How publishing in accounting compares to other disciplines

What is it about?

In this paper I compare the experience of accounting faculty publishing papers to those of other disciplines. Data was collected from all top-tier journals in accounting, economics, finance, management, marketing, psychology, and the natural sciences. All articles published in these journals during 2012 were then compared on word count, number of figures and tables, time it took to publish, number of citations, and number of co-authors. I also surveyed academics in these fields to gain an understanding of the perception of the review process in these fields. Results from the data and surveys include a perception in the field of accounting that the review process is to rigorous and should be modified. Other results include the desire for a double in the acceptance rate of published journals, the perception that reviewers have not improved and focus too little on contribution to practices in accounting, and very low citation patterns in comparison to other disciplines.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

This paper gives credibility to an existing argument that accounting review processes need significant improvement. The data allow for clarity on how the field of accounting differs from other fields. Based on the data, there is evidence that accounting standards for publication should be reviewed. There is also evidence that many researchers believe reviewer processes should be evaluated and improved.