Editor s panel
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 27

Editor’s Panel PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 53 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Editor’s Panel. AAA Audit Section MYM 2012 Steve Salterio PhD FCA Editor (in-chief) Contemporary Accounting Research. Submission. Regarding submission, I would cover the following topics (in no order): Picking a journal Matching paper to journal Preparing manuscript Role of SSRN

Download Presentation

Editor’s Panel

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Editor s panel

Editor’s Panel

AAA Audit Section MYM 2012

Steve Salterio PhD FCA

Editor (in-chief) Contemporary Accounting Research


Submission

Submission

Regarding submission, I would cover the following topics (in no order):

Picking a journal

Matching paper to journal

Preparing manuscript

Role of SSRN

Presenting at workshops/seminars, conferences and symposium in preparation for submitting


Writing up research

Writing up research

  • Choose desired research outlet but always have a plan B (or C or D).

    • Write in a clear, straightforward.

  • Body of paper for main arguments and analyses. Keep footnote to minimal tangents.

  • Paper length should be no more than 40 pages including all tables (50 for qualitative research).

  • Focus on main findings.

  • Be honest – don’t oversell but don’t be too humble.


Beyond archival and experiments as research methods

Beyond archival and experiments as research methods

  • See the field research in auditing session on the program.

  • NO doctoral student who wants to be fully equiped as an audit researcher of the future should miss this session

    • Even Dan Simunic’s dissertation involved a large field study component where he refined his ideas before gathering data using a field questionnaire.

  • 10:15-11:45 Saturday per the program

  • FRANKLY – it should have been on the program today!!!!


Editor s panel

  • CARwelcomes interesting and intellectually rigorous work in

    • all areas of accounting (including audit, financial, information systems, managerial and tax),

    • using relevant methods (including but not limited to analytical, archival, case study, empirical, experimental, or field);

    • based in economics, finance, history, psychology, sociology, or any cognate disciplines that help illuminate the role of accounting within organizations, markets or society.


Three i s

Three “I”’s

  • Inclusive:There are no ‘presumptions’ as to what the breadth of coverage of our discipline can or should include

  • International:22 Associate Editors (17 new)

    • 2 in Asia/Aust + 10 editorial board members

    • 3 Europe/Middle East + 18 editorial board members

    • 1 Francophone AE and 20% of Canadian EB members first language is French

    • AE’s collectively speak English, French, Dutch, German, Hebrew, some Chinese, Newfoundland

  • Intellectually rigorous: Various rankings and studies of the field place CAR among the premier journals in accounting


From the beginning

From the beginning

Haim Falk, the founding CAR Editor in his first editorial appearing in Volume 3 Issue 1

“Consistent with its objective of advancing accounting knowledge, CAR will continue to promote scholarly freedom and serve the academic community through the enhancement of bias-free and thorough review process, thereby maintaining its record of publishing high quality contributions to the accounting literature.”

While we have not always been perfect we try


The headlines

The headlines

Ottawa will host CAR Conference 2012 with theme “Accounting Matters/La pertinence de la comptabilité”

Does accounting matter? Indeed, the belief that it does matter is probably the one thing that unites all accounting scholars, irrespective of method, methodology, or paradigm, in a resounding “YES!”

Yet frequently researchers fail to tie their research into its implications for those involved with governance and management be they in the private sector, the public sector or the so-called third sector (i.e. not for profit or non-governmental organizations).

Hence, we call for papers that demonstrate clearly a link to why “Accounting Matters” (or indeed shows where it does not matter) and for whom it matters.


Car conference 2012

CAR Conference 2012

Deadline for submissions: April 25, 2012

Conference dates: October 26-27, 2012

Special Note: While no specific accounting subject matter or methodology is given priority for the CAR Conference, we as Editors would like to remind authors of manuscripts in the area of taxation, public sector organizations, accounting history and accounting information systems to consider submitting their manuscripts, as these areas have been underrepresented in submissions


Reviewing excellence

Reviewing excellence

  • In 2011 CAR started publicly recognizing excellent constructive and timely reviewers

    • Joan Luft (Michigan State University)

    • Eddie Riedl (Boston University)

    • Sarah McVay (University of Utah)

    • Jason Caskey (UCLA)

  • Key criteria:

    • Accepting high % of assignments with on-time completion

    • Reviews that are constructive no matter what the outcome recommended


Soar senior scholar one round review

SOAR: Senior Scholar One Round Review

  • Optional program for senior researchers’ OWN work

    • Full disclosure of previous submissions to other journals (if any) and review contents/editor’s decision letters (if any)

    • Scholars ask for this track

      • I determine if paper qualifies (perhaps with help from Consulting Editors)

    • Once accepted on this track CANNOT be converted to regular CAR review process

  • If rejected at screening stage from this track MS is eligible for regular CAR submission

  • One round – Accept/reject


Soar senior scholar one round review1

SOAR: Senior Scholar One Round Review

  • Reviewers

    • Senior Scholar suggest two without COI

    • EIC pick one of the two and one other senior scholar from the CAR Board/Editor set

    • Recommend accept/reject. Both must accept.

      • If substantive changes are needed – reject

  • NOTE: EIC freely admit “borrowing” this idea from Robert Knechel (then editor-elect at AJPT) who in turn “borrowed” it from top tier economics and science journals


Editor s panel1

Editor’s Panel

AAA Audit Section MYM 2012

Steve Salterio PhD FCA

Editor (in-chief) Contemporary Accounting Research


Submission1

Submission

Regarding submission, I would cover the following topics (in no order):

Picking a journal

Matching paper to journal

Preparing manuscript

Role of SSRN

Presenting at workshops/seminars, conferences and symposium in preparation for submitting


Writing up research1

Writing up research

  • Choose desired research outlet but always have a plan B (or C or D).

    • Write in a clear, straightforward.

  • Body of paper for main arguments and analyses. Keep footnote to minimal tangents.

  • Paper length should be no more than 40 pages including all tables (50 for qualitative research).

  • Focus on main findings.

  • Be honest – don’t oversell but don’t be too humble.


Editor s panel

MYTH

  • “Young accounting academics in North America should not get involved in field studies(qualitative studies):

  • qualitative research is too much time consuming; and

  • publishing qualitative research is too much uncertain.”


Editor s panel

IS PUBLISHING FIELD STUDIES DIFFICULT? SOME “HARD” DATA ON FIELD STUDY PAPERS - Yves Gendron personal data

Number of Rounds Before Acceptance


Validity criteria that are viewed as key in publishing field studies

Validity criteria that are viewed as key in publishing field studies

Taking messiness into account

Contributing to a deep-level understanding

Writing style needs to be adapted to the audience


Validity criteria that are viewed as key in publishing field studies1

Validity criteria that are viewed as key in publishing field studies

What about generalizability?

“Cronbach et al. (1980) suggest […] that designs balance depth and breadth, realism and control, so as to permit reasonable ‘extrapolations’. […] An extrapolation clearly connotes that one has gone beyond the narrow confines of the data to think about other applications of the findings. Extrapolations are modest speculations on the likely applicability of findings to other situations under similar, but not identical, conditions.”1

1. Patton, M.Q. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (Second Edition). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications—pages 489.


Publishing field studies in car

Publishing field studies in CAR

  • 1st Editor Haim Falk

    • Field pieces by Gibbins & Emby, Dirsmith &Covaleski (2)

  • 2nd Editor Bill Scott

    • Field piece by Gibbins et al.

  • 3rd Editor Mike Gibbins

    • Salterio, Chua & Abernathy publish field pieces

  • 4th Editor Lane Daley and 5th Co-editors Jerry Feltham and Dan Simunic

    • Daley publishes Salterio & Denham audit field study

  • 6th Editor Gordon “I embrace diversity” Richardson

    • Field studies Gendron (2),Chapman & Aherns, Cohen et al, etc.

  • 7th Editor (2007) Michel Magnan

    • Carcello et al, Cohen et al etc. etc.


Publishing field studies in car1

Publishing field studies in CAR

  • Salterio

    • Four or five in first 18 months

  • Since the year 2000 over 20 field studies published in CAR

    • Many of them involving audit, corporate governance

    • New assurance services as well


Publishing field studies other north american accounting journals

Publishing field studies:other North American accounting journals

  • JAR(Journal of Accounting Research)

    • Gibbins et al 1990, Gibbins & Newton 1994, GSW 2001

  • TAR(The Accounting Review) MIA

  • JMAR(Journal of Management Accounting Research)

    • Anderson 1995, Lanen 1999, Radcliffe et al 2001, Malina & Selto 2001

    • Several field study methods articles (Chua & Baxter, Atkinson etc) 1996, 1998 (4), 2003

  • AJPT (Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory)

    • Gendron et al 2004 and several descriptive pieces


  • Theory based questionnaire studies

    Theory based questionnaire studies

    • Not field study per say but closer to the field than an experiment and archival work

    • We need to develop deeper accounting context based theories

    • Theory is often drawn from organizational behavior literature

    • Psychology theory will often give only weak directions or frameworks

    • e.g. negotiation models from behavioral negotiation literature difficult to apply directly to audit environment

    Steve Salterio, University of Waterloo


    Theory based questionnaire studies1

    Theory based questionnaire studies

    • Start by developing careful theory based behavioral model of setting

    • Develop and pretest questionnaire to elicit variables of theoretical interest

    • Employ carefully selected experienced participants to recall actual cases

    • Need to worry about asking “leading questions” and hindsight bias

    Steve Salterio, University of Waterloo


    Theory based questionnaire studies2

    Theory based questionnaire studies

    Example papers:

    • Psychology based:

      • Hirst and Koonce, 1996

      • Gibbins, Salterio and Webb, 2001

      • Carcello et al 2009

      • Cohen et al 2010

    • Sociology based

      • Gendron 2001

      • Barrett and Gendron 2003

    Steve Salterio, University of Waterloo


    What about case studies

    What about case studies?

    • Differences from teaching cases

    • Need to understand how to do theory driven case research (Yin, 1994)

    • OR theoretically interpreted field research from sociology/organizational behavior

    • Limited insights from single cases

    Steve Salterio, University of Waterloo


    What about case studies1

    What about case studies?

    • Example papers done in North America:

      • Radcliffe. 1999. Knowing efficiency: the enactment of efficiency in efficiency auditing. AOS.

        • Three efficiency audit at Alberta AG

      • Bedard and Gendron, Highly effective audit committees. AJPT

        • Three cases where AC access was obtained

      • Jamal et al working paper on audit tenders

        • One focal case and several confirmatory cases

    Steve Salterio, University of Waterloo


  • Login