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!!!
Scopus and their impact factor index (Citescore) had a day in the sun when I was at the EAA in Milano! The top ten rankings they came up with were as follows:
|Management Accounting Research||4.53|
|Journal of Accounting and Economics||4.36|
|Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal||4.33|
|Journal of Accounting Research||4.29|
|British Accounting Review||3.31|
|Critical Perspectives on Accounting||3.18|
|Meditari Accountancy Research||3.02|
|Accounting, Organizations and Society||2.94|
|Journal of Accounting Literature||2.61|
Notice the absence of some of the leading players as we like to think of them. CAR and RAST were not in the top ten of CiteScore.
Fast forward a few weeks and JCR reports from Clairviate Analytics came in
|Full Journal Title||Journal Impact Factor|
|JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING RESEARCH||4.542|
|Management Accounting Research||3.800|
|JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING & ECONOMICS||3.282|
|Critical Perspectives on Accounting||3.182|
|Accounting Auditing & Accountability Journal||2.911|
|AUDITING-A JOURNAL OF PRACTICE & THEORY||2.409|
|British Accounting Review||2.232|
|European Accounting Review||2.169|
|ACCOUNTING ORGANIZATIONS AND SOCIETY||2.077|
|CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNTING RESEARCH||2.065|
Some strong similarities. The similarities include:
- the high ranking of Management Accounting Research (kudos to Wim and his team)
- the return of JAR as a contender for top accounting cited journal
- The missing of RAST from both lists and the fact that CAR only makes it into the second due to rounding error.
- The grouping of a new top three JAR, JAE, and MAR with several journals knocking at the door AAAJ, CPA, BAR and TAR.
No I am not talking about the state of mind of the organizers, albeit with the amount of work they have to put into this every third year (just long enough to forget the details from the last time they hosted it) they may well feel that way at the time! No what I am talking about it the virtual absence of archival management accounting research at the conference.
If my memory serves me correctly, a few years ago the unbalancing was on the side of field research – where it was relatively rare to have more than one or two sessions of field work. In the last two GMARS the absence of archival management accounting research has been striking – not even enough papers for one full session.
On the plus side, GMARS is a beacon for diversity in management accounting research with experimental economics, psychology experiments, survey research, and all flavours of field research (positivist and interpretivists with the odd critical paper). Nonetheless, just as a few years ago when I saw the lack of field work a drawback, I am now seeing the lack of archival based economics work as a constraint to the success of what I think of as the best management accounting conference in the world.
(As an aside to a certain Texan, note that my defense of diversity is not based on my preferred methods being better represented but rather on the basis of what is needed to allow for an excellent exchange of ideas across research approaches.)
Back in the day when there were lots of experimental economics papers in accounting – an unfortunately dying breed of papers it seems – there was an interesting order of presentation of the experiments.
Motivation or grand issue – description of the experimental setting and what the various features represented – a theory section that made both point predictions (that rarely worked) and directional predictions (that often worked – at least in published papers) – results – supplemental results and conclusions.
I think that most good interpretive work would do well to follow this approach, especially when grand concerns lead the researcher into the field, not specific theorizing ex ante. My suggested ordering:
The global concerns and what motivates that concern – a description of the case or field setting (rich enough so that nothing new needs to be added later in the paper – just more depth) – a section introducing the theory that will allow the case setting to be analyzed/interpreted – a description of the research methods if not done in the descriptive section – an analytical section where theory is used as an interpretive lens and a discussion section that draws us back to the global concern that motivated the work.
I think too many interpretive researchers are falling into the trap of writing as if they were positivists – concern, theory, methods, case, analytical and discussion. It makes no sense to have an up front theory section in a paper where the theory followed the emprics. Nothing wrong with that if theory did guide the emprics – but that is relatively rare or so I am told by my interpretivists’ friends (which may decline in number after they read this analogy).
In qualitative research the goal of going into the field is often to gain a deeper understanding of what actors and systems in the field actually do and mean through the eyes of the actors. Sometimes one enters the field with a well developed theory in mind, some times one has multiple potential theories at ready and the third results in a theory being developed on the basis of field observations (a neo-grounded theory approach).
I worry about research that is then written up as if the theory was present all along. Only in the first case is that approach appropriate. Otherwise one is engaging in writing creative fiction. Editors and reviewers who insist that the paper must be written with the theory being presented as if it guided the research is intellectually dishonest. However, an author does not have to “die on this hill” but ensure that the discerning reader understands how the theoretical perspective was born in the research process.
Again in my trip to Europe I noticed a lot of younger scholars answering questions with “it’s in the paper.” I was not clear whether it was a language barrier of not understanding the question, not being able to formulate an answer to an unexpected question on the fly (due to language or other barriers) or not understanding the purpose of a conference presentation and a Q&A.
Let me be clear, “it is in the paper” is NOT an appropriate answer to any question. The response should be either to seek further understanding of the question if it is not clear or understood OR a brief explanation/answer with the invitation to find further details in the paper and/or ask the participant to ask a followup question to narrow down the focus of the question further.
I have been surprised in my time in Europe at the prevalence of young authors ceding almost complete control of their papers to reviewers and editors. I have lost track of the number of times that questions about choices made in the paper were justified solely from the point of view “the reviewers/editor made me do it.” Period – nothing more about what the author learned from what the reviewer or editor said; nothing more about whether their view changed (indeed it often seemed the opposite – they still held their original view); just slavish acceptance and an instrumental response to making the change.
The future of academic research in accounting is highly threatened by letting reviewers and editors write your papers. The only thing you have as a young scholar is your “voice” and if you are prepared to sell your “voice” for the sake of a easy route to publication, the long term prognosis for your research, your self-esteem and your ability to bring an independent view of the world is decreased substantially.
That is not to say that you ignore the reviewers and editors. Rather, you critically evaluate their suggestions, and where they are helpful, adopt them; where they require added explanation, explain it; and where they are not acceptable, explain why. Often, given thoughtful analysis, a much stronger paper will emerge from a thoughtful integration of the reviewers ideas with yours as the author.
So it may be faster and easier route to short term publication in the end if you lose your “voice” you have almost lost your “soul”. The short term success will lead to long term pain – you become like the salesman in “Death of A Salesman”.