Return
to the Table of ContentsThis report is prepared for the Section business meeting in Chicago and presents an overview of activities for Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory for the three years ending June 1, 1996. During this period the Section membership has received five regular issues (Spring 1994, 1995 and 1996 and Fall 1994 and 1995) and two supplements (the USC and Waterloo Symposia issues). At this time the Fall 1996 issue is in production and papers for the 1995 Waterloo Symposium are ready to be typeset.
All of the above are the joint product of many individuals including
the authors, the editorial review board and ad hoc referees. The efforts
of the previous editor, Joe Schultz, and the coordinator of the Waterloo
Symposium, Morley Lemon, deserve special acknowledgment.
Statistical Overview
As I have mentioned in each of my reports, every reporting period is
somewhat of an anomaly; thus a statistical overview requires some interpretation
and annotation. Based on my discussions with members, the aspects that
are of most interest include submission rates, review-time and acceptance
rates.
Annual Submission Statistics
In the recent past, the journal has received approximately 90 new manuscripts to process each year. In addition, approximately 35% of the papers are revised and resubmitted; thus the editorial review board processes about 130 papers each year.
As is evident in table 1, new submissions may be classified as regular or symposium. One anomaly in the tables relates to this distinction. Symposium submissions are those that pass a screen by the university hosting the Symposium and that are sent on to the editor for editorial board input. In the past, the universities (Waterloo and USC) played a larger role in the screening process and a small percent of submitted manuscripts were sent on to the editor. During 1995 the procedures were changed with the submitted Symposium papers now receiving formal editorial board review.
It is evident from table 1 that in the spring of 1995 the Waterloo Symposium
attracted a number of papers that normally would be submitted as regular
submissions.
Table 1
Annual Submission of New Manuscripts
Regular Symposia Year Submissions Submissions Total 1993/94 83 11 94 1994 66 37 103 1995/96 78 0 78
Submissions and Processing Time
During my first year as editor, the time span from submission to decision was in some cases quite lengthy. This was a result of factors such as learning which reviewers provide timely responses; using three reviewers for each manuscript (normally 2 academics and 1 practitioner); adding a number of referees from our international membership and the disruption resulting from the Northridge earthquake. Thanks largely to efforts of the review board and better use of technology, both the average review time and time to either a first or ultimate decision has been reduced. For example, as indicated in table 2, average time to an initial decision was 3.2 months during the most recent year for papers where an initial decision has been made.
Use of three referees provides additional information for each round
and seems to facilitate decision. During 1993/94 and 1994/95, decisions
were reached by the end of the first or second round of review in 92% and
93% of the submissions respectively.
Table 2
Submissions and Processing Times for Regular Submissions
Manuscripts Time to an Activity Period Submitted Initial Decision 7/1/93 to 6/30/94 83 5.6 months 7/1/94 to 6/30/95 66 4.2 months 7/1/95 to 6/30/96 87 3.2 months
Acceptance Rates
Table 3 reports the submission and acceptance rates for all new manuscripts
received in 1993/94 and 1994/95. Ultimate acceptance rates will probably
range between 18 and 20 percent for these two years.
Table 3
Summary of Acceptance Rates
# of New Activity Manuscripts Period Submitted Accepted Rejected Revise/WIP 7/1/92 to 6/30/94 83 20% 80% 0% 7/1/94 to 6/30/95 66 12% 80% 8%
Return
to the Table of Contents