Characterizing Accounting Research

Characterizing Accounting Research
Derek K. Oler
Area of Accounting, Rawls College of Business
Texas Tech University
Box 42101
Lubbock, TX 79409-2101
Phone: 806-742-2221
derek.oler@ttu.edu
Mitchell J. Oler
Department of Accounting and Information Systems, Pamplin School of Business
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University
3007 Pamplin Hall (0101)
Blacksburg, VA 24061
Phone: 540-231-0764
moler@vt.edu
Christopher J. Skousen
School of Accountancy, Jon M. Huntsman School of Business
Utah State University
3540 Old Main Hill
Logan, UT 84322
Phone: 435-797-2429
chris.skousen@usu.edu
July 24, 2009
Corresponding author. The authors thank Tom Dyckman, Michael Gibbins, Bill Kinney, Kenny
Reynolds, Stephen Zeff, Anthony Hopwood (editor), two anonymous reviewers, and participants at the
2007 BYU Accounting Research Symposium for helpful comments on prior versions of this paper. All
remaining errors are our own. We also thank Laura Oler for her programming assistance. We are grateful
to Kevin Federico, Robert Brandt, Kara Brandt, Monte Searle, and Brian Watson for their research
assistance.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1121956
Abstract
In response to concerns over the viability of the academic discipline of accounting we
investigate trends in accounting research by examining papers published in six top
accounting journals from 1960 to 2007. We use citations made by accounting papers as a
proxy for their antecedent ideas and examine trends in citations, topics, and
methodologies, in aggregate and by journal. Our results suggest that the growing body of
accounting research draws increasingly from both finance and economics. Financial
accounting topics and archival methodologies are becoming more dominant over time
relative to other topics and methodologies, although these trends vary by journal.
Although most concerns we discuss are recent, we find that the situation today is the
result of trends set in motion decades ago with an explicit decision by influential
researchers to move the discipline from a normative perspective to a positive perspective.
Given its current state accounting research may be broadly characterized as research into
the effect of economic events on the process of summarizing, analyzing, verifying, and
reporting standardized financial information, and on the effects of reported information
on economic events.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1121956

1. Introduction
Accounting research has emerged as a literature that draws from and adds to a
larger body of work dealing primarily with businesses and their interactions with society
at large, often through capital markets. Several researchers have identified threats to
accounting as an academic discipline, and some question its future viability. In this paper
we offer an alternative approach to examining these threats and concerns, and an
approach to characterizing accounting research, by (1) examining its antecedent seminal
ideas, proxied by the papers cited by research published in six top accounting journals,
(2) examining the general topic covered, and (3) examining the general methodology
used. We show trends in citations, topics, and methodologies from 1960 to 2007, both in
aggregate and then broken out by journal. We conclude by proposing a conceptualization
of accounting research based on our observations.
Researchers have raised significant concerns about the viability of accounting
research as an academic discipline. Fogarty and Markarian (2007) argue that the
academic accounting profession is in decline because there are shrinking numbers of
accounting researchers at the assistant and associate professor levels. Their findings are
corroborated by Plumlee et al. (2005) and Leslie (2008). One implication of these studies
is that, ceteris paribus, fewer accounting research papers will be published over time as
the number of researchers declines.
Another concern, raised by Hopwood (2007), is that accounting research is
becoming more insular and self-referential (also see Biehl et al., 2006). This concern
suggests that the proportion of citations from other fields will decrease over time because
more recent accounting research ignores new ideas from other literatures. We examine
trends in the relative proportion of ideas in accounting research being drawn from other
disciplines to determine the extent to which accounting seems to be becoming more
insular. Rayburn (2005, 2006) expresses concern over the increasing dominance of
financial accounting research topics in academic journals, and Tuttle and Dillard (2007)
show a strong trend in publications in The Accounting Review towards more financial
accounting papers and fewer papers on other topics. We investigate whether this trend
extends to other journals.
To provide context for our analysis we provide an overview of the top six journals
in accounting research, Accounting, Organizations, and Society (AOS), Contemporary
Accounting Research (CAR), Journal of Accounting and Economics (JAE), Journal of
Accounting Research (JAR), Review of Accounting Studies (RAST), and The Accounting
Review (TAR), and also discuss some of the significant events leading up to our current
situation. We then provide data on citations from these six journals.
We select journals currently and commonly viewed as top tier publications at
research-intensive U.S. schools. Two of these journals, AOS and CAR, are not based in
the U.S., and publish a greater proportion of papers by non-U.S. academics. To enhance
comparisons between our journals, we exclude papers without at least one U.S. author.
Accounting research intersects with a number of neighboring disciplines,
primarily finance, economics, psychology, and management. Building on Zeff (1996),
we classify citation sources into 8 categories: accounting, finance, economics,
psychology, management, statistics, other academic journals, and other citations (i.e.,
books, professional journals, working papers, popular media, legal cases, etc.). We
classify the topics covered by accounting papers into six categories: financial
accounting, managerial accounting, auditing, tax, governance, and other topics.1 We
classify the research methodologies used into seven categories: archival, experimental,
field study, review, survey, theoretical (often referred to as analytical), and normative.2
These are broad categories, but we believe they are adequately descriptive while
remaining reasonably digestible.3 In cases where a paper addresses multiple topics, or
uses multiple methodologies, we select the primary topic and primary methodology for
our classifications. We provide an expanded description of our categories in the
Appendix.
Our results show that the nature of accounting research has changed significantly
over the past 48 years. The most radical shift has been from the dominance of normative
research in the 60s to positive research from the mid-70s onward. We argue that this
shift continues to guide the trajectory of accounting research today. The total number of
papers published by the top accounting journals has increased dramatically from 1960 to
2007, mostly because of new journals being inaugurated and later commonly accepted as
A journals. We also break out paper counts by individual journal, and find that
research production overall has not decreased. Accounting papers currently draw just
Prior research in auditing and management accounting may also be considered governance research;
however, we define governance research here as research relating to the overall corporate management, as
opposed to a firms system of internal controls. While some governance papers occurred prior to the
Gompers et al. paper (2003), we note that most governance research builds on their work. Our selection of
governance is also an example of a newer hot topic that is essentially borrowed from economics.
2
We note that our terms for methodology are not parallel: archival, experimental, and field study
methodologies are examples of positive research (the study of what is), and theoretical work is similar (the
study of what is from the perspective of mathematical logic, although one could also consider theoretical
work to be normative as well). Normative research deals with what ought to be (see Keynes, 1891, p. 34).
Review is not really a methodology, but rather a summation and synthesis of prior work.
3
Our selection of topics and methodologies, while consistent with prior work, is open to criticism. For
example, Abbott (2004) provides a taxonomy of 36 different methodologies, compared our seven.
However, increasing our categories has the adverse effect of increasing the complexity and size of the
paper, making it more difficult to group the thousands of papers we examine into tractable categories.
under 50 percent of their antecedent ideas from other prior accounting work (Table 1),
and this ratio has remained consistent since the mid 1990s. Borrowing from finance and
economics has been slowly but steadily increasing. Financial accounting research has
remained the dominant topic of research, and is becoming increasingly so (see Tables 2
and 5). Tuttle and Dillard (2007) show that this trend occurs in TAR; we show that the
trend extends to other top journals except for AOS and CAR.
Papers in our six accounting journals show a different mix of citations, topics, and
methodologies. For example, RAST papers cite other accounting papers 50 percent of the
time on average from 1996 (inception) to 2007, and cite psychology papers only 0.2
percent of the time, compared with AOS papers which cite accounting papers 30 percent
of the time and cite psychology papers 9.4 percent of the time (Table 4 Panel A).
Differences in citations reflect significant differences in topic and methodology: from
inception to 2007, 22 percent of CARs papers focus on audit issues, compared to 3.8
percent of RASTs (Table 5 Panel B). Papers dealing with financial accounting make up
an increasing proportion of the total papers published in almost all journals from their
inception through to today except for AOS and CAR (see Table 5 Panels C and D). In
terms of methodology, archival research is becoming more dominant in all journals
(Table 6).
Our results have several implications. First, although the number of accounting
A journals and the number of total accounting publications has increased significantly
over time, when our results are considered in conjunction with Plumlee et al. (2005) and
Leslie (2008), warning signs do emerge. The increase in output does not appear to be
attributable to a general increase in researchers, but rather to (1) a slight increase in
researchers at doctoral-granting schools, and (2) a significant increase in the amount of

time spent on research (Leslie, 2008). But faculty cannot indefinitely increase their time
devoted to research. The large unmet demand for auditing and taxation PhDs noted by
Plumlee et al. (2005) corroborates our finding that the proportionate amount of auditing
and taxation papers has decreased in the 2000s relative to prior decades (Table 5 Panel
A). The recent AICPA Accounting Doctoral Scholars Program (announced in July 2008)
should help to counteract this trend by encouraging and funding CPAs who wish to
obtain PhDs in auditing and tax.
Over time citations from finance and economics have increased, suggesting that
accounting research is drawing closer to these related disciplines. This is consistent with
the shift in accounting research from primarily normative research in the 1960s to
positive research that uses methods from finance, economics, and other established
academic disciplines (Granof and Zeff, 2008). Citations from psychology, statistics, and
management are relatively low in the 2000s when compared to prior years. The
increasing dominance of financial accounting research is also consistent with the
observations of Tuttle and Dillard (2007) and Plumlee et al. (2005).
It is important to note that the selection of papers published in any journal is
jointly determined by the authors (who determine the topic, methodology, and where to
submit their paper), reviewers, and editors (who determine which papers to accept and
publish based on the papers that are submitted). Thus, our research should not be
interpreted as a criticism of the editorial choices of particular journals.
Another important caveat is that we do not consider all accounting journals.
Researchers specializing in tax or audit will likely place some of their work in topical
journals such as the Journal of the American Tax Association or Auditing: A Journal of
Practice and Theory. However, these are not generally accepted as A hits in top U.S.
schools. Researching academics, especially those currently untenured, recognize that a
publication in one of our selected journals is very helpful, and often essential, to attaining
tenure. Our choice of six top accounting journals implicitly assumes that the choices
made by submitting authors, reviewers, and editors of these journals reflect a
representative sample of accounting research.4
Based on our observations, we construct a possible characterization of accounting
research: accounting research is research into the effect of economic events on the
process of summarizing, analyzing, verifying, and reporting standardized financial
information, and on the effects of reported information on economic events. This
characterization is necessarily broad, reflecting the diversity of papers published over the
past 40 years. We also emphasize that this characterization is a reflection of what has
been published as accounting research, and not necessarily what accounting research
should be. Some researchers will find this characterization too broad, while others may
take comfort in the fact that accounting research seems resistant to being encapsulated
into discrete areas that could become tapped out after years of investigation.
Our findings are useful to researchers in deciding where to submit their work.
Students and administrators of PhD programs in accounting may wish to use our results
in making decisions on resource allocations, especially towards encouraging and
We also note that our selection of journals is backfilled that is, we include all prior issues of newer
journals, even before they came to be commonly accepted as A journals. Because the inclusion of a
journal on an A list is determined by individual schools at different times, we cannot provide a definitive
date as to when AOS, CAR, JAE, JAR, and RAST became A journals (we assume that TAR has always
been considered an A journal).
expanding audit and tax research. Finally, accounting PhD students may benefit from our
long-term overview of accounting research and how it has changed over time.
In the next section we expand on our motivation and review the prior literature.
In section 3 we review our data and methodology. In section 4 we present our results and
propose a current characterization of accounting research, and in section 5 we conclude.
2. Motivation and Literature Review

What is accounting research? Some papers are intuitively accounting (e.g.,
Required disclosures in financial reports, Schipper, 2007), but others less clearly so
(e.g., Tax benefits as a source of merger premiums in acquisitions of private
corporations, Erickson and Wang, 2007; Industry product market competition and
managerial incentives, Karuna, 2007; Measuring customer relationship value: The role
of switching cost, Dikolli et al., 2007). One heuristic used by many researchers in
deciding if their paper is accounting, and therefore where to submit their work, is to
count citations: if the majority of citations are from accounting journals, then it is an
accounting paper. This heuristic clearly works for the Schipper paper above (42 out of 44
citations from academic journals are from other accounting journals), but less so for
Erickson and Wang (only 9 out of 21 citations are from accounting journals). Beavers
seminal work in 1968 cites only 3 accounting papers out of 17 total citations: according
to the citations-count heuristic, The Information Content of Earnings Announcements
is a finance paper. This ad-hoc analysis suggests that the citations-count heuristic alone
cannot adequately define accounting research.
A simple approach to describing and conceptualizing accounting research is to

look at papers published in top accounting journals. We look at six top journals (AOS,
CAR, JAE, JAR, RAST, and TAR) for U.S. schools because these journals represent highly
sought after achievements that are required for tenure at top institutions and can virtually
guarantee tenure at lower-tier institutions.
Accounting journals do not explicitly define the term accounting research.
TARs editorial policy is to publish articles reporting results of accounting research
from any accounting-related subject. JARs first issue states that the journal will be
devoted to reporting the results of research activities in all areas of accounting, (Shultz
and Caine, 1963). The inaugural issue of RAST describes its mission as to provide an
outlet for significant academic research in accounting where research must contribute
to the discipline of accounting. Similarly, the inaugural issue of AOS discusses the need
for research into understanding the way in which all forms of accounting information
are actually used (Hopwood, 1976, page 2), suggesting that accounting research could
consider individuals response to accounting information. The lack of an explicit
definition of accounting research does not suggest sloppy thinking or laziness; rather, it
suggests that accounting research is hard to define. Hopwood (2007) argues that
accounting research has changed over time; for example, pre JAR (1963) and pre-Ball
and Brown (1968), accounting research was largely normative (i.e., focusing on how
economic events should be accounted for), but afterwards positive research became more
dominant and accounting research came to embrace the consequences of accounting in
wider institutional settings (focusing more on the effect of accounting information on
10
economic events).5 Thus, looking at the effect of net income on stock prices seems to
have become accounting research, where previously it was not. With Ball and Brown,
and the contemporaneous shift towards positive research (discussed by Reiter and
Williams, 2002, among others) and the explosion of archival research (see Kothari,
2001), accounting researchers seem to have partially annexed a literature that was
previously in the realm of finance.6
As the saying goes, it is difficult to know where you are going unless you know
where you have been, and where you are now. Accordingly, our paper seeks to provide a
context within which to evaluate threats to (and concerns over) the profession, as well as
an overview of accounting research, by bootstrapping from prior work. We assume that
papers published in top accounting journals are a faithful representation of the accounting
literature, and that the prior work they cite is an effective proxy for their antecedents.7
That is, the papers cited by accounting research in top journals can give us insight into
where seminal ideas in accounting are coming from, and can help us characterize what
accounting research is. Insights from investigating citations and trends in citations from
published accounting research can also help us evaluate threats to the profession
identified by various researchers.
Interestingly, Ball and Brown was famously rejected by TAR because it was not an accounting paper
(Dyckman and Zeff, 1984).
6
This is a two way street in that papers that are easily considered accounting research have appeared in
finance journals as well: Louis (2004), Earnings management and the market performance of acquiring
firms, was published in the Journal of Financial Economics, and Brooks and Buckmaster (1976), Further
evidence of the time series properties of accounting income, was published in the Journal of Finance.
7
Of course, citations do not have a one-to-one correspondence with ideas; however, we believe they are a
reasonable proxy.
11
Threats to the Academic Accounting Profession

Fogarty and Markarian (2007) recount changes in accounting faculty numbers
from 1982 to 2002 and conclude that a decline in the number of assistant and associate
accounting professors over that period indicates that the future of the academic discipline
is in doubt. Leslie (2008) shows a similar decline. Plumlee et al. (2005) reports expected
shortages of accounting researchers for 2005-2008, especially in audit and tax (and
reports no indication that this trend will reverse in the near future). If the number of
active researchers decreases and acceptance rates at journals remain the same, then we
should expect to see a corresponding drop in accounting papers published. Buchheit et
al. (2002), Swanson (2004) and Swanson et al. (2007) report that accounting has the
lowest proportion of faculty who publish in a top journal.8 These results seem consistent
with Plumlee et al. (2005), Fogarty and Markarian (2007), and Leslie (2008) in that if it is
more difficult for accounting researchers to obtain publications needed for tenure then
fewer potential accounting PhD students may consider the field as a viable career (see
also Moizer, 2009, for a discussion and critique of the current review process at
accounting journals).
Another concern, perhaps best articulated by Hopwood (2007), is that accounting
research has grown more insular and less innovative over time. Similar concerns are
raised by Williams (1985). If correct, this should manifest itself in a reduction of
citations from other literatures over time in accounting research.
Diversity within accounting research is also a concern (e.g., Rayburn, 2005, 2006;
Tuttle and Dillard, 2007; Granof and Zeff, 2008). If one topic or methodology becomes
Swanson et al.s set of accounting journals consists of CAR, JAE, JAR, and TAR. Buchheit et al. consider
JAE, JAR, and TAR from accounting as well as top-tier journals from other business disciplines.
12
overly dominant to the detriment of other topics or methodologies then the entire
profession may suffer as researchers focus on a shrinking set of acceptable papers.
Granof and Zeff (2008) note that developments in the 1960s, including a desire by
accounting researchers to obtain more academic respectability from their peers in other
fields, have lead to the unintended consequence of interesting accounting questions now
being ignored because they cannot be addressed through currently accepted quantitative
and theoretical analysis. Their work is corroborated by Tuttle and Dillard (2007), who
show that the field of academic accounting research is becoming more homogenized as it
matures. Specifically, they show that the proportion of non-financial accounting papers
published in TAR has decreased significantly from 1976 to 2006, and they show
corroborating trends in papers winning the American Accounting Association
Competitive Manuscript Award, downloads of working papers from the Social Sciences
Research Network website (SSRN), and accounting dissertations awarded. We
investigate whether their findings extend to five other top accounting journals.
Historical Review of Journals and the Development of Accounting Research

To provide a context for our analysis of citations we provide a review of the
histories of our selected journals and provide an overview on the development of
accounting research in the U.S.
The Accounting Review

TAR is the oldest journal we examine, dating back to 1926 when it was initiated
and published by the American Association of University Instructors in Accounting
13
(AAUIA) and under William Paton, Senior Editor (the association changed its name to
the American Accounting Association, AAA, in 1936). Unlike the other journals listed,
TAR did not publish an editorial note on the goal and purpose of the journal. Instead,
article II of the AAUIAs constitution states that the objectives of the association includes
the encouragement of practical research in accounting (Filbey, 1926). No particular bias
in methodology or topic is suggested in the constitution, only that the research it
publishes focuses on accounting and accounting topics.
TAR is considered the premiere journal of the AAA, which also publishes several
other general and sectional journals. The journals current editorial policy is to publish
all types of research methodologies and topics that can be broadly defined as accounting.
From 1960, TAR has published a broad cross section of topics and methodologies with
the largest concentration in financial topics and archival methodologies. The editorship
of TAR is currently on a 3 year rotation schedule, with Steven Kachelmeier (an
experimentalist at the University of Texas at Austin) as senior editor. Given its mandate
under the AAA to serve the needs of its constituents, the 13 associate editors are drawn
from widely diverse areas in research topics and methodologies as well as from
universities across the United States.
As noted in our review of the JAR below, TAR appeared to lag behind JAR in the
trend towards more positive research and less normative research. However, TAR has
also adopted a very strong preference to positive research as well (see Fleming, Graci,
and Thompson, 2000) and has retained its strong position as a top journal. For example,
Sloans famous 1996 paper on accruals was published in TAR.
14
Journal of Accounting Research

Unlike TAR, JAR is far more focused in its editorship, topics, and methodologies.
JAR started in 1963 under George Shultz (University of Chicago) and Sir Sydney Caine
(London School of Economics) with Sydney Davidson and David Green as founding
editors. The journals inception coincided with recent developments and advances in
research, including a reliable database for security prices, the Center for Research in
Security Prices (CRSP) founded in 1960, also at the University of Chicago. Reiter and
Williams (2002) note that the University of Chicago and JAR aggressively promoted
positive research against the dominance of normative research at the time.
JAR originally had an international mandate. Shultz and Caine (1963) reasoned:
[t]houghtful accountants in all parts of the world face much the same problems, and
share much the same interests; and their ideas ought to migrate freely. However, the
proportion of JAR publications from non-U.S. authors has remained low since the 1980s
(with a slight increase from the mid-2000s). At the time of this papers writing in 2009,
4 of the 36 members of JARs editorial board are from schools outside the U.S.
The journal does not state a specific ideology in regards to method or topic, and
instead is devoted to reporting all the results of all research activities in all areas of
accounting (Shultz and Caine, 1963). However, in practice, JAR has been highly
devoted to positive research. Nicholas Dopuch, a former editor and current consulting
editor of JAR, stated that he believed normative research was dead (and as editor of JAR
he worked to achieve this end see Bell, 1984). Today the journal is sponsored
exclusively by the University of Chicagos Booth School of Business.
15
Accounting, Organizations and Society

Based at the Sad School of Business at Oxford University, AOS was first printed
in 1976 with Anthony Hopwood as chief editor. The journal has a much broader
approach to research than our other journals. In his editorial from the first edition,
Hopwood notes a fragmentation of our perception of the world around us (1976),
and suggests a need for research to integrate across disciplines. As such, today AOS has a
diverse editorial board, still headed by Anthony Hopwood, spanning researchers with
expertise in different methodologies, topics, and even geography. Of our six journals,
AOS shows the greatest breadth in topics and methodologies. Consistent with its
commitment, AOS publishes a greater portion of papers relating to behavioral topics and
it is the only journal where financial archival research does not dominate.
Journal of Accounting and Economics

Established in 1979 at the Simon Graduate School of Business at the University
of Rochester, JAEs original mandate was to publish manuscripts that explain accounting
phenomena using economic theories. The journal specifically sought after papers that
crossed between theory and empirics, rejecting theoretical papers that are without testable
implications and empirical papers without any theoretical background (Watts and
Zimmerman, 1979).
In the beginning the original editorial board consisted primarily of archivalists
and theorists from a wide range of colleges across the United States with the editors
(Ross Watts and Jerold Zimmerman) both from the University of Rochester. Currently
the journal has six editors, predominately archivalists, from different colleges across the
16
United States and 32 associate editors across the United States and Canada, all of whom
are widely considered either archivalists or theorists. True to its original mandate, JAE
publishes primarily papers with archival and theoretical type methodologies.
Contemporary Accounting Research

CARs first issue was published in the fall of 1984 under the Canadian Academic
Accounting Association with Haim Falk as editor. Its mandate is to focus on the
particular needs of the Canadian accounting community and an objective to stimulate
accounting research in Canada. The journal did not specify any bias in preferred research
method or topic, and today still adheres to its original mandate to publish research that is
of interest to the Canadian accounting community (see http://www.caaa.ca/CAR/).
The current editorial board is composed of 82 researchers from several different
countries, although predominately United States and Canada, that use a wide range of
methodologies and topics.9 CAR today tends to be more diverse in research type and
methodology, but like most of our journals, publishes relatively more archival financial
type papers than any other type.
Review of Accounting Studies

RAST began publishing in 1996 with a scope to provide an outlet for
significant academic research in accounting including theoretical and experimental work
(http://accounting.wharton.upenn.edu/rast/). No specific methodology or research topics
are singled out in particular for RAST, indeed the mission statement of RAST states that
9
Informally, several senior faculty members mention that this journal greatly benefitted from the
publishing of James Ohlson and Gerald Felthams work in 1995.
17
the editors seek to attract all forms of research

(http://accounting.wharton.upenn.edu/rast/). However, the journals original editors were
four theorists, two archivalists, one experimentalist, with the remaining three members
focusing on both theoretical and archival research. The large number of editorial
theorists is correlated with the high concentration of published theoretical work (over 50
percent) in the first four years of publication. Today, the editorial board is predominately
composed of theorists and archivalists, with the dominate topic and methodology now
being financial, archival research. RASTs rapid rise to prominence as a top accounting
journal emphasizes the current dominant position of positive and archival research
relative to other forms of research.
Important Events in Accounting Research

Several events underlie the trends we show in our subsequent analysis. The
greatest shift in research over time has been the almost complete abandonment of
normative research by our six top journals. This shift, while welcomed and facilitated by
some, has also drawn criticism (e.g., Williams, 2003; Ravenscroft and Williams, 2009).
We construct a timeline of important events in accounting research that, while necessarily
incomplete, clearly shows a number of events that assisted positive research in achieving
its dominant position. Specifically, the creation and dissemination of archival databases
(CRSP and Compustat, launched in 1960 and 1964 respectively and made more widely
available through the creation of WRDS in 1998), the publication of papers that provided
theoretical support for the linking of stock prices to accounting information (Ball and
Brown, 1968; Fama, 1970; Feltham and Ohlson, 1995), and the creation of new journals
18
that were almost exclusively devoted to positive research (JAR, 1963; JAE, 1979, and
RAST, 1996).
Other critical events have also helped to shape accounting research into its present
form. In 1973 the FASB a better funded organization with permanent staff devoted to
the formulation of GAAP replaced the Accounting Principles Board. AOS and CAR,
journals with a broader view of accounting research, were launched in 1976 and 1984,
respectively. Other landmark papers include Watts and Zimmerman, 1978, who
articulate how positive research can play a role in setting accounting standards (an area
where one would expect normative thought to naturally dominate). Their paper helped to
justify the growing output of positive research from academics. Healy (1985) shows how
managers bonus schemes are linked to their choice of accounting policies (thus,
accounting numbers went from being viewed by some as irrelevant in the pre-Ball and
Brown period to being linked to a growing number of economic phenomena). Hopwood
(1987) describes accounting systems as part of an endogenous system of social and
economic factors, increasing the richness of context in which accounting systems are
evaluated. Finally, the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 marked a structural
change in professional accounting and auditing that has significant future implications
and helped to spark interest in governance research from accounting academics.
Related Prior Research

Similar to our paper, McRae (1974) uses citations as a proxy for information
transfers between disciplines. He examines the proportion of citations in both academic
and professional accounting journals over 1968 and 1969, and finds that accounting
19
journals draw mostly from other business fields, and then from economics and law.10
Hofstedt (1976) uses citations to compare and contrast behavioral accounting research
with capital markets research. Dyckman and Zeff (1984) examine citations as part of
their review on the impact of JAR on academic accounting research. They also note that
the pace of interdisciplinary borrowing by accounting research increased in the 1960s
and 1970s. Brown and Gardner (1985) use citations to assess the impact of TAR, JAR,
JAE, and AOS on CAR from 1976 to 1982.
Carnaghan et al. (1994) profile CAR over its first 10 years. Similar to our
approach, they provide a breakdown of papers by topic and methodology.11 We extend
their work by time frame and also by journal. Similarly, Stone (2002) provides a
breakdown of accounting publications by method and topic from 1989 to 1998 for AOS,
CAR, JAE, JAR, and TAR, and shows that the dominant topic and methodology over that
period was financial accounting and archival, respectively.12 We extend Stone in both
years and journals covered. Buchheit et al. (2002) compare the proportionate publication
rates for accounting, finance, management, and marketing, and find that the proportionate
amount of accounting faculty publishing in top accounting journals is significantly lower
than the corresponding rates for other disciplines.13 We focus on a similar set of
accounting journals as Buchheit et al. and Swanson (2004) specifically, CAR, JAE,
JAR, and TAR, and add AOS and RAST. More recently, Wakefield (2008) uses citations
to estimate the relative influence of 22 accounting research journals from 2000 to 2006.
She finds the most influential journals are JAR, TAR, JAE, AOS, and CAR, respectively,
10
Within the general heading of business his largest grouping is other, which unfortunately is not
broken down further. His next largest business subcategory is finance.
11
Their specific classifications for topic and methodology are also similar to our own.
12
As with Carnaghan et al (1994), Stones categories of topic and methodology are similar to ours.
13
Their results are corroborated by Swanson (2004) and Swanson et al. (2007).
20
with RAST as the 9th most influential journal (see also Lowe and Locke, 2005, and
Bonner, 2006).
Overall, this paper extends a number of prior papers by examining a much longer
time-series of data and by expanding the set of accounting journals investigated.
However, our paper does much more than merely extend prior work: we provide insight
into long-term trends in top accounting journals, and ultimately help to inform the debate
on the trajectory of accounting research and the status of the profession.
3. Data and Methodology

We review and collect data on all articles published in six top accounting
journals: AOS, CAR, JAR, JAE, RAST, and TAR.14 We exclude letters, committee
reports, book reviews, notes, and other articles not related to research.15 We collect data
as far back as 1960 for TAR (i.e., back to volume 35), and to the journal inauguration date
for the other five (JAR, 1963; AOS, 1976, JAE, 1979; CAR, 1984; RAST, 1996).16
Although we include non-U.S. journals (AOS and CAR), our primary focus is on the state
of accounting research in the U.S. Therefore, we restrict our analysis to papers with at
least one U.S. author (except for our analysis on total papers published over time, where
we show total papers versus papers with at least one U.S. author).
14
We include RAST in our set of journals because its rapid rise of influence makes it representative of
newer trends in accounting research. Although RAST was inaugurated in 1996, nearly 12 years after the
next-youngest journal (CAR), it is already (by 2009) considered a top publication at many schools. Our
informal polling among academics suggests that some schools view CAR as superior to RAST, and others
consider RAST to be superior to CAR.
15
For example, TAR featured articles sectioned under Teachers Clinic and Education Research
headings until 1985, and we exclude these articles.
16
We also include discussion papers, and classify them as with the same topic and methodology as the
paper they discuss unless clearly warranted otherwise (for example, a discussion paper on theoretical work
that uses archival data to test the works implications).
21
We classify citations into eight major categories: accounting, finance, economics,

psychology, management, statistics, other academic journals, and other citations (i.e.,
books, professional journals, working papers, popular media, legal cases, etc.).17 An
alternative approach would be to exclude non-academic journal citations, but this would
preclude our comparison of citations going back to 1960 because many early articles did
not cite other academic journals (few academic journals existed at the time). We include
a large number of items in other citations, because books and working papers are more
difficult to classify (e.g., should a book on business valuation be classified as
accounting or finance?), and because of the diversity of other items cited (e.g.,
professional journals, court cases, websites, etc.). A few papers, mostly in the 1960s and
1970s, make no citations at all, and we exclude these papers from our citations analysis
but not from our analysis of topic and methodology.18
We classify papers by topic using six categories: financial accounting,
managerial accounting, auditing, tax, governance, and other topics (which captures a
variety of topics, including education, research methodology issues, and history).
Finally, we also classify papers by methodology: archival, experimental, field study,
review, survey, theoretical, and normative (i.e., research arguing over what should be
and often advocating a particular accounting treatment as opposed to positive research).
Our topic and methodology descriptions are expanded on in the Appendix.
Because we examine a 48-year time trend of changes in citations, topics, and
methodologies, we add information on significant historical events affecting accounting.
17
For simplicity, we refer to these areas as categories; however, we recognize that this is a coarse
categorization. Economics, psychology, and mathematics may be more accurately described as disciplines;
accounting, finance, statistics, and management may be more accurately described as applied fields.
18
The listing of journal classifications is available on demand from the authors.
22
Our timeline is admittedly ad-hoc, necessarily brief, and considers the creation of new
academic journals, the introduction of accounting and financial databases, changes in
major accounting institutions, and publications of seminal research.19
4. Results
Table 1 shows our results for proportionate citations by literature from 1960 to
2007. Our opening years, 1960 to 1966, are characterized by relatively low proportionate
citations from accounting or other academic fields and very high proportionate citations
from books, legal cases, court cases, and other sources. However, starting with 1967, the
proportionate citations in accounting papers from accounting journals begins to increase
significantly.20 At the same time, citations from finance, economics, and management
also begin to increase. For the most part these trends continue, but one exception is that
management literature citations reached a high point of 9.8 percent in 1977 and have
reverted back to early 1960s levels in subsequent years.
[Insert Table 1 and Figure 1 Here]
Figure 1 shows the same results in graphical form alongside our historical
timeline.21 To avoid distracting clutter we show only the top three categories
(accounting, finance, and economics). The increase in accounting citations appears to
have been precipitated by the launch of JAR in 1963 and the origination of CRSP and
Compustat in 1964. Accounting citations accounted for between 30 and 40 percent (other
19
For selecting seminal accounting papers, we use the top four accounting papers as of 1992 (based on
their citation index) listed by Brown (1996), plus Feltham and Ohlson (1995) and Sloan (1996).
20
We also note that, with the inauguration of JAR, proportionate citations to Other Citations (mainly
books and court cases) begin to decrease in 1963.
21
We use several acronyms to conserve space. EMH stands for the efficient market hypothesis,
WRDS stands for Wharton Research Data Services offered by the University of Pennsylvania, and
SOX stands for the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002.
23
than one exception in 1981) of citations between 1972 and 1985, increased from 1986 to
2003, and have tapered off slightly since then. Citations from finance and economics
have increased steadily from 1960 to 2007, with a few spikes (e.g., 1978 for finance,
contemporaneous with the publication of Watts and Zimmerman, 1978, and a spike in
economics citations in 1995 contemporaneous with the publication of Feltham and
Ohlson).22 Citations from finance research reach their highest point in 2007, at 14.5
percent.
Overall, these results suggest that (1) current accounting research has a
considerable foundation from which to draw, and if accounting has been growing more
insular over time, the level of insularity appears to have peaked in 2003; (2) accounting
research in general appears to be drawing closer to finance and economics, but even by
2007, combined citations from finance and economics represent just under 25 percent of
total citations. These trends are consistent with the rise of positive research, which has its
roots in economics and finance.
[Insert Figure 2 Here]
Figure 2 Panel A shows the aggregate number of papers published by year in our
accounting journals, with the same timeline as in Figure 1. These results show that the
number of accounting papers published has increased significantly since 1982 even
though Fogarty and Markarian (2007) and Leslie (2008) report a drop in accounting
researchers. The increase is not monotonic (for example, there was a decrease from 1968
to 1975), but the upward trend from 1975 to 2007 is clear and appears to be associated
with the introduction of new major journals. This apparent disconnect between our
results on publications and prior work on the number of researchers can be explained by
22
However, given the ad-hoc nature of our timeline, we do not provide evidence on causality.
24
two factors: First, Leslie (2008) reports a slight increase in accounting researchers at
doctoral-granting schools (although they also report a significant drop in researchers at 4year non-doctoral schools). As faculty at doctoral-granting schools are more likely to be
research active (because of higher research budgets and because of a reduced teaching
load), the decrease in the number of researchers may not translate directly into a decrease
in the number of publications. Second, Leslie also finds that the number of hours spent
on research reported by accounting faculty has increased by 52 percent from 1993 to
2004, suggesting that an increase in output-per-faculty is compensating for a decrease in
the number of faculty.
One shortcoming with Figure 2 Panel A is the number of papers published will
increase mechanically over time because of new journals being added. Thus, it could be
that the number of publications on a per-journal basis have diminished over time even
though we see an increase in aggregate. Accordingly, we break out the number of papers
published by journal in Panels B to G. TAR and JAR both appear to have suffered a drop
in the number of annual publications TAR dropping from a high of 83 papers in 1964 to
about 25 papers per year in 2002, and then increasing in recent years. JAR also dropped
from a high of 71 papers in 1974 to a fairly stable level of around 31 papers per year
thereafter. AOS shows a less precipitous decline from 43 in 1988 to 29 in 2007. JAE
shows considerable variance in the number of publications, and 2007 publications are
only 18 papers (versus 32 in 2006). CAR and RAST both show an increasing trend.
Panels B to G also distinguish between papers with at least one U.S. author and total
papers. For the most part, U.S. authors dominate all publications with notable exceptions
for AOS and, to a lesser degree, CAR. This result is not unexpected given that CAR and
25
AOS are headquartered in Canada and the United Kingdom respectively. Overall, trends
by individual journal suggest that publication output has not decreased over time.
[Insert Table 2 Here]
Table 2, Panel A, examines citations sorted by research topic. The vast majority
of papers fall into financial accounting (2,577, over three times the number published in
managerial accounting, the next closest topic, at 741). Different topics draw from
somewhat different categories. Auditing and financial accounting draw proportionately
more from prior accounting research than from other categories, at 44 percent for
auditing and 43 percent for financial accounting; however, auditing draws the most from
psychology at 5.1 percent while financial accounting draws very little from psychology.
The newest topic, corporate governance and control, draws the least from
accounting and the most from economics (consistent with the seminal paper in that field,
Gompers et al., 2003, published in The Quarterly Journal of Economics), as well as
borrowing substantially from finance. Managerial accounting draws significantly from
economics, but relatively little from finance.
When broken out by topic and decade, (Panels B to G), the results suggest a
strong trend towards more accounting citations as accounting researchers take ownership
of research streams and build on prior accounting papers in the area. Financial
accounting, auditing, tax, governance, and other topics all show increased borrowing
from finance, while managerial accounting has decreased its borrowing from finance.
Borrowing from economics also increased from decade to decade across most topics from
the 1960s through to the 1990s, but tapered off for many topics from 2000 to 2007.
Borrowing from statistics is miniscule across all fields, and management research also
26
plays a limited roll for most topics except for management accounting (where it is
declining).
Table 2, Panel B, shows that the number of financial accounting papers has
increased significantly from the 1960s to the 2000s. Panels C to G show that
managerial accounting, auditing, and tax have all decreased from the 1990s to the 2000s
and, as mentioned previously, governance has increased significantly in the 2000s but
still remains a relatively small topic.23 Figure 3 shows the relative proportion of papers
by topic graphically, and emphasizes the increase in financial accounting papers, from
about 42 percent in 1960 to about 65 percent in 2007. However, the most dramatic
increase in financial accounting occurred around 1995, coinciding with the publication of
Feltham and Ohlson (1995), Sloan (1996), and the founding of RAST in 1996. The
portion of other topics has generally decreased in a similar manner: relative stability until
around 1995, tapering off slightly thereafter.
Table 3, Panel A, performs a similar analysis as in Table 2, but breaks out papers
by research methodology instead of topic. Because most financial accounting research
uses archival methodology our results show a similar dominance by archival research (the
number of archival papers is over twice the next highest methodology, theoretical
modeling). Different methodologies also draw from different literatures. Archival
research draws heavily from finance at almost 15 percent. Theoretical research draws
more from economics than other methodologies, at almost 15 percent, and experimental
research draws significantly from psychology (almost 10 percent). Field studies draw the
23
Comparing absolute numbers can be misleading because we have only 8 years of data from 2000 to
2007, versus 10 years for the 1990s.
27
least from prior accounting and are much more dependent on management. A similar
result also holds for survey papers.
Figure 4 shows the time trend in relative proportion of methodologies, and shows
the precipitous drop in normative research, from a high in 1963 to almost negligible by
the mid 1980s, consistent with observations from Bricker and Previts (1990), Reiter and
Williams (2002), Williams (2003), and Granoff and Zeff (2008). The period from 1968
to 1979 is characterized by roughly equal representation among all methodologies except
normative, which declined.24 However, roughly corresponding with the publication of
Watts and Zimmerman (1978) and the inauguration of the JAE in 1979, we see a growing
dominance of archival research over other methodologies. The decrease is slight for
theoretical research, and more pronounced for experimental research.25
Tables 4 to 6 break out citations, topics, and methodologies by journal, and help
to characterize the particular flavor of each journal. Panel A in Table 4 gives an
overview of citation sources by journal. Consistent with its name, JAE papers draw from
economics (11 percent), but even more heavily from finance (18 percent). AOS draws the
least from prior accounting work (30 percent versus 39 percent for TAR, the next lowest)
and draws the most from psychology and management. Panels B to F detail the trend in
citations for each journal by decade. Each journal shows a strong trend towards citing
prior accounting work (one exception is that JAR remains stable in accounting citations
24
We are ignoring reviews here, which may be viewed as a pseudo-methodology because they are
concerned with summarizing and synthesizing prior research rather than discovering new knowledge.
25
This is consistent with two of the three new journals (JAE and RAST) launched from 1979 to 1996 being
strongly oriented towards archival research. Only CAR has published a significant number of experimental
papers; JAE and RAST have published almost no experimental papers.
28
from the 1990s to 2000s, at 45 percent, coupled with a large increase in citations from
finance).
Table 5 examines paper topics by decade and journal. The increasing dominance
of financial accounting is evident in Panel A, along with the relative decline of
managerial accounting, audit, and tax. Panel B breaks out topics by journal and indicates
some stark differences. RAST publishes predominantly financial accounting papers (with
some managerial, but relatively few audit, tax, and governance papers). In contrast, AOS
publishes proportionately more managerial accounting papers than other journals (34
percent to 16 percent, the next highest from TAR), and CAR publishes proportionately the
most audit research. Tax research makes up a relatively small portion of total research,
with JAE publishing proportionately more tax research than the other journals. The drop
in published research in audit and tax is consistent with the unmet demand for audit and
tax researchers noted by Plumlee et al. (2005).
Breaking out trends by individual journal, CAR is the only journal to move
contrary to the trend towards increasing financial accounting research (60 percent of
papers in the 1990s to 50 percent in the 2000s); all other journals have increased the
proportion of financial accounting papers published. CAR also increased its proportion of
managerial, audit, and tax papers, while these topics have declined (or remained the
same) for JAR, RAST, and TAR. AOS shows a small increase in financial papers
published (15 percent versus 17 percent) but also shows a large jump in managerial, from
27 percent to 41 percent. The aggregate number of governance papers published is small
(34 papers, from Table 2), and are published mostly by AOS and JAE.
29

Table 6 examines methodologies by decade and journal. Consistent with the
increase in financial accounting research noted in the prior tables, there is a strong trend
towards proportionately more archival research, shown in Panel A. Normative research
drops from being the dominant methodology in the 1960s to being almost nonexistent.
Experimental work declined from a zenith in the 1980s, and theoretical work seems to
have wide swings over time. Panel B shows considerable variation by journal: JAE and
RAST publish primarily archival papers; JAR, AOS and CAR publish relatively more
experimental papers; RAST and CAR publish relatively more theoretical papers.
Panels C to G show the time trend for each journal. Almost all journals show an
increase in the relative proportion of archival research from the 1990s to the 2000s (the
only exception being JAE, which devoted its entire September 2001 issue to reviews).
Experimental research shows a precipitous decline in JAR, going from 25 percent in the
1970s down to 8.0 percent in the 2000s, but an increase in both CAR and AOS.
Theoretical research is also declining in all journals, most significantly in CAR and RAST.
Overall, these results present a mixed picture on the health of accounting as an
academic discipline. On the one hand, accounting research appears to have constructed a
strong foundation from which to build: about half the citations in recently published
accounting papers refer to prior accounting work. The research output of papers in top
accounting journals has also significantly increased.
Our results suggest that the findings of reduced faculty by Fogarty and Markarian
(2007), corroborated and expanded by Leslie (2008), are currently only partially reflected
30
in the publication output of top journals. However, if the trends noted by Plumlee et al.
(2005) and Leslie (2008) continue, we expect to see a significant decrease in publication
output (or, alternatively, a significant increase in the acceptance rate of top journals) as
aging faculty retire without being replaced and as the remaining faculty reach their limits
in the number of hours put into research.26 Most significantly, the drop in publications in
audit and tax from 2000 to 2007 is consistent with the significant number of unfilled
positions for audit and tax researchers at universities documented by Plumlee et al.
(2005).
Concerns of decreasing diversity in publications (Rayburn, 2005, 2006; Tuttle and
Dillard, 2007) are supported by our results. We find that financial accounting topics and
archival methodologies are growing more dominant across most journals, and that other
topics and methodologies are declining, consistent with the unmet demand for faculty in
audit and tax (and, to a lesser degree, managerial), discussed earlier.
Concerns over growing insularity in the profession (Hopwood, 2007) seem to be
partially supported. Citations to other accounting papers have increased steadily from
1960 to 1997, and appear to have leveled off since then at about 50 percent. Borrowing
from economics seems to remain consistent at about 9 percent over the past few years,
and borrowing from finance seems to be slowly increasing, reaching 15 percent by 2007.
Although Zeff (1996) names psychology and management as neighboring disciplines to
accounting, recent papers appear to draw very little from these fields (and also very little
from statistics). Thus, accounting appears to be drawing less from management and
psychology and drawing closer to finance and economics.
26
Leslie (2008) reports that the average overall hours worked by accounting faculty increased from 49
hours per week in 1993 to over 52 hours per week in 2004.
31

We use a diagram of financial reporting, modified from Nikolai et al. (2007) to
help us classify various accounting research areas. This is necessarily a simplification,
but we believe it captures the essential focus of the various streams of accounting
research. As shown in Figure 5, financial accounting research focuses on the link
between accounting information and capital markets. Audit research focuses on the audit
function, which sits between the accounting information produced by the firm and capital
markets. Managerial accounting focuses on the link between accounting information and
internal users, while tax focuses on the link between accounting information and taxation
authorities as well as the capital markets. Governance research focuses on corporate
economic activities, which in turn drives accounting information.
One area of contention centers on the response of capital markets to accounting
information. In a recent example, Hand (2002) argues that Skinner and Sloans (2002)
earnings torpedo paper is not accounting research because it does not focus on any of
the key characteristics of accounting.27 More generally, the effect of economic events on
the generation of accounting information appears to be commonly accepted as accounting
research, but the effect of accounting information on economic events appears to be less
so. We show this link with a question mark in Figure 5.
As our results show, accounting research refers to a broad spectrum of research
that is informed primarily by finance and economics. Any proposed characterization
27
He enumerates a non-exclusive list of these key characteristics: accruals, recognition bias, measurement,
matching, and accounting rules vs. discretion.
32
based on prior accounting publications must be broad enough to include financial and
managerial accounting (obviously), auditing, tax, and possibly governance. Kinney
(2001) defines the domain of accounting scholarship as the knowledge of the individual
and aggregate effects of alternative standardized business measurement and reporting
structures (page 278). His approach stems from an institutional viewpoint and is
perhaps more normative in nature; our focus is on what accounting authors and editors
have concluded on which papers are within the bounds of accounting research. In
addition, Kinney is describing an area where accounting researchers have a relative
advantage, not necessarily providing an all-inclusive characterization of accounting
research.
In spite of the above differences, our proposed characterization builds on
Kinneys description of the domain of accounting: accounting research is research into
the effect of economic events on the process of summarizing, analyzing, verifying, and
reporting standardized financial information, and on the effects of reported information
on economic events.
The term financial information is purposefully very broad, and is meant to
include tax information, analyst forecasts, and even relatively simple information such as
cash level and inventory.28 For most accounting research, financial information relates to
businesses, but accounting research can also extend to other entities such as governments
and non-profit organizations. Standardized information is information that is generated
and presented in compliance with a measurement structure: GAAP for financial
accounting, and internal reporting guidelines for management accounting information to
28
However, simple information can have significant and complex implications, as Bernard and Thomas
(1989) show with the relationship between earnings and post-earnings announcement drift, and as Oler
(2008) shows with the relationship between acquirer cash level and post-acquisition returns.
33
be used inside the firm. Effect is also a very broad term, and encompasses used,
misused, misunderstood, or even ignored for example, Sloan (1996) and Picconi
(2006). Economic events is equally broad; most accounting research will fall within a
pecuniary definition of the change in a firms reported income or stock price, but the term
can also extend to all human events dealing with the allocation of scarce resources (e.g.,
hiring or firing of a CEO).
Some may view this characterization as too broad. It intrudes significantly into
finance and economics research. Using too broad a characterization may result in
accounting research becoming indistinguishable from other research (for example,
accounting research could morph into finance research); too narrow a characterization
would restrict accounting researchers to a limited set of topics that could become
researched out, resulting in a literature that examines increasingly irrelevant minutia.
Further, it may be that accounting research will continue to shift, and any characterization
agreed upon would be moot in future years. Hopefully our proposal can serve as a useful
starting point for future discussion and debate.
5. Summary and conclusion

This paper examines trends in accounting research in citations (as a proxy for the
literatures from which seminal accounting research ideas are drawn), topic, and
methodology. Our intent is to assess the current condition of academic accounting
research as a discipline by examining antecedent ideas and to propose a characterization
of accounting research that is consistent with papers published in the top six accounting
journals.
34
Our results on the proportion of citations being drawn from accounting research,
and on the number of papers being published by top accounting journals, suggest that
there are significant problems ahead. The increase in output seems more attributable to
faculty working increased hours than to an overall increase in faculty. Trends from PhD
programs suggest that there will continue to be unmet demand, especially in auditing and
taxation, and we find that the proportion of research from these fields published in our six
journals is already dropping. The Accounting Doctoral Scholars program announced by
the AICPA in 2008 should help to attract more auditing and tax researchers to the
profession, but no similar program exists to attract managerial accounting or theoretical
researchers.
The relative proportion of citations drawn from prior accounting papers appears to
have plateaued at just under 50 percent, and borrowing from economics and finance has
increased, which suggests that accounting is not becoming more insular. However,
concerns about decreasing diversity in accounting research are supported: we show that
financial accounting is becoming increasingly dominant (except for CAR and AOS) and
other topics are declining. Archival methodology is also becoming more dominant.
With respect to the trend towards more financial accounting/archival research,
this trend is consistent with a significant number of events beginning with the founding of
JAR in 1963, the publication of Ball and Brown in 1968, and aided by an increasing
availability of externally reported financial statement and stock price information
(without a corresponding increase in availability of other information; for example, of
internal accounting information to support managerial research). All accounting PhD
programs of which we are aware can accommodate financial accounting/archival research
35
interests, but fewer can accommodate other topics or methodologies (especially tax and
theoretical research). These trends are also related to the conscious decision of many
researchers to pursue a positive research paradigm following the social sciences see
Granof and Zeff (2008).
We believe that the long-term dominance of the positive paradigm has the
undesirable effects of crowding out other ideas. Accounting research should focus on
asking and answering questions that are (1) useful to both academics and non-academics,
and (2) are within the varied expertise of accounting researchers. The particular
methodologies used should be the best ones suited for the question, not necessarily the
ones in vogue at the time. When we limit ourselves to only questions that can be
answered by the dominant methodology, existing homogenized databases, or worse, to
only questions within the dominant topic of the day, we do ourselves and the professional
accounting community a disservice. Although the trends we observe are entrenched, and
change will likely take place slowly, recent events such as articles like the keynote
addresses from the 2009 JAR conference on the regulation of securities markets are a
refreshing development (see the May 2009 issue of JAR).
Our study is meant to initiate and continue discussion and debate, not conclude it.
Our proposed current characterization of accounting research is a starting point, to be
followed by further reasoning and discussion. As mentioned previously, we also do not
intend for our results to be interpreted as criticism of editors and reviewers. Authors are
the first-movers in the publications game: editors cannot accept papers that are never
written or never submitted. Accounting researchers desiring tenure at top schools are
strongly encouraged to work on projects that appear to fit at top journals (Demski,
36
2007; Moizer, 2009), and to send those papers to journals that have published similar
papers. This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy; for example, JAE has published little
experimental research, so would an experimental researcher risk sending her work there
for review?
We hope to make several contributions to the literature, primarily by facilitating
informed discussion on the health of the profession, and on facilitating informed
discussion on the question: what is accounting research? Several researchers have raised
concerns about the profession (e.g, Swanson, 2004; Plumlee et al., 2005; Rayburn, 2005;
Fogarty and Markarian, 2007; Hopwood, 2007; Demski, 2007; Fellingham, 2007; Leslie,
2008; Granof and Zeff, 2008). As Demski notes, many of the challenges we face today
are not new (for example, see Williams, 1985, and Mautz, 1965). But this does not mean
they should be ignored.
We believe that this paper will also be a useful tool for introductory PhD research
seminars that wish to provide a general overview on trends in accounting research. PhD
students and new faculty may be interested in our findings when considering possible
homes for their research. Administrators of PhD programs may be interested in our
results as they make decisions on where to allocate scarce resources and on their
admissions decisions. We also hope that this paper can emphasize calls for greater
diversity within the umbrella of accounting research (e.g., Rayburn, 2006; Granof and
Zeff, 2008).
37
Works Cited
Abbott, A. D., (2004). Methods of Discovery: Heuristics for the Social Sciences. New
York: W. W. Norton & Co.
Ball, R. & Brown, P. (1968). An empirical evaluation of accounting income numbers.
Journal of Accounting Research 6, 159-178.
Beaver, W. H. (1968). The information content of annual earnings announcements.
Bell, P. W. (1984). Image and disarray in accounting and the problem of attracting
quality inputs into doctoral programs. In G. Dillon (Ed.), Issues in doctoral
education (pp. 59-68). American Accounting Association Doctoral Programs
Conference.
Bernard, V. L., & Thomas, J. K. (1989). Post-earnings announcement drift: Delayed
price response or risk premium? Journal of Accounting Research 27, 1-36.
Biehl, M., Kim, H. & Wade, M. (2006). Relationships among the academic business
disciplines: A multi-method citation analysis. Omega: The International Journal
of Management Science 34, 359-371.
Bonner, S. E., Hesford, J. W., Van der Stede, W. A., &Young, M. (2006). The most
influential journals in academic accounting. Accounting, Organizations, and
Society 31, 663-685.
Bricker, R. J., & Previts, G. J. (1990). The sociology of accountancy: A study of
academic and practice community schisms. Accounting Horizons 4, 1-14.
Brooks, L. D., & Buckmaster, D. A. (1976). Further evidence of the time series properties
of accounting income. The Journal of Finance 31, 1359-1373.
Brown, L. D. (1996). Influential accounting articles, individuals, Ph.D. granting
institutions and facilities: A citational analysis. Accounting, Organizations, and
Society 21, 723-754.
Brown, L. D., & Gardner, J. D. (1985). Using citation analysis to assess the impact of
journals and articles on Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR). Journal of
Accounting Research 23, 84-109.
Buchheit, S., Collins, D., & Reitenga, A. (2002). A cross-discipline comparison of toptier academic journal publication rates: 1997-1999. Journal of Accounting
Education 20, 123-130.
38
Carnaghan, C., Flower-Gyepesi, J., & Gibbins, M. (1994). A profile of Contemporary

Accounting Research: Fall 1984-Spring 1994. Contemporary Accounting
Research 11, 251-270.
Demski, J. S. (2007). Is accounting an academic discipline? Accounting Horizons 21,
153-157.
Dikolli, S. S., Kinney, W. R. Jr., & Sedatole, K. L. (2007). Measuring customer
relationship value: The role of switching cost. Contemporary Accounting
Research 24, 93-132.
Dyckman, T. R., & Zeff, S. A. (1984). Two decades of the Journal of Accounting
Research. Journal of Accounting Research 22, 225-297.
Erickson, M. M., Wang, S. (2007). Tax benefits as a source of merger premiums in
acquisitions of private corporations. The Accounting Review 82, 359-387.
Fama, E. F. (1970). Efficient capital markets: A review of theory and empirical work.
Journal of Finance 25, 383-417.
Fellingham, J. C. (2007). Is accounting an academic discipline? Accounting Horizons 21,
159-163.
Feltham, G. A., & Ohlson, J. A. (1995). Valuation and clean surplus accounting for
operating and financial activities. Contemporary Accounting Research 11, 689731.
Filbey, E., (1926). Remarks from President-Elect Filbey, Papers and Proceedings of the
Tenth Annual Meeting of the American Association of University Instructors of
Accounting (p 135).
Fleming, R. J., Graci, S. P., & Thompson, J. E. (2000). The dawning of the age of
quantitative/empirical methods in accounting research: Evidence from the
leading authors of The Accounting Review, 1966-1985. Accounting Historians
Journal 27, 43-72.
Fogarty, T. J., & Markarian, G. (2007). An empirical assessment of the rise and fall of
accounting as an academic discipline. Issues in Accounting Education 22, 137161.
Gompers, P., Ishii. J., & Metrick, A. (2003). Corporate governance and equity prices. The
Quarterly Journal of Economics 118, 107-155.
Granof, M. H., & Zeff, S. A. (2008). Research on accounting should learn from the past.
The Chronicle of Higher Education 54, A34.
39
Hand, J. R. M. (2002). Discussion of Earnings surprises, growth expectations, and stock

returns, or, dont let an earnings torpedo sink your portfolio. Review of
Accounting Studies 7, 313-318.
Healy, P. M. (1985). The effect of bonus schemes on accounting decisions. Journal of
Accounting and Economics 7, 85-107.
Hofstedt, T. R. (1976). Behavioral accounting research: Pathologies, paradigms and
prescriptions. Accounting, Organizations, and Society 1, 43-58.
Hopwood, A. G. (1976). Editorial: The path ahead. Accounting, Organizations, and
Society 1, 1-4.
Hopwood, A. G. (1987). The archaeology of accounting systems. Accounting,
Organizations, and Society 12, 207-234.
Hopwood, A. G. (2007). Whither accounting research. The Accounting Review 82, 13651374.
Karuna, C. (2007). Industry product market competition and managerial incentives.
Journal of Accounting and Economics 43, 275-297.
Keynes, J. N., (1891). The Scope and Method of Political Economy. London: MacMillan
and Co.
Kinney, W. R. Jr. (2001). Accounting scholarship: What is uniquely ours? The
Accounting Review 76, 275-284.
Kothari, S. P. (2001). Capital markets research in accounting. Journal of Accounting and
Economics 31, 105-231.
Leslie, D. W. (2008). Report of the AAA: Faculty in U.S. Colleges and Universities:
Status and Trends 1993-2004. Sarasota, FL: American Accounting Association.
Louis, H. (2004). Earnings management and the market performance of acquiring firms.
Journal of Financial Economics 74, 121-148.
Lowe, A., & Locke, J. (2005). Perceptions of journal quality and research paradigm:
Results of a web-based survey of British accounting academics. Accounting,
Mautz, R. K. (1965). Challenges to the accounting profession. The Accounting Review
40, 299-311.
McRae, T. W. (1974). A citational analysis of the accounting information network.
40
Moizer, P. (2009). Publishing in accounting journals: A fair game? Accounting,

Nikolai, L. A., Bazley, J. D., & Jones, J. P. (2007). Intermediate Accounting, 10th Edition.
U.S.A.: Thompson Publishing.
Oler, D. K. (2008). Does acquirer cash predict post-acquisition returns? Review of
Picconi, M. (2006). The perils of pensions: Does pension accounting lead investors and
analysis astray? The Accounting Review 81, 925-955.
Plumlee, D. H., Kachelmeier, S. J., Madeo, S. A., Pratt, J. H., & Krull, G. (2005).
Report of the AAA/AAPLG Ad Hoc Committee to Assess the Supply and
Demand for Accounting Ph.D.s. Sarasota, FL: American Accounting
Association. Available at:
http://aaahq.org/about/reports/FINAL_PhD_Report.pdf.
Rayburn, J. (2005). Presidents Message. Accounting Education News 33, issue 4 (Fall).
Rayburn, J. (2006). Presidents Message. Accounting Education News 35, issue 3
(Summer).
Reiter, S. A., & Williams, P. F. (2002). The structure and progressivity of accounting
research: the crisis in the academy revisited. Accounting, Organizations, and
Society 27, 575-607.
Ravenscroft, S., & Williams, P. F. (2009). Making imaginary worlds real: The case of
expensing employee stock options. Accounting, Organizations, and Society,
forthcoming.
Schipper, K. (2007). Required disclosures in annual reports. The Accounting Review 82,
301-326.
Shultz, G. P., & Caine, S. (1963). A statement. Journal of Accounting Research 1, 1-2.
Skinner, D. J., & Sloan, R. G. (2002). Earnings surprises, growth expectations, and stock
returns, or, dont let an earnings torpedo sink your portfolio. Review of
Sloan, R. G. (1996). Do stock prices fully reflect information in accruals and cash flows
about future earnings? The Accounting Review 71, 389-315.
Stone, D. N. (2002). Researching the revolution: Prospects and possibilities for the
Journal of Information Systems, Journal of Information Systems 16, 1-6.
41
Swanson, E. P. (2004). Publishing in the majors: A comparison of accounting, finance,

management, and marketing. Contemporary Accounting Research 21, 223-255.
Swanson, E. P., Wolfe, C. J., & Zardkoohi, A. (2007). Concentration in publishing at toptier business journals: Evidence and potential explanations. Contemporary
Accounting Research 24, 1255-1289.
Tuttle, B., & Dillard, J. (2007). Beyond competition: Institutional isomorphism in U.S.
accounting research. Accounting Horizons 21, 387-409.
Wakefield, R. (2008). Networks of accounting research: A citation-based structural and
network analysis. The British Accounting Review 40, 228-224.
Watts, R. L., & Zimmerman, J. L. (1978). Towards a positive theory of the determination
of accounting standards. The Accounting Review 53, 112-134.
Watts, R. L., & Zimmerman, J. L. (1979). Editorial. Journal of Accounting & Economics
1, 1-2.
Williams, P. F. (1985). A descriptive analysis of authorship in The Accounting Review.
The Accounting Review 60, 300-315.
Williams, P. F. (2003). Modern accounting scholarship: The imperative of positive
economic science. Accounting Forum 27, 251-269.
Zeff, S. A. (1996). A study of academic research journals in accounting. Accounting
Horizons 10, 158-177.
42
Appendix Classification Explanations for Topic and Methodology

Topic Definitions
Financial Accounting
Papers dealing with external financial reporting (including analysts and analyst
forecasts).
Managerial Accounting
Papers dealing with internal reporting and evaluation, internal budgeting, and transfer
pricing.
Auditing
Papers dealing with auditing and auditors (including internal controls over financial
reporting).
Tax
Papers dealing with federal and state income tax issues, tax planning, and tax strategies.
Governance
Papers dealing with overall corporate governance and control (e.g., structure of the board,
shareholder rights).
Other Topics
All other topics that do not appear to fit into the above categories (e.g., education, history,
the CPA exam, etc.).
43
Methodology Descriptions
Archival
Papers using data from historical market information (almost always stock prices, but
could include bond or commodity prices). Also known as capital markets research (e.g.,
Kothari, 2001).
Experimental
Papers using data from human subjects that are assigned to multiple treatment groups (to
distinguish from survey research, where data is collected from all subjects with no pretreatment assignment).
Field Study
Papers using data from direct observation (i.e., company visits, interviews), characterized
by a small sample size (often one firm) but rich, descriptive data.
Review
A pseudo-methodology because a review does not provide new data. Summarizes and
synthesizes prior research.
Survey
Papers using data gathered by soliciting information from human subjects without
assignment to a treatment group.
Theoretical
Papers constructing and/or using analytical (i.e., mathematical) models, characterized by
proofs, lemmas, etc.
Normative
Papers that do not include data or analytical models (and that do not review prior work).
This is a catch-all category for work that does not fit into the above methodologies.
Normative papers typically argue for a particular accounting treatment or course of action
(i.e., what should be).
44
Figure 1
Proportion of Citations Made by Top Accounting Journals
60.0%
Proportion off Citations
50.0%
40.0%
A
Accounting
ti
30.0%
Finance
Economics
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
1960
1963 JAR
Launched
1965
1970
1968 Ball
& Brown
1975
1973 FASB
replaces APB
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
1979 JAE
1985
1995 Feltham 1998 WRDS
Launched
Healy
& Ohlson
Launched
1978 Watts &
1987
19 0 EMH
1970
1960 CRSP 1964 Compustat
Zimmerman
Hopwood
1996 Sloan;
2002 SOX
1984 CAR
Articulated by
Launched Launched
RAST
Passed
Launched
Eugene Fama 1976 AOS
Launched
Launched
Figure 1
This figure shows the proportionate amount of citations made by top accounting journals (AOS, CAR, JAE, JAR, RAST, and TAR)
from 1960 to 2007 for papers with at least one U.S. author. Proportions are calculated based on the total citations listed in the
paper. For brevity, only citations from accounting, finance, and economics are shown. CRSP refers to the Chicago Center for
Research into Stock Price,, EMH refers to the Efficient Market Hypothesis,
yp
, FASB refers to the Financial Accountingg Standards
Board, APB refers to the Accounting Principles Board, WRDS refers to Wharton Research Data Services, and SOX refers to the
Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002.
Figure 2 - Panel A
Number of Papers
p
by
y Year
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
1960
1963 JAR
Launched
1965
1968 Ball
& Brown
1970
1975
1973 FASB
replaces APB
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
1979 JAE
1985
Launched
Healy
& Ohlson
Launched
1978 Watts &
1987
19 0 EMH
1970
Zimmerman
Hopwood
1996 Sloan;
2002 SOX
1984 CAR
Articulated by
Launched Launched
RAST
Passed
Launched
Launched
Launched
F ig u re 2 - P a n e l B
N u m b e r o f P a p e rs b y In d iv id u a l J o u rn a l
A OS
US Aut hors
F ig u re 2 - P a n e l C
CAR
All Aut hors
US Aut hors
50
All Aut hors
60
45
50
40
35
40
30
25
30
20
20
15
10
10
5
0
0
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
1960
1965
F ig u re 2 - P a n e l D
JAE
US Aut hors
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2000
2005
F ig u re 2 - P a n e l E
JAR
All Aut hors
US Aut hors
50
All Aut hors
80
45
70
40
60
35
30
50
25
40
20
30
15
20
10
10
5
0
0
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
F ig u re 2 - P a n e l F
RAS T
US Aut hors
F ig u re 2 - P a n e l G
TA R
All Aut hors
US Aut hors
30
All Aut hors
90
80
25
70
60
20
50
15
40
10
30
20
5
10
0
0
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Figure 2
This figure shows the number of papers published in six top accounting journals (AOS, CAR, JAE, JAR, RAST, and TAR) from
1960 to 2007. Panel A shows aggregate number of papers published, and Panels B to G break out papers published in individual
journals. Panels B to G also distinguish between papers with at least one U.S. author and those without at least one U.S. author.
CRSP refers to the Chicago Center for Research into Stock Price,
Price EMH refers to the Efficient Market Hypothesis,
H pothesis FASB refers to
the Financial Accounting Standards Board, APB refers to the Accounting Principles Board, WRDS refers to Wharton Research
Data Services, and SOX refers to the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002.
Figure 3
Proportion of Papers by Topic
80%
70%
P
Proportion
60%
FA
50%
MA
Audit
40%
Tax
Other
30%
20%
10%
0%
1960
1963 JAR
Launched
1965
1968 Ball
& Brown
1970
1975
1973 FASB
replaces APB
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
1979 JAE
1985
Launched
Healy
& Ohlson
Launched
1978 Watts &
1987
19 0 EMH
1970
Zimmerman
Hopwood
1996 Sloan;
2002 SOX
1984 CAR
Articulated by
Launched Launched
RAST
Passed
Launched
Launched
Launched
Figure 3
This figure shows the proportionate amount of papers published by topic in the top six accounting journals (AOS, CAR, JAE, JAR,
RAST, and TAR) from 1960 to 2007 for papers with at least one U.S. author. If a paper covered more than one topic, we selected
the primary topic for purposes of categorization. Because governance topics make up a relatively low proportion of topics, for
brevityy ggovernance is excluded from this figure.
g
CRSP refers to the Chicago
g Center for Research into Stock Price,, EMH refers to
the Efficient Market Hypothesis, FASB refers to the Financial Accounting Standards Board, APB refers to the Accounting
Principles Board, WRDS refers to Wharton Research Data Services, and SOX refers to the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002.
Figure 4
Proportion of Papers by Methodology
100%
90%
80%
P
Proportion
70%
A hi l
Archival
Experimental
60%
Theoretical
Normative
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1960
1963 JAR
Launched
1965
1970
1968 Ball
& Brown
1975
1973 FASB
replaces APB
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
1979 JAE
1985
Launched
Healy
& Ohlson
Launched
1978 Watts &
1987
19 0 EMH
1970
Zimmerman
Hopwood
1996 Sloan;
2002 SOX
1984 CAR
Articulated by
Launched Launched
RAST
Passed
Launched
Launched
Launched
Figure 4
This figure shows the proportionate amount of papers published by methodology in the top six accounting journals (AOS, CAR,
JAE, JAR, RAST, and TAR) from 1960 to 2007 for papers with at least one U.S. author. If a paper used more than one
methodology we categorized the paper by its primary methodology. Because field studies, reviews, and surveys make up a
relativelyy low pproportion
p
of methodologies,
g , for brevityy theyy are excluded from this figure.
g
CRSP refers to the Chicago
g Center for
Research into Stock Price, EMH refers to the Efficient Market Hypothesis, FASB refers to the Financial Accounting Standards
Board, APB refers to the Accounting Principles Board, WRDS refers to Wharton Research Data Services, and SOX refers to the
Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002.
Figure 5
Mapping Accounting Research into Financial Reporting
Governance
Company
Economic
Activities
Managerial Decisions Affecting

Corporate Activities
Audit
Auditors
Accounting
A
i
Information
Tax
Financial
External Users:
Capital Markets
IRS
Financial Analysts
y
Internal Users
Managerial
Investment Decisions Affecting

Corporate Activities
Investment
Decisions
Figure 5
This figure maps different topics of accounting research into financial reporting, based on a diagram of financial reporting
provided in Nikolai et al. (2007).
Table 1
Proportion of Citations made by Papers Published in Top Accounting Journals
This table shows the proportionate amount of citations made by top accounting journals (Accounting, Organizations, and Society,
Contemporary Accounting Research, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Journal of Accounting Research, Review of
Accounting Studies, and The Accounting Review) from 1960 to 2007 for papers with at least one U.S. author. Proportions are
calculated based on the total citations listed per paper. Other Academic Journals represents an aggregate of remaining academic
citations from law, sociology, education, health, and miscellaneous disciplines. Other Citations represents an aggregate of
remaining citations (including working papers, books, popular media, and professional journals). The weighted average is
calculated based on the number of papers published in a given year.
Other
Academic
Other
Year
Accounting Finance Economics Psychology Statistics Management Journals Citations
1960
29.7%
1.9%
1.3%
0.0%
0.0%
2.3%
4.6%
60.3%
1961
31.2%
2.5%
1.1%
0.0%
2.3%
1.7%
1.1%
60.1%
1962
24.2%
0.8%
2.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.8%
0.8%
71.2%
1963
27.5%
1.5%
1.6%
0.2%
0.1%
2.5%
10.3%
56.4%
1964
27.7%
3.8%
2.6%
0.4%
1.0%
2.7%
10.9%
50.9%
1965
29.7%
0.7%
1.6%
0.0%
0.4%
2.6%
5.6%
59.4%
1966
28.1%
2.1%
2.5%
0.0%
1.4%
2.6%
8.0%
55.3%
1967
33.0%
4.7%
2.7%
0.3%
2.4%
4.9%
5.2%
46.7%
1968
42.7%
4.3%
1.5%
0.1%
0.7%
3.9%
3.0%
43.8%
1969
41.1%
2.5%
2.7%
2.0%
2.0%
5.3%
4.1%
40.3%
1970
40.0%
5.9%
3.3%
0.6%
1.5%
5.3%
2.7%
40.6%
1971
25.4%
6.4%
3.5%
1.5%
0.7%
4.5%
4.1%
54.0%
1972
30.1%
6.2%
3.8%
3.4%
3.1%
3.5%
2.8%
47.1%
1973
36.7%
6.4%
2.6%
2.5%
0.9%
3.7%
1.6%
45.7%
1974
34.2%
5.7%
6.5%
3.0%
1.8%
1.6%
2.8%
44.5%
1975
37.6%
6.7%
3.1%
3.6%
1.4%
5.2%
0.1%
42.3%
1976
31.7%
7.6%
4.8%
6.0%
0.6%
7.9%
0.7%
40.6%
1977
34.7%
5.6%
4.4%
6.3%
0.8%
9.8%
1.0%
37.3%
1978
35.3%
11.7%
5.0%
2.1%
1.3%
5.5%
0.2%
38.8%
1979
31.6%
8.2%
6.8%
3.8%
0.6%
4.9%
0.3%
43.7%
1980
35.1%
8.2%
7.7%
6.1%
0.2%
4.7%
0.4%
37.6%
1981
25.6%
10.0%
8.1%
6.7%
0.4%
5.8%
0.7%
42.6%
1982
37.6%
7.8%
5.2%
6.4%
1.2%
3.4%
0.4%
38.0%
1983
34.0%
8.8%
6.1%
6.3%
0.6%
7.4%
0.4%
36.3%
1984
36.3%
10.4%
5.6%
5.3%
1.0%
3.5%
0.4%
37.6%
1985
35.9%
8.6%
9.8%
3.7%
0.9%
3.2%
0.6%
37.4%
1986
44.0%
8.4%
6.2%
2.5%
1.0%
6.1%
1.6%
30.2%
1987
39.2%
8.7%
9.4%
2.5%
0.9%
2.1%
0.6%
36.7%
1988
44.3%
6.9%
7.9%
3.3%
0.5%
5.5%
0.9%
30.6%
1989
43.3%
9.0%
7.8%
3.9%
0.2%
1.7%
0.7%
33.5%
1990
39.8%
9.7%
10.4%
2.6%
0.6%
3.2%
0.8%
32.9%
1991
39.8%
9.3%
10.8%
2.1%
0.3%
1.9%
1.6%
34.2%
1992
42.2%
8.4%
7.7%
3.2%
1.3%
3.1%
1.0%
33.0%
1993
37.9%
10.7%
8.9%
2.9%
3.2%
2.1%
1.0%
33.2%
1994
42.2%
8.7%
8.2%
1.5%
2.8%
1.2%
1.7%
33.7%
1995
38.9%
6.6%
13.3%
2.3%
2.6%
3.6%
1.4%
31.2%
1996
45.7%
8.0%
7.7%
1.3%
1.8%
1.1%
1.0%
33.4%
1997
47.9%
7.9%
4.7%
2.4%
0.3%
1.6%
0.6%
34.5%
1998
44.7%
7.6%
8.3%
1.0%
0.2%
1.2%
2.4%
34.5%
1999
49.1%
9.5%
10.0%
1.6%
0.0%
1.9%
1.0%
26.8%
2000
45.5%
10.0%
8.4%
2.0%
0.2%
2.1%
0.5%
31.3%
2001
48.1%
8.2%
6.0%
2.2%
0.1%
1.8%
0.2%
33.3%
2002
48.4%
11.2%
8.0%
1.5%
0.1%
1.8%
0.3%
28.7%
2003
49.9%
13.2%
7.6%
1.2%
0.2%
1.1%
0.7%
26.1%
2004
48.9%
13.7%
8.3%
1.2%
0.0%
2.3%
0.8%
24.8%
2005
46.9%
14.3%
7.2%
2.5%
0.1%
1.8%
0.6%
26.5%
2006
48.3%
13.5%
8.5%
1.4%
0.1%
1.2%
1.3%
25.7%
2007
47.2%
14.5%
8.5%
2.5%
0.3%
2.8%
1.0%
23.0%
Total Papers
Wtd Avg
40.2%
8.5%
6.8%
2.5%
0.8%
3.1%
1.6%
36.4%
Papers
with No
Citations
15
16
20
14
17
10
16
18
12
8
4
6
5
1
5
1
4
3
2
2
1
2
1
1
0
4
0
0
0
1
3
5
2
0
3
0
1
7
2
2
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
218
Total
Number of
Papers
57
60
70
88
93
72
87
80
90
95
83
87
86
73
68
62
87
96
79
89
90
97
113
86
107
121
99
101
108
116
152
115
120
122
121
119
131
127
119
152
118
125
171
173
157
144
165
143
5114
Table 2
Proportion of Citations made by Papers Published in Top Accounting Journals by Research Topic
This table shows the proportionate amount of citations made by top accounting journals (Accounting, Organizations, and Society, Contemporary
Accounting Research, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Journal of Accounting Research, Review of Accounting Studies, and The Accounting
Review) from 1960 to 2007 for papers with at least one U.S. author, broken out by research topic (Panel A) then by decade for each topic (Panels B to
G). Proportions are calculated based on the total citations. Other Academic Journals represents an aggregate of remaining academic citations from
law, sociology, education, health, and miscellaneous disciplines, and Other Citations represents an aggregate of all other citations (accounting
regulations, books, working papers, etc.).
Panel A: Citations by Topic
Topic
Financial Accounting
Managerial Accounting
Auditing
Tax
Control/Governance
Other Topics
Number
of Papers
2577
741
684
237
34
623
Accounting
43.1%
34.5%
44.0%
36.3%
27.6%
32.9%
Finance
12.2%
4.1%
1.8%
9.1%
18.2%
5.6%
Economics
6.5%
10.6%
3.7%
8.6%
13.8%
5.6%
Psychology
1.2%
4.3%
5.1%
1.5%
1.4%
3.5%
Statistics
0.8%
1.0%
1.0%
0.6%
0.1%
0.9%
Management
1.3%
9.2%
1.8%
0.9%
3.0%
5.6%
Other
Academic
Journals
1.2%
1.9%
1.1%
1.3%
1.3%
4.0%
Other
Citations
33.8%
34.4%
41.5%
41.7%
34.6%
42.0%
Management
1.8%
3.1%
1.2%
0.9%
0.6%
Other
Academic
Journals
3.9%
1.4%
0.5%
0.8%
0.6%
Other
Citations
53.3%
43.8%
32.9%
27.5%
25.1%
Panel B: Financial Accounting by Decade
Decade
1960's
1970's
1980's
1990's
2000's
Number
of Papers
334
408
497
610
728
Accounting
34.7%
33.8%
41.1%
46.9%
50.3%
Finance
3.0%
10.2%
13.8%
13.0%
15.6%
Economics
2.3%
4.6%
7.5%
8.5%
7.0%
Psychology
0.2%
1.8%
2.3%
1.0%
0.6%
Statistics
0.7%
1.3%
0.7%
1.4%
0.1%
Panel C: Managerial Accounting by Decade
Decade
1960's
1970's
1980's
1990's
2000's
Number
of Papers
113
139
164
182
143
Accounting
38.1%
32.5%
33.4%
31.6%
38.7%
Finance
4.7%
4.9%
4.0%
3.3%
3.8%
Economics
3.6%
5.3%
8.8%
17.5%
14.6%
Psychology
0.3%
6.0%
7.4%
2.7%
4.5%
Statistics
1.9%
1.6%
0.4%
1.0%
0.1%
Management
6.1%
10.7%
13.1%
7.1%
8.6%
Other
Academic
Journals
5.7%
1.0%
1.0%
1.6%
1.2%
Other
Citations
39.7%
38.0%
31.9%
35.1%
28.4%
Management
3.8%
3.1%
2.1%
1.3%
1.0%
Other
Academic
Journals
3.7%
1.3%
0.4%
1.5%
0.5%
Other
Citations
65.0%
47.8%
46.0%
38.0%
32.0%
Management
1.7%
2.6%
0.9%
0.3%
0.9%
Other
Academic
Journals
5.3%
0.8%
0.7%
0.7%
1.1%
Other
Citations
66.0%
50.3%
47.8%
37.2%
32.7%
Panel D: Auditing by Decade
Decade
1960's
1970's
1980's
1990's
2000's
Number
of Papers
33
91
186
223
151
Accounting
25.0%
40.5%
38.0%
45.9%
54.7%
Finance
0.0%
0.7%
1.6%
1.9%
3.2%
Economics
0.0%
1.7%
3.5%
5.1%
4.1%
Psychology
0.9%
3.7%
7.3%
5.0%
4.3%
Statistics
1.7%
1.1%
1.1%
1.2%
0.2%
Panel E: Tax by Decade
Decade
1960's
1970's
1980's
1990's
2000's
Number
of Papers
26
14
42
85
70
Accounting
23.7%
35.8%
31.4%
38.7%
41.2%
Finance
2.5%
3.9%
6.3%
9.6%
13.7%
Economics
0.9%
4.4%
10.7%
10.9%
8.1%
Psychology
0.0%
1.1%
1.4%
1.5%
2.1%
Statistics
0.0%
1.1%
0.7%
1.1%
0.1%
Panel F: Control/Governance by Decade
Decade
1960's
1970's
1980's
1990's
2000's
Number
of Papers
0
1
2
6
25
Accounting
n/a
8.0%
6.7%
26.0%
30.5%
Finance
n/a
4.0%
7.9%
18.0%
19.6%
Economics
n/a
0.0%
39.3%
9.0%
13.4%
Psychology
n/a
8.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.5%
Statistics
n/a
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
Management
n/a
0.0%
1.1%
4.2%
3.0%
Other
Academic
Journals
n/a
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.8%
Other
Citations
n/a
80.0%
44.9%
42.8%
30.0%
Management
3.9%
9.0%
8.5%
3.3%
2.3%
Other
Academic
Journals
10.7%
3.5%
1.1%
2.4%
0.9%
Other
Citations
57.5%
43.6%
34.7%
39.3%
29.3%
Panel G: Other Topics by Decade
Decade
1960's
1970's
1980's
1990's
2000's
Number
of Papers
140
124
137
147
75
Accounting
24.5%
28.7%
33.0%
39.4%
42.3%
Finance
0.5%
4.2%
6.0%
6.8%
13.7%
Economics
0.9%
4.7%
9.3%
5.6%
9.1%
Psychology
0.8%
5.4%
7.0%
1.8%
2.2%
Statistics
1.2%
0.9%
0.4%
1.4%
0.1%
Panel A: Citations by Methodology
Topic
Archival
Experimental
Field Study
Review
Survey
Theoretical
Normative
Number
of Papers
2134
745
66
124
156
844
827
Accounting
45.3%
36.7%
27.6%
41.8%
30.3%
40.0%
32.8%
Finance
14.4%
3.1%
3.2%
7.0%
3.1%
5.9%
2.6%
Economics
6.2%
5.0%
5.0%
5.9%
2.8%
14.6%
2.9%
Psychology
0.4%
9.5%
7.3%
5.0%
8.0%
0.8%
1.7%
Statistics
0.7%
1.0%
0.1%
0.9%
0.7%
1.2%
0.7%
Management
1.2%
3.0%
17.6%
4.0%
13.0%
3.3%
4.9%
Other
Academic
Journals
0.9%
1.3%
1.8%
1.1%
3.4%
1.1%
4.3%
Other
Citations
30.9%
40.5%
37.4%
34.4%
38.8%
33.0%
50.1%
Management
2.7%
2.1%
1.3%
1.1%
0.8%
Other
Academic
Journals
4.0%
1.5%
0.5%
0.8%
0.7%
Other
Citations
53.2%
42.3%
33.2%
29.2%
26.1%
Panel B: Archival by Decade
Decade
1960's
1970's
1980's
1990's
2000's
Number
of Papers
59
219
433
651
772
Accounting
26.2%
33.9%
43.1%
47.6%
49.3%
Finance
8.3%
12.5%
14.5%
13.4%
16.4%
Economics
5.0%
5.2%
5.9%
6.5%
6.4%
Psychology
0.0%
0.7%
0.9%
0.2%
0.2%
Statistics
0.6%
1.7%
0.6%
1.2%
0.2%
Panel C: Experimental by Decade
Decade
1960's
1970's
1980's
1990's
2000's
Number
of Papers
36
140
214
200
155
Accounting
29.6%
29.3%
35.0%
38.0%
45.7%
Finance
3.2%
4.4%
2.4%
2.6%
3.5%
Economics
1.7%
2.0%
3.9%
7.9%
6.2%
Psychology
4.2%
8.9%
10.4%
9.1%
10.3%
Statistics
2.5%
1.2%
0.6%
1.7%
0.1%
Management
2.8%
4.9%
3.4%
1.8%
2.4%
Other
Academic
Journals
3.1%
2.1%
0.7%
1.4%
0.9%
Other
Citations
53.0%
47.3%
43.6%
37.5%
30.9%
Management
n/a
27.9%
20.9%
11.9%
16.2%
Other
Academic
Journals
n/a
0.6%
2.1%
2.4%
1.0%
Other
Citations
n/a
11.0%
29.9%
50.7%
42.0%
Management
1.6%
5.2%
4.9%
3.4%
2.3%
Other
Academic
Journals
3.0%
0.3%
1.0%
2.7%
0.1%
Other
Citations
63.4%
45.6%
32.4%
35.9%
22.5%
Panel D: Field Study by Decade
Decade
1960's
1970's
1980's
1990's
2000's
Number
of Papers
0
6
23
19
18
Accounting
n/a
23.3%
29.5%
27.5%
26.9%
Finance
n/a
11.3%
2.3%
1.4%
3.5%
Economics
n/a
9.4%
5.4%
1.7%
6.4%
Psychology
n/a
16.4%
10.0%
4.3%
3.9%
Statistics
n/a
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
Panel E: Review by Decade
Decade
1960's
1970's
1980's
1990's
2000's
Number
of Papers
5
22
46
23
28
Accounting
27.1%
30.6%
42.7%
38.2%
54.6%
Finance
1.5%
5.3%
4.9%
9.2%
10.8%
Economics
2.4%
3.4%
6.8%
4.9%
8.1%
Psychology
1.1%
7.9%
7.2%
2.8%
1.6%
Statistics
0.0%
1.6%
0.2%
3.0%
0.0%
Panel F: Survey by Decade
Decade
1960's
1970's
1980's
1990's
2000's
Number
of Papers
10
35
48
30
33
Accounting
6.1%
25.6%
29.2%
34.6%
40.7%
Finance
0.0%
4.8%
3.1%
1.4%
3.5%
Economics
3.3%
2.7%
3.3%
1.7%
2.8%
Psychology
0.0%
7.1%
14.2%
4.8%
5.5%
Statistics
1.4%
0.7%
0.3%
1.5%
0.2%
Management
9.8%
13.5%
15.5%
8.6%
13.5%
Other
Academic
Journals
21.2%
2.3%
1.5%
3.8%
1.3%
Other
Citations
58.2%
43.3%
32.9%
43.6%
32.4%
Management
6.5%
5.3%
2.8%
2.7%
1.3%
Other
Academic
Journals
4.6%
1.3%
0.3%
1.1%
0.7%
Other
Citations
40.1%
38.9%
37.2%
29.3%
25.0%
Management
2.8%
7.9%
11.9%
4.5%
5.2%
Other
Academic
Journals
5.9%
2.0%
1.3%
2.6%
0.8%
Other
Citations
54.0%
48.5%
33.8%
50.4%
42.8%
Panel G: Theoretical by Decade
Decade
1960's
1970's
1980's
1990's
2000's
Number
of Papers
48
206
172
255
163
Accounting
34.9%
39.2%
33.9%
40.7%
48.0%
Finance
7.2%
6.1%
6.6%
4.5%
6.8%
Economics
6.0%
6.3%
16.4%
19.6%
18.0%
Psychology
0.0%
1.3%
1.3%
0.6%
0.3%
Statistics
0.7%
1.6%
1.5%
1.4%
0.0%
Panel H: Normative by Decade
Decade
1960's
1970's
1980's
1990's
2000's
Number
of Papers
488
149
92
75
23
Accounting
33.3%
31.9%
30.2%
32.0%
40.3%
Finance
1.5%
3.6%
6.0%
3.2%
5.6%
Economics
1.3%
3.1%
9.3%
4.3%
4.6%
Psychology
0.2%
2.7%
7.2%
3.0%
0.6%
Statistics
1.1%
0.3%
0.3%
0.1%
0.1%
Table 4
Proportion of Citations made by Papers Published in Top Accounting Journals by Journal
This table shows the proportionate amount of citations made by top accounting journals (Accounting, Organizations, and Society,
Contemporary Accounting Research, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Journal of Accounting Research, Review of Accounting
Studies, and The Accounting Review) for papers with at least one U.S. author, broken out journal. Panel A presents aggregate results
from 1960 to 2007. Panels B to G show proportions for each journal separately, by decade. Proportions are calculated based on the
total citations. Other Academic Journals represents an aggregate of remaining academic citations from law, sociology, education,
health, and miscellaneous disciplines, and Other Citations represents an aggregate of all other citations (accounting regulations,
books, working papers, etc.).
Panel A: Summary of Top Six Accounting Journals
Journal
AOS
CAR
JAE
JAR
RAST
TAR
Number of
Papers
Accounting
520
30.2%
527
48.0%
536
43.8%
1469
39.5%
208
49.8%
1636
39.0%
Finance
4.3%
8.6%
18.1%
9.0%
11.5%
6.0%
Economics Psychology
4.2%
9.4%
8.8%
2.3%
10.8%
0.1%
7.2%
2.2%
9.6%
0.2%
4.8%
1.8%
Statistics
0.2%
2.9%
0.2%
0.8%
0.2%
0.8%
Other
Academic
Management Journals
13.5%
1.9%
1.6%
1.3%
0.8%
0.8%
1.7%
1.0%
0.8%
1.8%
2.7%
2.5%
Other
Citations
36.2%
26.5%
25.4%
38.7%
26.0%
42.5%
Panel B: Accounting, Organizations, and Society, by Decade
Decade
1970's
1980's
1990's
2000's
Number of
Papers
Accounting
59
27.9%
193
30.4%
169
28.6%
99
34.1%
Finance
7.5%
4.7%
2.7%
4.2%
5.4%
12.8%
4.8%
13.7%
2.5%
5.0%
5.5%
6.2%
Statistics
0.1%
0.3%
0.0%
0.1%
Other
Academic
Management Journals
28.6%
2.0%
15.9%
1.7%
6.7%
2.6%
11.5%
1.2%
Other
Citations
15.5%
28.4%
51.8%
37.2%
Panel C: Contemporary Accounting Research, by Decade
Decade
1980's
1990's
2000's
Number of
Papers
Accounting
101
41.2%
237
47.8%
189
52.0%
Finance
7.3%
9.6%
8.1%
9.7%
2.6%
10.0%
2.1%
6.6%
2.4%
Statistics
1.2%
5.8%
0.1%
Other
Academic
Management Journals
3.1%
1.8%
1.4%
1.9%
1.1%
0.4%
Other
Citations
33.2%
21.4%
29.4%
Panel D: Journal of Accounting and Economics, by Decade
Decade
1970's
1980's
1990's
2000's
Number of
Papers
Accounting
8
17.8%
102
37.1%
228
45.7%
198
46.2%
Finance
20.6%
17.6%
16.4%
20.3%
19.7%
0.0%
11.3%
0.0%
10.3%
0.1%
10.7%
0.2%
Statistics
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
Other
Academic
Management Journals
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
0.1%
0.9%
0.4%
0.5%
1.7%
Other
Citations
41.6%
32.6%
26.0%
20.2%
Other
Academic
Management Journals
2.7%
3.9%
2.5%
1.5%
1.1%
0.2%
1.9%
0.6%
0.6%
0.3%
Other
Citations
53.0%
46.5%
37.6%
33.0%
29.1%
Panel E: Journal of Accounting Research, by Decade
Decade
1960's
1970's
1980's
1990's
2000's
Number of
Papers
Accounting
147
29.1%
331
33.2%
433
40.7%
294
45.4%
264
44.8%
Finance
4.5%
7.4%
9.1%
7.2%
15.5%
4.1%
1.2%
4.7%
2.7%
7.8%
2.6%
9.3%
2.4%
8.6%
1.0%
Statistics
1.4%
1.5%
0.8%
0.2%
0.1%
Panel F: Review of Accounting Studies, by Decade
Decade
1990's
2000's
Number of
Papers
Accounting
59
43.6%
149
52.2%
Finance
6.3%
13.6%
12.9%
0.1%
8.3%
0.3%
Statistics
0.3%
0.1%
Other
Academic
Management Journals
1.2%
4.6%
0.7%
0.7%
Other
Citations
31.0%
24.0%
Other
Academic
Management Journals
3.2%
6.3%
4.4%
1.7%
1.7%
0.4%
1.2%
0.4%
1.6%
0.5%
Other
Citations
52.9%
45.0%
42.8%
35.9%
27.0%
Panel G: The Accounting Review, by Decade
Decade
1960's
1970's
1980's
1990's
2000's
Number of
Papers
Accounting
499
33.0%
379
35.0%
199
37.1%
266
42.6%
293
52.1%
Finance
2.0%
6.4%
7.7%
7.3%
9.6%
1.4%
0.1%
3.7%
2.5%
6.0%
3.5%
10.0%
2.0%
6.6%
2.4%
Statistics
1.0%
1.3%
0.8%
0.5%
0.2%
Table 5
Research Topic by Decade and Journal
This table shows the proportion of papers published by topic in top accounting journals (Accounting, Organziations, and
Society, Contemporary Accounting Research, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Journal of Accounting Research,
Review of Accounting Studies, and The Accounting Review) for papers with at least one U.S. author, from 1960 to 2007.
Panel A presents aggregate results by decade. Panel B presents aggregate results by journal. Panels C to H show results for
each journal separately, by decade.
Panel A: Summary of Top Six Accounting Journals, by Decade

Decade
1960's
1970's
1980's
1990's
2000's
Number of Papers
792
810
1038
1278
1196
Financial
48.6%
52.8%
48.3%
48.4%
61.2%
Managerial
16.7%
17.4%
15.9%
14.6%
12.0%
Audit
4.8%
11.9%
17.9%
17.9%
12.6%
Tax
3.9%
2.1%
4.0%
6.7%
5.9%
Governance
0.0%
0.1%
0.2%
0.5%
2.1%
Other
26.0%
15.7%
13.7%
11.7%
6.3%
Governance
1.1%
0.0%
2.7%
0.5%
0.5%
0.3%
Other
30.9%
3.8%
24.2%
8.4%
0.5%
14.4%
Panel B: Summary of Top Six Accounting Journals, by Journal

Journal
AOS
CAR
JAE
JAR
RAST
TAR
Number of Papers
524
532
557
1529
210
1762
Financial
16.6%
58.1%
52.8%
59.0%
83.8%
50.9%
Managerial
33.8%
10.3%
9.5%
12.0%
10.5%
15.8%
Audit
15.8%
22.2%
4.3%
15.4%
3.8%
13.1%
Tax
1.7%
5.6%
6.5%
4.8%
1.0%
5.4%
Panel C: Accounting, Organizations, and Society, by Decade

Decade
1970's
1980's
1990's
2000's
Number of Papers
60
196
169
99
Financial
20.0%
16.3%
15.4%
17.2%
Managerial
26.7%
38.3%
26.6%
41.4%
Audit
11.7%
15.3%
19.5%
13.1%
Tax
0.0%
1.5%
0.6%
5.1%
Governance
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
5.1%
Other
41.7%
28.6%
37.3%
18.2%
Governance
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Other
4.0%
4.5%
2.6%
Governance
0.0%
0.9%
2.5%
4.0%
Other
37.5%
28.7%
26.9%
18.1%
Panel D: Contemporary Accounting Research, by Decade

Decade
1980's
1990's
2000's
Number of Papers
101
242
189
Financial
59.4%
63.6%
50.3%
Managerial
14.9%
7.0%
12.2%
Audit
20.8%
19.8%
25.9%
Tax
1.0%
5.0%
9.0%
Panel E: Journal of Accounting and Economics, by Decade

Decade
1970's
1980's
1990's
2000's
Number of Papers
8
108
242
199
Financial
50.0%
58.3%
45.0%
59.3%
Managerial
12.5%
1.9%
14.9%
7.0%
Audit
0.0%
5.6%
4.5%
3.5%
Tax
0.0%
4.6%
6.2%
8.0%
Panel F: Journal of Accounting Research, by Decade

Decade
1960's
1970's
1980's
1990's
2000's
Number of Papers
178
353
434
300
264
Financial
52.8%
58.4%
56.9%
53.3%
73.9%
Managerial
19.7%
13.9%
11.3%
10.0%
7.6%
Audit
3.9%
14.7%
18.4%
23.7%
9.8%
Tax
6.2%
0.6%
3.7%
11.3%
3.8%
Governance
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
2.3%
Other
17.4%
12.2%
9.7%
1.7%
2.7%
Tax
0.0%
1.3%
Governance
0.0%
0.7%
Other
1.7%
0.0%
Tax
3.3%
3.9%
8.5%
9.0%
6.8%
Governance
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
0.0%
1.7%
Other
28.5%
14.4%
4.5%
1.9%
3.1%
Panel G: Review of Accounting Studies, by Decade

Decade
1990's
2000's
Number of Papers
59
151
Financial
74.6%
87.4%
Managerial
18.6%
7.3%
Audit
5.1%
3.3%
Panel H: The Accounting Review, by Decade

Decade
1960's
1970's
1980's
1990's
2000's
Number of Papers
614
389
199
266
294
Financial
47.4%
53.0%
49.7%
47.4%
59.5%
Managerial
15.8%
19.3%
12.1%
18.0%
11.6%
Audit
5.0%
9.5%
24.6%
23.7%
17.3%
Table 6
Research Method by Decade and Journal
This table shows the proportion of papers published by research method in top accounting journals (Accounting, Organizations,
and Society, Contemporary Accounting Research, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Journal of Accounting Research,
Review of Accounting Studies, and The Accounting Review) for papers with at least one U.S. author, from 1960 to 2007. Panel A
presents aggregate results by decade. Panel B presents aggregate results by journal. Panels C to H show proportions for each
journal separately, by decade.
Panel A: Summary of Top Six Accounting Journals, by Decade

Decade
1960's
1970's
1980's
1990's
2000's
Number of Papers
792
810
1038
1278
1196
Archival
9.6%
28.3%
42.1%
52.1%
64.7%
Experimental Field Study

4.9%
0.0%
17.9%
0.9%
20.6%
2.2%
15.8%
1.5%
13.0%
1.5%
Review
0.8%
2.8%
4.6%
1.9%
2.3%
Survey
1.6%
4.3%
4.6%
2.3%
2.8%
Theoretical Normative
6.4%
76.6%
25.8%
20.0%
16.6%
9.2%
20.5%
5.9%
13.7%
2.0%
Panel B: Summary of Top Six Accounting Journals, by Journal

Journal
AOS
CAR
JAE
JAR
RAST
TAR
Number of Papers
524
532
557
1529
210
1762
Archival
10.7%
48.9%
81.9%
47.8%
63.3%
31.0%

19.8%
12.0%
18.8%
0.8%
0.7%
0.0%
20.1%
0.0%
2.4%
0.0%
13.3%
0.0%
Review
6.5%
2.1%
5.9%
1.8%
0.0%
1.3%
Survey
14.3%
2.4%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
3.7%
4.6%
32.1%
25.2%
1.9%
11.1%
0.4%
20.3%
9.5%
34.3%
0.0%
14.5%
36.2%
Panel C: Accounting, Organizations, and Society, by Decade

Decade
1970's
1980's
1990's
2000's
Number of Papers
60
196
169
99
Archival
8.3%
9.2%
10.7%
15.2%

11.7%
11.7%
23.5%
11.7%
16.6%
11.2%
23.2%
14.1%
Review
5.0%
7.7%
4.7%
8.1%
Survey
16.7%
13.3%
9.5%
23.2%
5.0%
41.7%
1.5%
33.2%
10.1%
37.3%
1.0%
15.2%
Panel D: Contemporary Accounting Research, by Decade

Decade
1980's
1990's
2000's
Number of Papers
101
242
189
Archival
36.6%
50.4%
53.4%

8.9%
0.0%
18.6%
0.0%
24.3%
2.1%
Review
3.0%
2.5%
1.1%
Survey
5.9%
1.7%
1.6%
39.6%
5.9%
26.0%
0.8%
16.4%
1.1%
Panel E: Journal of Accounting and Economics, by Decade

Decade
1970's
1980's
1990's
2000's
Number of Papers
8
108
242
199
Archival
62.5%
79.6%
83.5%
81.9%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
0.0%
1.0%
0.0%
Review
0.0%
7.4%
2.9%
9.0%
Survey
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
37.5%
0.0%
11.1%
1.9%
12.8%
0.0%
8.0%
0.0%
Panel F: Journal of Accounting Research, by Decade

Decade
1960's
1970's
1980's
1990's
2000's
Number of Papers
178
353
434
300
264
Archival
24.7%
36.0%
45.4%
55.0%
75.0%

17.4%
0.0%
25.2%
0.0%
24.9%
0.0%
19.7%
0.0%
8.0%
0.0%
Review
2.2%
2.3%
3.5%
0.3%
0.0%
Survey
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.3%
0.4%
13.5%
42.1%
21.5%
15.0%
22.4%
3.9%
23.7%
0.0%
16.3%
0.4%
Survey
0.0%
0.0%
54.2%
0.0%
26.5%
0.0%
Survey
2.1%
6.4%
8.0%
2.3%
2.0%
4.4%
86.6%
32.6%
21.6%
10.1%
3.0%
18.0%
3.8%
11.2%
2.0%
Panel G: Review of Accounting Studies, by Decade

Decade
1990's
2000's
Number of Papers
59
151
Archival
42.4%
71.5%

3.4%
0.0%
2.0%
0.0%
Review
0.0%
0.0%
Panel H: The Accounting Review, by Decade

Decade
1960's
1970's
1980's
1990's
2000's
Number of Papers
614
389
199
266
294
Archival
5.2%
23.7%
49.7%
50.4%
64.3%

1.3%
0.0%
12.6%
0.0%
25.6%
0.0%
24.8%
0.0%
20.4%
0.0%
Review
0.3%
3.1%
3.5%
0.8%
0.0%

Characterizing Accounting Research - SSRN

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Characterizing Accounting Research - SSRN

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats