years. Advances in International Accounting was first published in 1987 and ends in December 2016 having published over 400 articles to help advance our understanding of various topics in international accounting. This retrospective commentary provides a brief history of the journal with an emphasis on its editors, editorial boards, expanse of articles, and significance of its contributions to the literature.     

CAFR 1999–2021, the past two decades and a look ahead

The China Accounting and Finance Review (CAFR) was jointly established in 1999 by the Hong Kong Polytechnic University and Tsinghua University. Over the past 22 years, CAFR has published original papers in accounting and finance with a focus on China-related research. In this article, we review the journal’s publishing patterns and the impactful articles it has published, with the aim of better understanding past research on China-related issues and recent publication patterns and trends as well as developing new insight that may inspire future submissions. We divide past CAFR articles by topic into six groups: (i) information disclosure; (ii) auditing; (iii) corporate governance; (iv) market efficiency; (v) corporate finance; and (vi) miscellaneous. We use these categories as the basis of our review for articles published before 2020. We also summarize articles by their regional setting, research methodology, and authors’ university affiliation. We then highlight the contributions of a few impactful CAFR articles that are actively cited in both the Chinese and English literature. We complement the literature review by going over China’s financial stability research in JFS. We also compare CAFR with other major accounting and finance journals in the Asia-Pacific region. CAFR stands out by welcoming research using a diversity of regional settings and research topics. Finally, we discuss the new editorial strategies that began in 2020. Under the new editorial policy, CAFR now publishes more non-China and more cross-disciplinary studies than it used to. We review several recent publications to demonstrate the change. Going forward, we intend to call for the publication of more high-quality papers in accounting and finance that are not restricted to a region, area, or methodology providing new insights into accounting and finance.     

Producing Spaces for Academic Discourse: The Impact of Research Assessment Exercises and Journal Quality Rankings

This study examines the impact of national research assessment exercises (NRAEs) and associated journal quality rankings on the development, scope and sustainability of the academic journals in which accounting research is disseminated. The reported exploratory study focused on the United Kingdom (UK), Australia and New Zealand as three countries in which NRAEs are well developed or imminent. Data were collected via a survey of authors, interviews with journal editors, and feedback from publishers responsible for producing academic accounting journals.
The findings suggest that, despite cynicism around the reliability of published journal quality rankings, the entrenchment of NRAE 'rules' and journal quality perceptions has changed authors' submission choices and left lower ranked journals struggling with a diminished quantity and quality of submissions. A clear perception is that NRAEs have done little to improve the overall quality of the accounting literature, but are impeding the diversity, originality and practical relevance of accounting research.
Although strategies are suggested for meeting these challenges, they require strategic partnerships with publishers to enhance the profile and distribution of emerging journals, and depend on the willingness of accounting researchers to form supportive communities around journals that facilitate their research interests. The alternative may be a withering of the spaces for academic discourse, a stifling of innovation and a further entrenchment of current perceptions of what counts as 'quality' research.     

THE IMPACT OF ACCOUNTING RESEARCH ON FINANCE

This paper assesses the impact of accounting research on finance using citational methods and content analysis. The data are 715 articles published in seven finance journals. In contrast to previous research of the influence of finance research on accounting, the results show relatively little impact of accounting research on finance. The limited impact of accounting on finance is principally provided by four accounting journals and a small group of accounting authors. The impact found is often the result of bridging papers, in which either finance articles have accounting authors, or vice versa. These results suggest a substantial disregard of ostensibly pertinent capital-markets accounting research by finance scholars. The reasons for finance’s disregard of this work, whether for reasons of perceived value, quality, or for other reasons, is unclear. However, it is apparent that accounting capital-markets research is not as influential in finance as might be expected.     

Productivity in “Top‐Ten” Academic Accounting Journals by Researchers at Canadian Universities*

We examine the research productivity of academic accountants at Canadian universities for the 11‐year period 1990‐2000. Our analysis is based on the “top‐ten” ranked refereed journals in accounting, auditing, and taxation, as documented by Brown and Huefner (1994). We first provide an overview of the importance of publishing in highly ranked accounting journals for individual academics, departments, and business faculties. We then provide details of the proportion of articles published in each of these journals by academics from Canadian universities; the type of research published in each journal (auditing, financial accounting, managerial accounting, and taxation); and details of editorial board service. Our results indicate that even at the most productive Canadian university (in terms of “top‐ten” publications), faculty members publish (on average) approximately one article every seven years. Six Canadian universities have faculty members with, on average, more than one article in “top‐ten” journals every 10 years. We also provide results of analyses that rank each Canadian university, after controlling for the relative quality of each journal, using impact factors published by the Social Science Citation Index. In addition, statistics are provided with regard to the 15 most productive researchers, in terms of “top‐ten” publications, in the 11‐year period. Finally, in conjunction with the 25th anniversary of the Canadian Academic Accounting Association, we examine the productivity of academic accountants at Canadian universities over the past 25 years by combining our results with those reported by Richardson and Williams (1990).     

Elusive boundaries,power relations,and knowledge production: A systematic review of the literature on digitalization in accounting

A third wave of technological advancements, which is often referred to as “digitalization,” is affecting organizations across the board. This paper aims to present a comprehensive synthesis of the extant scholarly work on digitalization in the accounting literature. It does so through a systematic literature review that focuses on articles on digitalization published by the highest-ranked accounting journals in the period 2007–2017. By conducting a thorough review, we extend Rom and Rohde's (2007) literature review on integrated information systems (IIS) in management accounting. Furthermore, we utilize a modified version of the framework proposed by Rom and Rohde (2007) to classify and interpret the literature. This allows us to understand the differences between IIS and digitalization in accounting, and to illuminate avenues for future research. The paper concludes with an overview of three main differences in how IIS and digitalization have influenced accounting, and three concurrent avenues for future research on digitalization in accounting: the elusive boundaries of accounting, power relations, and knowledge production for decision making.     

Research productivity of Australian accounting academics

In recent decades, substantial changes have impacted the global academy, such as the increasing use of key performance metrics for academics. This study provides recent evidence of Australian accounting academics’ performance in publishing in A/A* journals during the period 2010–2018. We find that the top 25 percent of Australian academics produce approximately 60 percent of published journal articles through an analysis of the A/A* Australian Business Deans′ Council (ABDC) accounting journal listing. The majority of published Australian co‐authored research output in the sample is in A ranked journals (80 percent), with only 20 percent observed in A* ranked journals.     

Research Misconduct in Accounting Literature: A Survey of the Most Prolific Researchers' Actions and Beliefs

Incidents of research misconduct, especially falsification, in the hard sciences and medicine have been widely reported. Motives for misconduct include professional advancement and personal recognition. Accounting academics are under the same tenure, promotion and recognition pressures as other academics; and, without the life-and-death issues of medical research, rationalizing misconduct in accounting research seems much easier. It is reasonable to assume that dishonesty has occurred, even if little evidence exists about its prevalence. Further, accounting research can influence tax policy and market conditions, affecting people's lives. This study is, to our knowledge, the first attempt to survey accounting researchers directly as to their ethical practices; it uses the randomized response technique of addressing sensitive questions. To maximize its relevance to the most respected accounting research, this questionnaire was sent only to the most prolific researchers at U.S. colleges and universities—those who have published in the 'top thirty' accounting journals. The results indicate that serious misconduct has occurred among these established accounting researchers. The estimated percentage of seriously tainted articles in the top thirty accounting journals, based on self-reporting, is about 4 per cent, while the respondents on average believe that about 21 per cent of the literature is tainted. Faculty who were tenured more recently provide higher estimates of the falsification rate, and attribute more of the cause to external factors like tenure pressure. The article concludes by discussing implications and offering policy recommendations.     

Still flickering at the margins of existence? Publishing patterns and themes in accounting and finance research over the last two decades

This paper reviews the last 24 years of academic accounting in the UK, using survey data collected every 2 years by the British Accounting Association (BAA). Over this period, the number of academic accountants more than doubled, the number of full professors rose from 42 to 247, the proportion of staff with a Ph.D. rose from 9% to 39%, the proportion with a professional qualification fell from 73% to 50%, the proportion of academics with no publications fell and the proportion publishing in refereed journals rose. The analysis of the BAA data produces several other findings. First, the overall level of publications reached a peak in 2000 and declined thereafter. Since 1982–1983 there has been a distinct downward trend in the number of journal articles published each period per head, although from year to year the changes are more uneven. Second, very few UK academics publish in the journals, which are identified (by published ranking surveys) as being top international journals, with the exception of Accounting, Organizations and Society. Third, very few UK academics publish in the set of journals which they themselves rate the most highly in terms of quality and which are published primarily in the US. Fourth, the contribution made by UK academics to the international literature also increased, in terms of volume, up to the year 2000 and declined thereafter. Fifth, there has been a move away from publishing in mainstream accounting journals and professional journals. The paper considers some of the implications of these trends for the future of research, for teaching, for the individual progress of UK accounting academics, for the development of the discipline and for the international competitiveness of UK accounting research.     

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.     

WHY DO UK ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE ACADEMICS NOT PUBLISH IN TOP US JOURNALS?

In peer reviews of the quality of academic accounting and finance journals, US journals are consistently perceived to be the most prestigious. UK accounting and finance academics share these perceptions, and yet very few of them ever publish in top US journals. A survey of UK accounting and finance academics was undertaken in an attempt to ascertain why this is so. The respondents perceive that the preference of top US journals for a US focus to published articles, reinforced by a strong element of gatekeeping and the need to be able to network with the US academic community, provide major barriers to entry. As a result, there is a strong belief that efforts to publish in top US journals will be unsuccessful and, therefore, publishing in the UK is seen to be easier.     

Benchmarks for evaluating the research productivity of accounting faculty

This study reports comprehensive data on both the quantity and quality of research productivity of 3878 accounting faculty who earned their accounting doctoral degrees from 1971 to 1993. Publications in 40 journals were used to measure faculty publication quantity. Journal ratings derived from a compilation of the rankings of five prior studies and co-authorship were used to measure publication quality. Choosing benchmarks for an individual faculty requires users of our data to determine four parameters: (1) what credit to give a faculty member for co-authored articles; (2) what level of journal quality is appropriate, e.g. presenting benchmarks for publications in the Best 4, Best 12, Best 22 and Best 40 journals; (3) choosing appropriate levels of performance, e.g. considering the publication record in the top 10%, top 20%, top 25%, top 33%, or top 50% of all faculty; and (4) deciding the emphasis to place on the number of years since the doctoral degree was earned. We believe that this is the first set of benchmarks that allows administrators to state, with some justification, a required number of articles for tenure or promotion. In addition, we discovered that the average number of authors per article is significantly correlated with time and growing at a pace of 0.017 authors per article per year.     

A Knowledge Synthesis of Anti-Black Racism in Accounting Research*†

This structured literature review synthesizes studies that have investigated questions related to anti-Black racism—namely, the discrimination and marginalization of Black people—in the accountancy literature and identifies opportunities for future research. This study is part of a larger research project that reviewed 161 articles and identified four themes relevant to accounting research on discrimination in general: anti-Black racism, imperialism and postcolonialism, intersectionality, and diversity. Based on the 25 anti-Black racism articles reviewed, this paper finds four key subthemes: demand for accountancy services and racial discrimination in accountancy practice, the racialization of professional accounting qualifications, Black professionals in academia, and the supply-side fallacy. Furthermore, because studies at the intersection of anti-Black racism and accounting are limited, this study proposes future research directions that will advance knowledge on various topics related to anti-Black racism.     

A cross-discipline comparison of top-tier academic journal publication rates: 1997–1999

We examine “top-tier” academic journal publications in four major business disciplines (accounting, finance, management, and marketing) during the 1997 through 1999 time period. We document cross-discipline differences with respect to the number of articles published per discipline and the types of institutions that capture these publications. Specifically, the accounting discipline has considerably fewer top-tier articles published relative to other business disciplines. In addition, a significantly higher percentage of accounting top-tier publications are written by authors with top 20 academic affiliation relative to the top-tier publications in other business disciplines. Other cross-discipline differences are also documented.