Of course the differences in the two lists are interesting as well. If the Scopus data base is truly just more comprehensive than the JCR base in the SSCI, should the number of cites not just be uniformly higher in Citescore albeit with ranking changes still possible?
Well that does not appear to be so! JAR picks up almost a 0.25 per article while the CPA difference is a result of rounding at the third decimal place. Yes in six cases the cite number did go down from Citescore to JCR, as would be expected if Scopus is just a larger database than the SSCI, but there are those two troublesome outliers!
But while accountants and auditors can wonder what this means the real question remains? Is this just better measurement of citation rates or is it picking up on a radical shift in accounting journals impact? Basically we the so-called top 6 journals really just a figment of measurement error due to incomplete data? Does this imply the FT 50 needs to be rethought? I surely do not know the answers to these questions but silly schools that attempt to reduce rather than expand their set of high quality journals can have only one fate awaiting them – derision from broader society!!!
Musings on Accounting Research by Steve 
Three inescapable conclusions:
1) Measurement of “impact” is a major problem.
2) Journals are shifting in prestige and importance, despite attempts to freeze the journal hierarchy.
3) Expanding rather than restricting the list of journals we consider important is the only long-run strategy that makes sense, for exactly the reasons you state. Well put, Steve.