 |
An International Meeting of American Accounting
Association
|
An Examination of the Peer Review Process in Accounting |
Charles D. Bailey
The University of Memphis
Dana R. Hermanson
Kennesaw State University
Timothy J. Louwers
James Madison University
Abstract: The study examines faculty perceptions of the peer review process in accounting journals by an anonymous online survey. We find that (a) accounting faculty are fairly positive about the review process overall; (b) the greatest perceived problems are institutional favoritism by editors, editors selecting biased reviewers, and editors allowing “slowpoke” delays; (c) editors/associate editors of high-level or top-tier journals and chair holders are most positive about the process, while respondents from Ph.D. granting institutions and those submitting to top-tier journals are least positive; (d) editorial board members of high-level or top-tier journals, chair holders, associate professors, and those submitting to top-tier journals view some of issues as less serious than do others; (e) respondents’ suggestions focus on timeliness, reducing favoritism, and blindness of reviews (some call it anachronistic, others vital); and (f) most respondents favor providing reviewers clear guidance.