ACCOUNTING RESEARCH: A CRITICAL VIEW OF THE PRESENT

SITUATION AND PROSPECTS

INVESTIGACIÓN EN CONTABILIDAD: UNA VISIÓN CRÍTICA DE LA SITUACIÓN ACTUAL Y
PERSPECTIVAS

JOSEP M. ARGILÉS, Departament of Accounting, Universitat de Barcelona

JOSEP GARCIA-BLANDON, Departament of Business, IQS (Faculty of Economics)

ABSTRACT

In this study we critically review the internal procedures of the accounting community for
generating and disseminating knowledge. We contend that academic journals on accounting
research are scarce, publish few articles and apply high rejection rates, and the review
process is lengthy and expensive. Additionally, an academic elite has unparalleled
predominance in comparison to other business disciplines, reflected in an unusual share of
published articles with authors affiliated to a small number of academic institutions, and
the predominance of certain topics and methodologies. The discipline does not allow the
collaborative, iterative and flexible features of innovative knowledge communities. The
discipline’s internal procedures favour restriction, control, slowness, and expiration, rather
than participation, speed and renewal. They are ill suited for advancing knowledge and
bode badly for successful research. As a result, accounting academics present low research
performance and the discipline is facing steady decline. More importantly, the discipline is
handicapped in producing innovative knowledge able to contribute to critical research and
long term social well-being.

We also focus on the Spanish institutional situation, arguing that Spanish requirements for
reaching tenured positions are difficult for accountants to meet.

We highlight the need to raise awareness of the problem and change the procedures.

KEY WORDS: accounting research, critical research, accounting journals, publishing in

accounting, accounting elite, research performance, journal rejection.

“The authors are grateful to the University of Barcelona for funding this research”

Enviado/Submitted: 29/7/2010
Primera revisión/First revision: 8/10/2010 Revista de Contabilidad-Spanish Accounting Review Vol. 14 - Nº 2
Aceptado/Accepted: 25/4/2011 Pag. 9-34 ISSN: 1138-4891 Dep. Legal: MA-1436/97
10 J. M. Argilés, J. Garcia-Blandon

RESUMEN

En este estudio hacemos una revisión crítica de los procedimientos vigentes en la comunidad
académica contable para la generación de conocimiento y su publicación. Exponemos que hay
pocas revistas académicas para publicar la investigación contable, que éstas publican pocos
artículos, aplican elevadas tasas de rechazo y el proceso de revisión es lento y costoso. Además,
hay un predominio de una elite académica sin precedentes en otras disciplinas de empresa, lo
cual se refleja en un mayor porcentaje de artículos pertenecientes a autores afiliados a un
pequeño número de instituciones académicas, y el predominio de ciertos temas y metodologías.
La disciplina no presenta los rasgos de colaboración, interactividad y flexibilidad propios de
las comunidades dinámicas e innovadoras en la producción de conocimiento. El
funcionamiento de la disciplina está más orientado al control que al avance del conocimiento.
Los procedimientos seguidos en la disciplina no son los más apropiados para favorecer el éxito
en la investigación. En consecuencia, los académicos contables presentan poca producción
investigadora y tienen dificultades para desarrollar con éxito una carrera investigadora. Lo que
es aún más importante, la disciplina ofrece pocas posibilidades de generar investigación crítica
en cuestiones sociales y medioambientales.
Este trabajo analiza también la situación institucional en España, aduciendo que los requisitos
exigidos para alcanzar posiciones de estabilidad académica son difíciles de conseguir para los
académicos que se dedican a la contabilidad.
Ponemos de relieve la necesidad de tomar conciencia del problema, como primer paso para
cambiar el funcionamiento de la disciplina.

PALABRAS CLAVE: investigación contable, investigación crítica, revistas académicas de

contabilidad, publicar en contabilidad, élite contable, producción investigadora, tasas de
rechazo de las revistas.
 Accounting research: a critical view of the present situation and prospects 11

1 INTRODUCTION

The academic accounting community is involved in several controversial issues with respect
to the fundamentals, focus, methodologies, impact and relevance of the research. It seems
that many academics are uncomfortable with the current development of the discipline, and
feel that it has not found the sure path that other scientific disciplines seem to follow. The
existing hegemonic status of the positive research method promoted in the US (e.g. Abdel-
Khalik and Ajinkya, 1979) was seen as a productive methodology that would provide a
scientific level of maturity to the discipline (e.g. Beattie, 2004). However, there is a
perception that accounting research, and mainly positive accounting research, has failed to
be useful to standard-setting bodies or to significantly influence accounting developments
(e.g. Singleton-Green, 2010, Dumontier and Raffournier, 2002). Nor has it helped to prevent
questionable accounting practices (Williams, 2004), or anticipate the present financial
crisis and to respond to it, given that over dependence on quantitative research is an
insufficient basis for understanding and criticizing the macroeconomic and political
environment (Arnold, 2009). There is a longstanding debate against the so-called
mainstream scientific accounting methodology, that is perceived as producing repetitive
non-innovative research and is inaccurate for explaining the complex interactions developed
in social settings where accounting is produced and used (e.g. Tomkins and Groves, 1983;
Baker and Bettner, 1997). Some accountants advocate the need for accounting to contribute
to social well-being and make the world a better place (e.g. Gray, 2010), which in turn
requires the need to allow room for departures from “normal science” and embrace multiple
research methods (e.g. Merchant et al., 2003, Adams and Whelan, 2009). However,
Rutherford (2010) considers that the critical perspective has also been limited in generating
innovative, relevant findings in accounting, and advocates reopening space for classical
normative research.

There are, then, controversial issues in the discipline that reveal a feeling of discomfort
and mistrust in the potential for advancing knowledge, as well as in the assessment of which
kind of knowledge should be produced. This situation is probably not solely a matter of
methodology but also involves internal mechanisms and procedures for producing and
disseminating knowledge in the field. Paavola et al. (2004) review several models of
innovative knowledge communities and conclude that knowledge creation strongly
emphasizes collective creation for developing shared objects of activity. Knowledge is not
only produced in individual minds, but mainly collaboratively. In all the models reviewed,
knowledge is embedded in fertile group and organizational activities. The central aspect of
collaborative knowledge advancement is to expand and transform ideas, practices and
materials. Interaction is crucial for creating knowledge. New ideas and innovations emerge
between rather than within people, requiring participation practices and actions (Anderson
et al., 1997). Innovation arises in an iterative process from systematic features of a whole
community, where even exchange of tacit knowledge, including subjective insights,
 12 J. M. Argilés, J. Garcia-Blandon

intuitions, hunches and ideals, are also a crucial basis for innovative processes. It goes
beyond mere learning, and pure propositional and conceptual knowledge. According to
Bereiter (2002), a certain degree of “promisingness” is needed for knowledge advancement,
that is: some sort of sense about what is promising and that ventures and risky efforts
invested in research will attain a certain degree of success, as well as that the dissemination
of knowledge will not be biased and deterred. Consequently, narrow academic communities,
that are fragmented, non participative, elite focused, and restrict knowledge diffusion and
research methods, will be handicapped in advancing and producing knowledge. More
importantly, such communities will be handicapped in producing innovative knowledge able
to contribute to long term social well-being.

In this study we critically review the accounting community’s internal procedures for
generating knowledge and its dissemination. We contend that academic journals for the
dissemination of accounting research are scarce, publish few articles and apply high
rejection rates, while the review process is length and expensive. As a result, academic
output is tiny with respect to experimental sciences, economics and other business fields.
At the same time, the accounting elite has an unparalleled predominance in comparison to
other business fields, hoarding the lion’s share of mainstream journal publications, and
thereby strongly influencing what research topics and methodologies are acceptable. This
situation is hindering the development of a participative setting for knowledge advancement.
More specifically, we focus on Spanish regulations and examine the possibilities of
developing research activities and an academic career. Our aim is to draw attention to the
need for research evaluation procedures that improve the success of accounting research,
ensure wide and non-biased dissemination of research in the field, and focus more on
knowledge advancement in the discipline.

The following section describes the scarcity of accounting academic journals and the
subsequent difficulties for disseminating accounting research. Then we analyse problems
surrounding the publication of accounting research, such as the scarce opportunities for
publishing, high rejection rates and the lengthy review process. The fourth section outlines
how these problems entail a declining trend in the accounting faculty, as well as additional
difficulties in critical research. The fifth section explains the difficulties in developing
accounting research in the specific case of Spain, and the final section provides discussion
and conclusions.

2 ACADEMIC JOURNALS FOR THE DISSEMINATION OF ACCOUNTING

RESEARCH

In this section we analyse the scarcity of accounting journals, focusing on the Journal
Citation Reports (JCR) of the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), which is the most
established and commonly used scientific database for assessing scientific research.
Accounting research: a critical view of the present situation and prospects 13

The accounting journals listed in the JCR are found in the category “BUSINESS,
FINANCE”, which covers both accounting and finance. As shown in Table 1, in 2009 there
were only 12 accounting and auditing journals in the JCR, 8 of which had been added in the
six previous years. Two had been incorporated in 2007, one in 2008 and two in 2009. The
category “BUSINESS, FINANCE” contains a total of 52 journals, of which 40 focus on
finance. For the purposes of this calculation the JBFA was considered as an accounting
journal. The category “ECONOMICS” contained 245 journals in 2009.

TABLE 1.- COMPARISON OF BASIC JCR DATA FOR ECONOMICS,

FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING FROM 2007 TO 2009

Median Aggregate Articles per

Impact Factor Impact Factor Journals Articles journal

Panel A: 2007
Economics 0.653 0.911 191 9,255 48. 5
Business, Finance (whole) 0.72 0.834 45 2,526 56.1
Accounting 1.219 1.451* 9 295 32.8
Panel B: 2008
Economics 0.739 1.059 209 10,724 51.3
Business, Finance (whole) 0.837 1.014 48 2,525 52.6
Accounting 1.294 1.458* 10 328 32.8
Panel C: 2009
Economics 0.735 1.128 245 11,778 48.1
Business, Finance (whole) 0.895 1.148 52 2,584 49.7
Accounting 1.045 1.346* 12** 411 34.3

Notes: * Authors’ calculation for accounting journals

** List of accounting journals in the JCR in 2009 (listed in impact factor order of 2009):
Journal of Accounting and Economics (JAE)
The Accounting Review (TAR)
Accounting Organizations and Society (AOS)
Journal of Accounting Research (JAR)
Review of Accounting Studies (RAS)
Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR)
European Accounting Review (EAR)
Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (AJPT)
Journal of Business Finance & Accounting (JBFA)
Abacus
Accounting and Finance (AF)
Accounting and Business Research (ABR)
Source: ISI

In addition to the limited number of accounting journals listed in the JCR, opportunities for
publication are further reduced by the fact that listed journals contain comparatively fewer
articles, as can be seen in Table 1. Accounting journals contained only 34.3 articles per
journal in 2009, compared with 49.7 for whole business-finance and 48.1 for economics.
14 J. M. Argilés, J. Garcia-Blandon

In addition to journals in the JCR, there are 6 accounting (and auditing) journals in the
Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) published by Thomson Reuters1. Some highly
demanding publications (such as the Journal of Management Accounting Research (JMAR)
which appears as a single edition each year containing only 7 or 8 articles) are not listed in
either the JCR or the SSCI.

The number of accounting journals in the JCR is increasing and the TAR has recently moved
to six issues per year. However, this trend is common to other disciplines in social sciences,
such as economics and finance (as can be seen in Table 1), and it is probably unsatisfactory,
given the precarious situation of the accounting discipline. As shown in Table 1, the impact
factor of accounting journals is higher than finance and economics journals. However, the
data in Table 2 suggest decline rather than recovery. The data series used is small as is the
number of accounting journals in the JCR short, but a mere exploratory analysis reveals
that despite the increasing number of accounting journals in the JCR, almost all of them (and
mainly the most important ones that have been traditionally included in the JCR) show a fall
in impact factor and their corresponding ranking in the “business-finance” category from
2006 to 2009. The JAE is also included in “economics”, and it fell in this category too:
from 3rd position in 2006 to 4th in 2007, 9th in 2008 and 15th in 2009. The declining impact
factor for the most important accounting journals suggests they are losing relevance.

TABLE 2.- IMPACT FACTOR AND RANKING OF ACCOUNTING JOURNALS IN BUSINESS-FINANCE

CATEGORY FROM 2006 TO 2009
2006 2007 2008 2009
impact impact impact impact
factor ranking factor ranking factor ranking factor ranking

JAE 3.360 1 3.034 2 2.851 3 2.605 4

RAS 2.606 3 2.176 4 1.500 10 1.750 11
JAR 2.447 5 2.115 6 2.350 5 1.870 8
AR 2.185 6 1.733 7 1.920 6 1.938 5
AOS 1.286 10 1.032 14 1.803 8 1.904 7
AJPT 1.100 19 0.710 26 0.815 25 0,946 24
CAR 0.783 24 1.219 12 1.087 18 1,129 21
JBFA 0.692 29 0.737 30 0,832 28
Abacus 0.559 31 0.692 31 0,575 36
EAR 0.633 33 0,961 23
AF 0,446 45
ABR 0,359 47

Source: ISI

(1) Management Accounting Research (MAR), Australian Accounting Review (AAR), Accounting Horizons (AH), Journal
of Accounting and Public Policy (JAPP), Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad (REFC) and Journal of
International Financial Mangement and Accounting (JIFMA).
 Accounting research: a critical view of the present situation and prospects 15

3 BARRIERS TO PUBLISHING ACCOUNTING RESEARCH

In this section we describe flawed practises in the reviewing and publishing of accounting
research, which may provide clues for understanding the loss of relevance of published
accounting research.

Bucheit el al. (2002) compared the three journals with the highest impact factor in four
business disciplines for the period 1997-1999. The data, shown in Table 3, indicate that the
most prominent journals publish lower number of articles in accounting than those in other
business disciplines (which reinforces data from Table 1 on average impact journals) and
academics seeking to publish articles in accounting journals encounter greater difficulties.
Fewer articles are published, so less knowledge is disseminated and fewer authors are able
to publish their work. The number of authors per article is similar, but the number of articles
per faculty is much lower in accounting. It is also more difficult for authors with no US
affiliation to publish in the principal specialised journals2. One of the characteristics that
underline the poor academic development of the accounting discipline is the small number
of academic institutions behind most published articles, particularly in the leading journals.
As shown in Table 3, about 50% of authors publishing in top-tier accounting journals in
1997-1999 are affiliated to top-20 US academic institutions, a larger share than other
business disciplines. These characteristics outline a narrow discipline reduced to small
number of academics and institutions playing the game of academic publication, that is ill
equipped for generating new knowledge.

TABLE 3.- TOP-TIER PUBLICATIONS BY DISCIPLINE 1997-1999

Accounting Finance Management Marketing

OBSERVACIONES

Number of articles 234 490 411 285

Number of authors 466 964 878 651

Authors per article 1.99 1.97 2.14 2.28

Articles per faculty considered 0.070 0.195 0.118 0.117

% of authors with no US affiliation 10.1 13.6 20.3 15.3

Number of authors with no US affiliation 47 131 178 100

% of authors from top-20 US academic institutions 49.8 38.1 32.3 35.6

Source: Bucheit et al. (2002).

(2) The authors do not clarify whether and to what extent researchers with no US affiliation who successfully published
articles did so through collaborations with authors with US affiliations.
16 J. M. Argilés, J. Garcia-Blandon

Table 4 contains recent figures reflecting the small number of authors who manage to
publish in the most prestigious accounting journals, and the difficulties encountered by
authors with no US affiliation.

TABLE 4.- AUTHORS PUBLISHING IN TOP ACCOUNTING JOURNALS

JAE* RAS* JAR*

OBSERVACIONES

Rank according to impact factor in 2007 for 2 (1) 4 (2 ) 6 (3)

BUSINESS, FINANCE (for ACCOUNTING)

Rank according to impact factor in 2009 for 4(1) 11(5) 8(4)

BUSINESS, FINANCE (for ACCOUNTING)

Number of authors 155 104 144

US affiliation 130 82 120
No US affiliation 25 22 24

Number of different authors 147 99 140

US affiliation 122 78 116
No US affiliation 25 21 24

Notes: * Data on number of authors are referred to 2007-08 for JAE and to 2006-07 for RAS and JAR
Source: authors’ preparation

Associated with the low number of accounting journals, the opportunities for disseminating
accounting research are further reduced by certain procedures and criteria applied by
journals, not least the high rejection rates generally found in social sciences in comparison
to experimental sciences (Hess, 1997, p. 65). For example, Cicchetti (1991) states that from
1969 to 1986, the journal Physical Review had an average acceptance rate of 77%. Hargens
(1988) provides a table with comparative acceptance rates of different journals considered
to be among the leading publications in their disciplines at the end of the 1960s and the
beginning of the 1980s; average acceptance rates were commonly between 70 and 80% for
chemistry and physics journals and approximately 65% for genetics and biochemistry
publications, whereas a rate of 16% was recorded for the American Economic Review and
of only 11% for the American Sociological Review. The author attributes these differences
not to the demands of available space but to discrepancies between the academic practices
used in different scientific communities. Acceptance rates of accounting journals, as well
as economics and other business fields, are low. For example: between 9.5% and 14.5% for
Econometrica (Dekel et al., 2005) 3, 6 to 10% for American Economic Review, 11% for
Journal of Marketing, 11 to 15% for TAR and 11% for JAE4. Adair (1982), editor of Physical

Papers accepted from total papers submitted for the periods 1998/99 to 2003/04 .
(3)
Data from Cabell’s directory of publishing opportunities (http://www.cabells.com/display.aspx consulted 5 June 2009) for
(4)
American Economic Review, Journal of Marketing and TAR, and from editorial data in issue 1 of JAE volume 5 (for twelve
months ending February 2010).
Accounting research: a critical view of the present situation and prospects 17

Review, states that in an effort to prevent the loss of valuable research articles his journal
applies standard acceptance rates of 80%5, which are intended to ensure that the entire
scientific community has access to important work, rather than just a handful of reviewers
and the authors themselves. He reveals that the Physical Review Letters6, published by the
American Physical Society, adopted a similar policy by abolishing the initial acceptance rate
of 45%, which was considered too low, and applying a much higher one. Bornmann and
Daniel (2009) analyzed 1,899 chemistry papers submitted for publication, finding that 46%
were accepted and 54% were rejected. They also performed further analysis in literature
databases, which revealed that 94% of the 1,021 rejected were later published in other
journals in a more or less revised form.

Moizer (2009) recognizes that the acceptance rates in accounting journals have fallen to a
very low level, attributing the drop to substandard manuscripts and reviewers and editors’
increasingly demanding criteria. He also recognises that the time from submission to
publication has increased inexorably. He warns about the burden that the whole process
represents for the academic community, and the need to improve the review process.

The length of the review process is a further problem for the dissemination of accounting
research. Although some leading journals have improved considerably in this area, the
review and acceptance process is still extremely lengthy in comparison with other academic
disciplines. Table 5 shows a comparison of the accounting journals with the highest impact
factors in the JCR in 2008 with the leading journals in economics and two experimental
science categories chosen at random (“Physics-nuclear” and “Biology”). Data were taken
from the journals with the highest impact factor in the category for the year, and which also
provided information on review periods. We have to move down to the eight indexed journal
to find information on review times in the “Economics” category. As we found no information
on review periods for first impact factor journal in “Physics-nuclear”, we considered the
second. Data are merely exploratory, but they reveal interesting information. For the
accounting journals shown, the final period from acceptance of the article to its publication
is similar or longer than the total period from initial receipt of the submitted article to
publication reported by the physics and biology journals considered. This data reveal that
in the top-tier accounting journals the reviewing and publishing processes are uniformly
slow (22.7 months from receiving to publishing on average for TAR in the issues considered,
28.8 for JAR and 34.6 for JAE), while we found different lengths of the processes for the
economics journals surveyed: 27.4 months for the “Review of Economic Studies” from
reception to publishing (similar to accounting journals) and 9.4 for the “Journal of Economic
Geography” (much shorter than accounting journals). Tsang and Frey (2007) criticise the
excessive length of the review process in accounting and economics journals. They attribute

(5) The author states that this is the most prominent journal in the field of Physics.
(6) Ranked 6th for impact factor in the JCR category “Physics; Multidisciplinary” in 2007, from a total of 69 journals.
18 J. M. Argilés, J. Garcia-Blandon

it to the persistent requests to include changes in successive versions of submitted papers,

which many authors consider to be unnecessary or inappropriate. They argue that the review
process should be a filter for genuinely deficient work, rather than the drawn-out, arbitrary
procedure carried out by many reviewers, who often seek personal gain by impressing
publishers. In their opinion, this practise dismisses valuable research at random, thus
turning the review procedure into a random walk7. It seems that the delay and/or the degree
of preparation, verification and circumspection prior to publishing an article is far greater
in accounting than in other disciplines, and in social sciences with respect to other sciences.
Perhaps the problem is presumably caused by the laudable attempt to ensure research
quality and achieve greater academic recognition. However, the discipline needs to achieve
more efficient review procedures. The review process should become a mere filter for
deficient research, rather than a way for research achievement, in order to simplify the
procedure and allow more dynamic knowledge generation.

Table 5 extends the comparison on number of published articles across different journals
and disciplines. As can be seen in Table 5, a single journal specialising in nuclear physics
published many more articles (435, or 472 including short articles), than the 10 accounting
journals in the JCR combined (328 articles, according to Table 1) in 2008, thus providing
greater opportunities for knowledge generation and dissemination. The single journal in
biology considered in Table 9 published 212 articles (328 including short articles) in 2008.
Economics journals publish a slightly higher number of articles than accounting journals
on average (51.3 against 32.8 articles per journal respectively in 2008, as can be seen in
Table 5), although certain journals move away from this average.

Another major obstacle to publication is the high cost of the review process (shown in Table
5), which many top accounting journals require to be paid upon submission.

Given the combined effect of few academic journals, few articles per journal, low acceptance
rates and the lengthy and expensive review process, it is unsurprising that ventures and
risky efforts invested in accounting research are not always matched by academic success
in terms of journal publications. Zivney et al. (1995) provide data on the mean annual
publications for doctoral graduates of 87 US degree granting institutions in 66 accounting
and finance journals (most of them not in the JCR) over 30 years. The average is 0.33
publications per year (i.e. one article every three years) for all institutions, with a maximum
of 0.93 (i.e. less than one article every year) for Rochester, as well as a fifth position for
Chicago with 0.618 publications per year (one article every 1.6 years). Most accounting
doctors never published (e.g.: only 30.9% ever published ten years after doctoral

(7) The arbitrariness and randomness of the review process has been largely discussed for peer review papers (Peters and
Cecci, 1982, Campanario, 1996), funding research projects (Cole et al., 1981, Ciccheti, 1991, van den Besselaar and
Leydesdorff, 2009), argument acceptation (Inglis and Mejia-Ramos., 2009), and the economics (Gans and Shepperd, 1994)
and business fields (e.g. Raelin, 2008, Tsang and Frey, 2007).
 TABLE 5.- DATA COMPARISON BETWEEN TOP JOURNALS FROM DIFFERENT DISCIPLINES.

Accounting research: a critical view of the present situation and prospects

PHYSICS,
NUCLEAR BIOLOGY ECONOMICS3 BUSINESS, FINANCE
PloS Rev. Ec.
JFGNPP Quar J. Ec. J. Ec. Lit. J. Ec.Geogr. JAE JAR TAR
Biology Stud.
Rank according to impact factor in
subject category in 2008 2 1 1 2 8 10 2 (1 Acc) 5 (2 Acc) 6 (3 Acc)
Issues in 2008 1
12 12 4 4 4 4 6 5
Number of articles in 20081 435 212 41 19 33 47 42 38 52
Mean articles/issue in 2008 1
36.3 35.3 10.3 5.8 8.3 11.8 7 7.6 4

{
{
Mean number of articles per journal in all JCR
journals of the subject categories in 2008 260 93.6 51.3 32.8
Months received-published2 3.9 7.2 n/a n/a 9.4 27.4 34.6 28.8 22.7
Months accepted-published 2
n/a 2.0 n/a n/a 5.0 8.5 5.7 8.1 7.8
Publication fees (subscribers) free US$2,8504 free free free free US$400 (350)5 US$400 US$400 (200)
Notes: 1. 2007 for accounting journals
2. Mean data from issue 5, vol. 36 in 2009 for the Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics (JFGNPP), April 2009 issue for the PLoS Biology, October and August
2007 issues for the Journal of Economic Geography, October 2008 issue for the Review of Economic Studies, May and April 2010 issues for JAE, June and March 2009 issues
for JAR, and May and July 2010 issues for TAR.
3. The top-ranked journals according to impact factor in ECONOMICS do not provide information on the terms of acceptance and publication in the issue.
4. Only applies to articles accepted for publication.
5. Refunded for all accepted manuscripts.

Source: authors’ preparation from journal data

19
20 J. M. Argilés, J. Garcia-Blandon

graduation). According to data provided by Brown et al. (2007), UK accounting and finance
academics who have successfully published articles do so on average every 14.3 years in a
list of top 16 accounting and finance journals, as well as every 5 years in a list of top 44
journals (33.3 and 12.5 years respectively for all academics), but not all of them are in the
JCR. The authors treat accounting and finance as a single discipline. From the data they
offer on the number of articles published in finance and accounting journals, it is clear that
the specific results for accounting are considerably worse. Brinn et al. (2001) highlight the
minimal presence of authors from the UK in leading accounting journals throughout the
1990s, during which time only two UK academics published in TAR and seven in the JAR.

If we consider that the UK has the highest levels of scientific production in Europe8, authors
from the rest of Europe, or from institutions in non-English speaking countries in general
terms, face many more difficulties. Jones and Roberts (2005) revealed that authors from
institutions outside US, UK, Australia, Canada and Hong-Kong contributed with just 5%
and 20% of publications in six highly-rated US and UK journals respectively. Raffournier
and Schatt (2010) also warned on the difficulties of publishing in accounting academic
journals for non-English speaking authors.

Table 6 provides comparison of accountants’ output with other disciplines. It shows the top-
ranked authors per number of papers in the “Economics & Business” category (panel A) and
illustrates the considerable distance that separates researchers in this field and those working
in experimental sciences (panel B). In addition, five of the top 8 positions in ECONOMICS &
BUSINESS are held by physicists, physicians and chemists. The other three authors who work
strictly within the areas covered by the category, rank comparatively poorly in all fields. A
specific ranking cannot be obtained for accountants or researchers in general business
disciplines, but the table shows the position of some of the most prominent accounting
academics, who are revealed to be of only marginal importance in the broader field “Economics
& Business”. This issue, however, deserves future in-depth analysis as this data suggest that
accountants are unable to compete with economists (and perhaps with researchers in other
business fields) in awards for research grants and recognition. This data suggest that
experimental sciences provide more opportunities for knowledge generation and dissemination
than social sciences or economics with respect to accounting. The differences are also
pronounced in citation rankings (not shown). The logical progression of this situation would
see the accounting discipline gradually colonised by scientists specialising in other areas (most
immediately, although not exclusively, by economics and finance specialists), who would find
themselves at an advantage when seeking accounting academic positions. The arrival of these
scientists is beneficial for the accounting discipline, as it provides new scopes, skills and

(8) According to the study by Chan et al. (2006), the number of articles, in the top 19 accounting journals considered in
their research, published by authors affiliated to universities and research centres in the UK represents 68% of the total
for Europe.
 Accounting research: a critical view of the present situation and prospects 21

competitive pressure. However, it is also detrimental, because it jeopardizes the possibilities

for accountants grown in a far less favourable environment, but skilled in accounting issues.
Were it to take hold, this pattern would contribute to empty accounting research from accounting
concepts and meanings, and to focus merely on technical research methodologies. In fact,
researchers in accounting are aware of the need to stress such methodological aspects, and/or
engage in research issues which are suited to such methodologies, in order to get published.
Singleton-Green (2010) complains that it is possible to engage in accounting research without
being an accountant or understanding accounting.
TABLE 6.- TOP-RANKED AUTHORS PER PAPER FOR ECONOMICS&BUSINESS AND ALL FIELDS

Number of Number of Main fieldOBSERVACIONES

Ranking in
papers in papers in (number of ALL
EC & BUS ALL FIELDS papers in the field) FIELDS

Panel A: ranking per paper

ECONOMICS & BUS
1. Lee, J 128 7,623 Physics (1,279) 17
2. Wright, M 100 420 Clinical Medicine (129) 4,213
3. Kim, J 90 8,045 Clinical Medicine (1,167) 12
4. List, JA 84 96 Ec & Bus (84) 24,956
5. Kim, S 81 6,670 Clinical Medicine (1,173) 20
6. Shogren, JF 78 98 Ec & Bus (78) 24,512
7. Zhang, J 78 10,493 Chemistry (2,083) 5
8. Phillips, PCB 70 80 Ec & Bus (70) 29,773

Some important accounting authors:

358. Kothari, SP (364 in 2007) 18 20 57,080
391. Barth, M.E. (319 in 2007) 17 17 58,300
670. Ittner, CD (532 in 2007) 12 12 60,693

Panel B: ranking per paper ALL FIELDS

1. Wang, Y 13,137 Chemistry (2,814) 1
2. Zhang, Y 12,919 Chemistry (2,868) 2
3. Wang, J 11,427 Chemistry (2,293) 3
4. Liu, J 10,738 Chemistry (2,524) 4
5. Li, J 10,582 Chemistry (2,067) 5
6. Li, Y 10,571 Chemistry (2,278) 6
7. Zhang, J 10,493 Chemistry (2,083) 7
8. Kim, JH 8,963 Clinical Medicine (2,102) 8

Source: ISI Essential Science Indicators (ten-year data with ISI 2009)

4 THE ACCOUNTING FACULTY: BETWEEN THE INFLUENCE OF THE ELITE

AND A DECLINING DISCIPLINE.

In previous sections we analyse some of the factors leading to low knowledge generation
and dissemination in the discipline, and consequently to an adverse setting for the success
of accounting researchers. The logical progression of this situation is the stagnation and
decline of the discipline. In this section we discuss the statistics showing that decline.
22 J. M. Argilés, J. Garcia-Blandon

The Advisory Committee on the Audit Profession of the US Department of Treasury

(ACAPDT) issued a report in 2007 on the status of accounting faculty in the US (ACAPDT,
2007). Accounting faculty in the US decreased 13.3% between 1993 and 2004, despite an
increase in the number of students (+12.3%), and in faculty in business fields other than
accounting (+22.6%). The decrease was much higher for tenured (18%) and tenure track
(19.9%) faculty. However, Ph.D. production remained relatively steady over the period. The
ACAPDT estimated that the supply of accounting faculty would be about half of the required
replacement for the next 5-10 years. Baldwin et al. (2010) present data that depict a
decreasing trend in doctoral accounting programs and graduates in the US between 1987
and 2006.

One important factor that, matched with the highly demanding academic nature of the
discipline, may deter students from engaging in doctoral accounting programs, is the range
of professional opportunities available to Business Management and Administration
graduates, who would also be suitable candidates for an academic career. The attractive
prospects offered by the market deter many students from investing in academic training in
the discipline, beyond specific professional courses and master’s degrees. While practical-
professional training is valued by firms, there seems to be no market outside of academia
for accounting doctoral graduates, as indicated by the small 3% average of all accounting
doctoral graduates in US during 1987-2006 employed outside of academia (Baldwin et al.,
2010). Similarly, our perception is that few students in Spain enrol in accounting doctoral
programs, or few students enrolled in business doctoral programs are interested in
accounting. In addition, many of these students divide their time between academic work
and professional activities, with the professional side generally taking precedence. Drop-
outs are frequent before the thesis stage, and much of the doctoral research focuses primarily
on professionally-orientated subjects, which are not fully valuable for publication in
academic journals. There are also many attractive professional opportunities for current
academics, as a result of which many lecturers and professors dedicate only part of their
time to teaching and research. Even full-time academics can be tempted to reduce their
research workload to focus on professional activities, in view of the obstacles to research
activities. Beard et al. (1985) document a characteristic publication productivity curve of
accounting faculty in the US that suggests that productivity reaches a maximum within the
first five years of the academic career and then declines substantially throughout the
remainder of the career.

Fogarty and Markarian (2007) note that in the US the number of doctoral graduates in
accounting, as well as the share of assistants in total faculty, has decreased sharply and
persistently in recent years, pointing out that it is a sign of a steady decline of the discipline,
in contrast to other business disciplines. They suggest that this trend reflects the severe
difficulties of achieving tenure and a decline of the accounting discipline. They complain
about the consequences of this situation. Business schools and universities will be
Accounting research: a critical view of the present situation and prospects 23

dissuaded from investing in and funding doctoral programs, so that accounting will lose
academic status to become a mere service discipline, and consequently, the supply of new
and more promising ideas will be eroded. The authors argue that the deficient supply of
new doctorate graduates, tenure-track and tenured faculty could signal that the accounting
field is so demanding that few are able to meet its high standards of accomplishment in
terms of publication. They suggest that the lack of attractive career prospects may dissuade
graduates from engaging and investing in doctoral programs.

Additionally, Lee (1995) notes the presence of an elite group in accounting that shares
research funding and publications between its members and offers few opportunities to
others. We have already mentioned that the share of authors affiliated to top US academic
institutions publishing in top-tier academic journals is higher in accounting than in other
business fields (see Table 3). Fogarty and Yu (2010) report that 82.3% of doctoral attendees
over the 1995-2005 period publishing more than 5 articles in the top-tier accounting
journals during this period belong to the top 20 doctoral institutions, as well as the 50.7%
publishing 2 to 4 articles, and the 41.9% publishing 1 article. Placement is also significantly
influenced by cover letters and telephone calls from prestigious degree granting institutions
(Stammerjohan et al., 2009).

Although it is very difficult to publish and achieve a successful academic career in

accounting, even in the mainstream, the difficulties are greater for alternative or critical
research. One important issue with respect to the extant internal structure of the discipline
is that it exacerbates these difficulties and allows almost no ground for alternative subjects
and methodologies. This internal structure of the discipline, and specifically the
unparalleled predominance of an elite group, entails additional consequences of narrowing
the scope of subjects and methodologies. Plumlee et al. (2006) surveyed accounting doctoral
students, finding that they are mostly drawn to financial accounting in the hope of getting
articles in the necessary publications for career success, while other research fields are set
aside. Ballas and Theodorakis (2003) reveal that the most popular area of research in North
America is capital markets/financial accounting. Parker et al. (1998) interviewed a sample
of professors and heads of university accounting and management departments in UK and
Australia. They found a perception of overwhelming performance demands upon new
entrants to the academic profession. Some interviewees stated their mistrust of the refereed
journal publishing process, expressing doubts over its impartiality and an accompanying
suspicion of the influence of an elite club. They concluded that the whole system of
knowledge production leads to the pursuit of quantity of articles, safe, conservative research
topics and narrow, conservative research methodologies. Broad and Wade (1985) argue that
the objective self-regulating mechanisms of science do not always work in practice. They
suggest that scientific practice is not guided solely by logic, rationality and objectivity but
is also affected by a substantial irrational component. Williams (2004) suggests that the
predominant accounting research is largely determined by economic interests and merely
 24 J. M. Argilés, J. Garcia-Blandon

provides rationales for legitimating them. The small available space for dissemination of
research allows few opportunities for alternative topics and methodologies. Increasingly,
mainstream journals are being accused of academic conformity and conservatism (e.g.
Hopwood, 2002)

5 THE NEW INSTITUTIONAL SITUATION IN SPAIN.

In Spain, recent regulations have made it difficult to adapt evaluation criteria to the
objective difficulties of each discipline. While the Universities Act (Ley Orgánica de
Universidades, LOU) was a laudable attempt to improve faculty quality, its strict enforcement
makes it difficult for accounting academics to reach the level of assistant lecturer
(“contratado doctor”) or tenured lecturer (“Titular de Universidad”). The LOU establishes
a single set of regulations for all universities and areas of knowledge, in which university
readers (“ayudante doctor”) have a period of five years in which to secure accreditation as
assistant lecturer or tenured lecturers. Given the problems described in this paper,
academics would find it difficult to fulfil accreditation requirements in this period of time.
The 5 years stipulated in the LOU for a university reader (“ayudante doctor”) does not fit
in with the accreditation requirements in business disciplines, particularly accounting.
Leaving aside the question of whether a generic standard should be open to the introduction
of specific adjustments, the criteria that are valid in other disciplines cannot be met in the
stipulated accreditation period, which is essentially shorter if we take into account the time
taken to process requests and reach decisions. ANECA9 (2008) tries to provide criteria
adapted to each area and requires academics seeking accreditation as tenured lecturers
(“Titular de Universidad”) in social sciences to have published at least 8 articles in journals
listed in specific indexes, of which “a significant percentage” should be indexed journals
with a “moderate quality index”. For accreditation as Full Professor (“Catedrático de
Universidad”), academics are required to have published at least 16 articles in listed
journals, and “a significant proportion” should again be indexed journals with a “moderate
quality index”. Quality publications essentially consist of indexed journals which, in the
Spanish case, are defined as “journals of recognised prestige and included in catalogues
such as the Journal Citation Reports [JCR] or their equivalents in each specialist area….
Preference is given to articles published in journals of recognised prestige, which are
generally accepted to be those ranked highly in their field in the ‘Subject Category Listing’
of the Journal Citation Reports, the Science Citation Index (SCI), the Social Sciences
Citation Index (SSCI) or others” (ANECA, 2008, pp. 44-45).

Additionally, the academic success of university teaching staff is increasingly linked to

their ability to attract research funding and publish articles in quality academic journals

(9) Agencia Nacional de Evaluación de la Calidad y Acreditación (ANECA): National Agency for Quality Assessment and
Accreditation.
Accounting research: a critical view of the present situation and prospects 25

(Parker and Guthrie, 2005). Research results in academically advanced countries are
measured objectively on the basis of publications in journals listed in the above mentioned
catalogues. Given the characteristics outlined above for the accounting discipline, the
generic Spanish standard is a bad fit for this discipline.

Countries without such stringent regulations, such as the US, allow a degree of flexibility
in the recruitment and consolidation of academics. Reinstein and Calderon (2006) state
that most university accounting departments base their recruitment decisions on ad hoc
evaluations of each CV received, rather than considering publications in specific lists of
journals. According to the data provided by Johnson et al. (2002), 39 Ph.D. Granting
Institutions require an average of 2.97 publications in the top 6 accounting journals or 3.96
articles in the top 7 to 33 journals considered in this study for promotion to associate
professor (with tenure)10, according to the results of a survey sent to accounting program
coordinators listed in the Prentice Hall Faculty Directory. The 91 Comprehensive
Institutions (for bachelor’s and master’s degrees) require an average of 1.19 or 4.18
publications, respectively, for promotion to the same level.

Given the scarcity of academic accounting journals, their high rejection rates, lengthy review
process, and that all the procedures in the discipline bode badly for knowledge generation
and dissemination, as well as for academic performance, the Spanish requirements for
reaching tenured positions are difficult for accountants to meet, not only in Spain, but also
in terms of current academic performance in the most relevant countries in accounting. We
believe that the real problem lies in applying the same criteria to all social sciences, in
particular accounting and economics, and in the periods required for obtaining the
necessary accreditation, essentially at the level of university readers (“ayudante doctor”) for
attaining the subsequent level of assistant lecturer or tenured lecturers.

Other awards and recognitions are also difficult to meet. Different indicators show that
only a small number of groups get competitive funding for accounting research. For
example, a keyword search of projects included in the call for research proposals of the
Spanish Secretaría de Estado de Universidades e Investigación (Department of Universities
and Research) from December 2004 shows that only 8 accounting projects were awarded
funding for the period 31-12-2005 to 31-12-2008, from a total of 105 projects to receive
funding under the economics subprogram. In addition, the data in Table 1 indicate a
decreasing presence over time: only 4 accounting projects (identified by combinations of
keywords in the entire set of projects applying for funding) were approved in 2008 under
the Plan Nacional de I+D+I del Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (National R&D&I Plan
of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation), from a total of 122 research projects
in the Economics subprogram. This minimal representation is reflected in the success rate,

(10) The equivalent position in Spain is Titular de Universidad.

26 J. M. Argilés, J. Garcia-Blandon

which is much lower for accounting projects than for those in finance or economics.
Finance projects were identified from all applying projects using different keywords, and
papers were excluded if the title was not considered specific to the discipline; for example,
two finance projects were reclassified in the accounting category. Projects classified in the
economics category were identified using the keyword “economics”, and no paper was
excluded following analysis of the titles. Increasing the number of keywords used would
identify a much larger number of projects in the economics (“economía”) category. For
example, the keywords “innovation” (“innovación”: 20 projects), “competition”
(“competencia”: 9) and “competit” (“competit”: 8) identify studies whose content is clearly
specific to the field of economics. Since accounting projects submitted for grant compete
in a block with economics projects, which face fewer objective difficulties, it is
unsurprising that the number of accounting projects to receive competitive funding is
scarce and comparatively less successful than their counterparts in economics, as can be
seen in Table 7.

TABLE 7.- RESEARCH PROJECTS IN THE SPANISH NATIONAL R&D&I PLAN OF THE MINISTRY OF
SCIENCE AND INNOVATION IN 2008 (ECONOMICS SUBPROGRAM).

Economics
OBSERVACIONES
Accounting Finance
(only one
(various (various Total
keyword:
keywords) keywords)
ECONOMIA)

Applications 10 22 20

From which awarded 4 15 14 122

% success 40.00 68.18 70.00

Source: authors’ preparation with data from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation

There is also a wide perception that the award of six-yearly research recognition, also shows
that accounting achieves vastly inferior results to other disciplines such as economics and
finance in Spain.

Table 8 shows numbers of applications for funding for research programs in the United
Kingdom. Although separate data are not available for accounting, it can be seen that the
total numbers of applications for and awards of funding, and the corresponding success
rate, are much lower in management and business disciplines than in economics.
Accounting research: a critical view of the present situation and prospects 27

TABLE 8.- APPLICATIONS FOR AND AWARDS OF RESEARCH FUNDING FROM ECONOMIC & SOCIAL
RESEARCH COUNCIL (ESRC) IN THE UK (2001/02 TO 2005/6)

Applications Awards % success

OBSERVACIONES

Economics and Social History 182 65 35.7

Economics 455 166 36.5

Management and Business Studies 289 55 19.0

Source: ESRC Annual Report 2007-08

(http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/about/CI/accounts/index.aspx)

Given the characteristics of procedures in the accounting community outlined above, the
fact that they are unlikely to change in the short run, and that society needs accounting
research, evaluation bodies in Spain should demonstrate a better grasp of reality and an
understanding of the problems faced by researchers, which would help to harness the
valuable work carried out by those determined to forge a successful academic career. The
tendency to combine (and confuse) business and economics disciplines in evaluation
procedures compounds the problem and makes it more difficult to determine an appropriate
solution. Obliging accounting academics to compete in the same field and with the same
committees and criteria as economists would, in practice, substantially reduces the
possibilities of developing accounting as a discipline. A first step towards developing a
more equitable and realistic stance would be to establish separate fields, criteria and
committees for economics and business, and to make additional adjustments to account for
the greater objective difficulties in accounting.

With the exception of a small number of researchers who have managed to make significant
academic progress in accounting, Spanish academics have generally adopted three main
strategies for overcoming the difficulties outlined above. In the first case, some move into
other research areas and leave accounting as a teaching “sideline”. This is the most
attractive option from an individual perspective, and is likely to be the most common
strategy unless corrective measures are introduced. This scenario would entail a gradual
decrease in accounting research. The second option is to seek publication in related journals
(generally in economics and finance) by submitting research that focuses principally on
accounting subjects but shows a degree of correlation with the areas relevant to the journals.
However, this option requires high expenditure to adapt formats, subject matter,
methodologies, etc. In addition, research focusing specifically on accounting runs the risk
of being continually overlooked. The third strategy is simply to give up on any attempts to
publish in academic journals and to focus on other, presumably professional, activities.
 28 J. M. Argilés, J. Garcia-Blandon

6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Accounting is affected by a range of general problems applicable to all the social sciences,
but these problems are exacerbated by a series of specific factors. Since this is a far-
reaching problem, we cannot expect immediate changes to the protocols and procedures for
the dissemination of knowledge in social sciences. The solution must be gradual and will
require the evolution of the disciplines themselves, as well as general sociological changes
and a more widespread awareness of the problem. Only part of the solution can be provided
by accounting academics in the short term, and to do so they will need to make better use
of the extensive body of literature on the subject and take into account the specific
characteristics of the discipline. However, according to the picture outlined in this paper,
accounting is in more urgent need of a solution.

The prospect of a decaying academic accounting community with the predominant influence
of a small elite provides a picture of excessive narrowness for dealing with the collective
dimension of knowledge creation. It does not allow the necessary processes of participation
that knowledge generation requires. On the contrary, the main features of the accounting
community’s internal structure seem to be more oriented towards issuing knowledge from top
to bottom, than towards flows in an array of directions from multiple sources necessary for
the iterative and participative processes of knowledge generation. The accounting
community focuses more on restricting and monitoring than on disseminating. It is more
concerned about safeguarding the soundness of what can be published, than allowing self
judgement. It places more emphasis on monitoring rewards, than promoting the generation
of new ideas and knowledge. The model of a large bulk of research rejected for publication
restricts discussion and communication to isolated individuals, whereas it could be
interesting for, and benefit an entire community. It aims more at restricting the generation
and publication of knowledge, than at providing facilities for disseminating it. It seems
more oriented to control than open to knowledge generation. It shows more confidence in a
handful of reviewers than in the whole academic community. The dynamics of the accounting
community lead it to impose excessive difficulties and preventive attitudes. The emphasis
is on ensuring the publication of highly accomplished research, even if it deters the
publication of valuable research. However, dynamic knowledge generation and innovation
proceeds through small participative steps of contribution. The internal procedures of the
discipline favour slowness and expiration rather than speed and renewal. They rely more on
a small group than on allowing the emergence of multiple sources of knowledge generation.
While the internal procedures could be a well-meaning strategy to guarantee research
quality, they also contribute to elite control and bode badly for knowledge advancement
and innovation. They allow little ground for subsistence and regeneration. In the end, they
promote biased research in canonical topics and methods instead of innovative and critical
ones, social conformation instead of changes aiming at long term social well-being.
Accounting research: a critical view of the present situation and prospects 29

A significant first step towards finding a solution would be to simply increase awareness of
the problem. It would be unfeasible to ask the rest of the academic community to recognise
the difficulties faced by accounting researchers if no efforts are made to solve the problem
from within the discipline itself. Even the elite should realise the unworthiness of
predominating over a handicapped and declining field. The academic community should
recognise the situation and begin to change its internal procedures. The number of journals,
articles per issue and general means of dissemination must be increased. Internal evaluation
procedures require improvement in the form of simplicity, shorter review terms, lower prices
and facilitating the whole process. Journals should contribute towards building a worldwide
accounting community and break up their excessively compartmentalized influence, usually
organized by geographical areas. Evolving into an attitude of review process as a mere filter
for genuinely deficient research, rather than as a means of research achievement, would
simplify the procedure, shorten terms, speed dissemination, increase communication,
enlarge topics and methodologies, invigorate the research community with new entrants and
discussions, promote multiple focus and iterative benefits, and ultimately, improve
knowledge generation. Solutions to most of these issues are not easy to find and implement,
but an important step is to become aware of the situation.

More reliance on replication studies may provide better foundations for the discipline.
Hubbard and Vetter (1996) believe that greater academic progress could be made in
business disciplines if there was a more solid theoretical foundation upon which to build.
This would require more empirical studies and, in particular, more replications to
corroborate the findings of existing empirical research. However, since this type of study is
not highly valued by the academic community and is rarely published, most academics are
reluctant to devote time to it. As a result, the theoretical basis of these disciplines is weak,
and many empirical findings are isolated, tenuous and not sufficiently studied to evaluate
their reproducibility and general applicability. Weaknesses in the theoretical foundations
of business as an area of knowledge raise doubts about the validity and reliability of the
basic tenets of each discipline. The overwhelming demand for originality makes it even
more difficult to publish in these areas. There is, then, an opportunity in replication studies
for improving the development and consolidation of fundamental knowledge in accounting,
as well as providing an opportunity to contribute.

The situation should also be made known to the rest of the academic community. While the
real solution is evolving to a new framework for the discipline, in the interim, assessment
of accounting research deserves differentiated criteria. Since each area of knowledge has its
specific characteristics, it is unrealistic to put academics from different disciplines in direct
competition with one another. For example, it is highly unlikely that an economics research
project would receive funding if the request was made in direct competition with proposals
in clinical medicine, biology or nuclear physics. However, research in economics and,
indeed, accounting research is also beneficial to society. Separate criteria for business
30 J. M. Argilés, J. Garcia-Blandon

disciplines would be a fairer reflection of the objective difficulties encountered in these

fields and would create a more suitable foundation upon which to base research and develop
academic careers, particularly in the case of accounting, where the greatest difficulties are
found. Consequently, separate committees with independent criteria should be established
for economics and business studies in Spain, given the present situation.

In short, the “sure path” towards renewed academic production in accounting needs a
general improvement in the internal mechanisms and procedures of the discipline, increased
awareness of the problem among accounting academics and the implementation of specific
evaluation criteria in the interim.
Accounting research: a critical view of the present situation and prospects 31

REFERENCES
Abdel-Khalik, A.R. and Ajinkya, B.B. (1979) Empirical research in accounting: a
methodological viewpoint. Saratosa, FL: American Accounting Association.
ACAPDT (2007) Accounting faculty in the U.S. Colleges and Universitues: status and
trends, 1993-2004 (available at: http://www.treasury.gov/offices/domestic-
finance/acap/submissions/12032007/Leslie120307.pdf)
Adair, R.K. (1982). A physics editor comments on Peters and Ceci’s peer-review study.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5(2), 196.
Adams, C.A. and Whelan, G. (2009) Conceptualising fuure changes in corporate sustainability
reporting. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 22(1), 118-143.
Anderson, J.R., Reder, L.M. and Simon, H.A. (1997) Situative versus cognitive perspectives:
form versus substance. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 18-21.
ANECA Programa Academia (2008). Principios y orientaciones para la aplicación de los
criterios de evaluación. V.1.0 9/01/2008.
Arnold, P.J. (2009) Global financial crisis: the challenge to accounting research. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 34, 803-809.
Baker, C.R. and Bettner, M.S. (1997). Interpretative and critical research in accounting: a
commentary on its absence from mainstream accounting research. Critical perspectives
on Accounting, 8, 293-310.
Baldwin, A.A., Brown, C.E. and Trinkle, B.S. (2010) Accounting doctoral programs: a
multidimensional description. Advances in Accounting Education, 11, 101-128.
Ballas, A., Theodorakis, V. (2003) Exploring diversity in accounting through faculty journal
perceptions. Contemporary Accounting Research, 20(4), 619-644.
Beard, L.H., Jacobs, F.A. and Hartgraves, A.L. (1985) Publications: a valid measure of
faculty contribution?. Journal of Acounting education, 3(2), 155-161.
Beattie, V. (2004) Tradiciones de investigación en contabilidad financiera. En Ryan, B.,
Scapens, R.B. and Theobald, M. (Eds.), Metodología de la investigación en finanzas y
contabilidad, 129-154. Barcelona: Deusto.
Bereiter, C. (2002) Education and mind in the knowledge age. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Bornmann, L. and Daniel, H-D. (2009) Reviewer and editor biases in journal peer review:
an investigation of manuscript refereeing at Angewandte Chemie International Edition.
Research Evaluation, 18(4), 262-272.
Brinn, T., Jones, M. And Pendlebury, M. (2001) Why do UK accounting and finance
academics not publish in top US journals? British Accounting Review, 33, 223-232.
Broad W and Wade N. (1985). Betrayers of the truth. London: Oxford University Press.
Brown, R., Jones, M. And Steele, T. (2007). Still flickering at the margins of existence?
Publishing patterns and themes in accounting and finance research over the last two
decades. British Accounting Review, 39, 125-151.
Bucheit, S., Collins, D. And Reitenga, A. (2002) A cross-discipline comparison of top-tier
academic publication rates: 1997-1999. Journal of Accounting Education, 20, 123-130.
32 J. M. Argilés, J. Garcia-Blandon

Campanario, JM. (1996). Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times?
Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47(4), 302-310.
Chan, K.C., Chen, C.R. and Cheng, L.T.W. (2006). A ranking of accounting research output
in the European region. Accounting and Business Research, 36(1), 3-17.
Cicchetti, D.V. (1991). The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions:
A cross-disciplinary investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 119-186.
Cole, S., Cole, J.R. and Simon, G.A. (1981). Chance and consensus in peer review, Science,
214(20), 881-886.
Deckel, E., Horowitz, J., Levine, D., Meghir, C. And Postlewaite, A. (2005) The econometric
society annual reports. Report of the editors 2003-2004. Econometrica, 1(January),
325-328.
Dumontier, P. and Raffournier, B. (2002) Accounting and capital markets: a survey or the
European evidence. European Acounting Review, 11(1), 119-151.
Fogarty, T.J. and Markarian, G. (2007). An empirical assessment of the rise and fall of
accounting as an academic discipline. Issues in Accounting Education, 22(2), 137-161.
Fogarty, T.J. and Yu, W. (2010) The sustainability of success: distinguishing the lucky form
the good in the stacked deck of academic accounting. The Accounting Educator’s Journal,
XX, 63-89.
Gangs, J.S. and Shepherd, G.B. (1994). How are the mighty fallen: rejected classic articles
by leading economists. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1), 165-169.
Gray, R. (2010) A re-evaluation of social, environmental and sustainability accounting An
exploratory analysis of an emerging trans-disciplinary field. Sustainability Accounting,
1(1), 11-31.
Hargens, LL. (1988) Scholarly consensus and journal rejection rates. American Sociological
Review, 53(1), 139-151.
Hess, D.J. (1997). Science Studies. An advanced introduction. New York: New York
University Press.
Hopwood, A.G. (2002) If only there were simple solutions, but there aren’t: some reflections
on Zimmerman’s critique of empirical management accounting research. European
Accounting Review, 11(4), 777-785.
Hubbard, R. And Vetter, D.E. (1996). An empirical comparison of published replication in
accounting, economics, finance, management and marketing. Journal of Business
Research, 35, 153-164.
Inglis, M. and Mejia-Ramos, J.P. (2009) The effect of authority on the persuasiveness of
mathematical arguments. Cognition and Instruction, 27(1), 25-50.
Johnson, P.M., Reckers, P.M. and Solomon, L. (2002) Evolving research benchmarks.
Advances in Accounting, 19, 235-253
Jones, M.J. and Roberts, R. (2005). International publishing patterns: an investigation of
leading UK and US accounting and finance journals. Journal of Business Finance and
Accounting, 32(5), 1107-1140.
Accounting research: a critical view of the present situation and prospects 33

Lee, T. (1995) Shaping the US academic accounting research profession: the American
Accounting Association and the social construction of a professional elite. Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, 6, 241-261.
Merchant, K.A., Van der Stede, W.A. and Zheng, L. (2003) Disciplinary constraints on the
advancement of knowledge: the case of organizational incentive systems. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 28, 251-286.
Moizer, P. (2009). Publishing in accounting journals: a fair game? Accounting Organizations
and Society, 34(2), 285-304.
Paavola, S., Lipponen, L. and Hakkarainen, K. (2004) Models of innovative knpwledge
communities and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research, 74(4),
557-576.
Parker, L. And Guthrie, J. (2005). Managing accounting research in a orporatized university
world. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 18(1), 5-13.
Parker, L., Guthrie, J. And Gray, R. (1998) Accounting and management research:
passwords from the gatekeepers. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 11(4),
371-402.
Peters, D.P. and Ceci, S. (1982). Peer review practices of psychological journals: The fate
of published articles, submitted again. Behavioural and brain Sciences, 5, 187-255.
Petruska, K.A., Alam, P. and Pearson, M.A. (2007) The number of graduates from US
accounting doctoral programs: the association with faculty attributes and institutional
reputation (available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1078197)
Plumlee, R.D., Kachelmeier, S.J., Madeo, S.A., Pratt, J.H., Krull, G. (2006) Assessing the
shortage of accounting faculty. Issues on Accounting Education, 21(2), 113-125.
Raelin, J.A. (2008). Refereeing the game of peer review. Academy of Management Learning
& Education, 7(1), 124-129.
Raffournier, B. And Schatt, A. (2010). Is European accounting fairly reflected in academic
journals? An investigation of possible non-mainstream and language barrier biases.
European Accounting Review, 19(1), 161-190.
Reinstein, A. And Claderon, T.G. (2006). Examining accounting departments’ rankings of
the quality of accounting journals. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 17, 457-490.
Rutherford, B.A. (2010) The social scientific turn in K financial accounting research: a
philosophical and sociological analysis. Accounting and Business Research, 40(2),
149-171.
Singleton-Green, B. (2010) Thecommunication gap: why doesn’t accounting research make
a greater contribution to debates on accounting policy? Accounting in Europe, 7(2),
129-145.
Stammerjohan, W.W., Seifert, D.L. and Guidry, R.P. (2009) Factors affecting initia placement
of accounting Ph.Ds. Advances in Accounting Education, 10, 103-118.
Tomkins, C. and Groves, R. (1983). The everyday accountant and researching his reality.
Accounting Organizations and Society, 8(4), 361-374.
34 J. M. Argilés, J. Garcia-Blandon

Tsang, E.W.K. and Frey, B.S. (2007). The as-is journal review process: let the authors own
their ideas. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6(1), 128-136.
van den Besselaar, P. and Leydesdorff, L. (2009) Past performance, peer review and project
selection: a case study in the social and behavioral sciences. Research Evaluation, 18(4),
273-288.
Williams, P.F. (2004) Recovering Accounting as a worthy endeavour. Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, 15, 513-517.
Zivney, T.L., Bertin, W.J., Gavin, T.A. (1995) A comprehensive examination of accounting
faculty publishing. Issues in Accounting Education, 10(1), 1-25.