Current Issues in Auditing is published by the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association. To promote timely, widespread dissemination of ideas to the academic and practice communities, the journal is published online and is free to all interested parties

Current Issues in Auditing is devoted to advancing the dialogue between academics and practitioners on current issues facing the auditing practice community (e.g., new opportunities and challenges, emerging areas, global developments, effects of new regulations or pronouncements, and effects of technological or market developments on audit processes). We define "auditing practice" broadly to include practice-related issues in external auditing, internal auditing, government auditing, IT auditing, assurance services, and related fields.

The journal seeks short, well-written papers from academics, practitioners, and regulators addressing timely issues facing the auditing practice community. Papers should be a maximum of 2,500 words of text and should not include complex statistics or models. Authors should strive to produce papers that are broadly understandable by the practice community and contain a substantive, relevant message for those interested in auditing practice. Submissions may include short, practice-oriented cases for classroom use. Practitioners are strongly encouraged to submit papers, as are author teams that include both academics and practitioners.

Submitted papers will be double-blind reviewed by two qualified reviewers under the direction of a co-editor. The journal’s editorial board includes members from the academic, practice, and regulatory communities. The primary criteria for acceptance of a submitted paper by Current Issues in Auditing are (1) addressing an auditing practice issue that would be of interest to practitioners and academics, (2) a new and substantive message, and (3) effective, concise writing

In addition to unsolicited papers that will be double-blind reviewed, the co-editors also may invite commissioned papers from thought leaders in the academic, practice, and regulatory communities. The coeditors or editorial board members will editorially review commissioned papers.

SUBMISSION OF MANUSCRIPTS

The following guidelines should be followed for submitting manuscripts:

1. Manuscripts are submitted using the Manuscript Submission and Peer Review System, at https://www.editorialmanager.com/ciia. This site as well as the journal homepage (https://aaahq.org/Research/Journals/Current-Issues-in-Auditing) contains detailed instructions regarding the preparation of files for submission. To ensure anonymous review, the title page is submitted as a separate file from the manuscript text. All authors are notified by email when a paper has been successfully submitted.
2. Submitting authors are required to enter a valid ORCID during submission. All co-authors will be asked to confirm authorship. Co-authors are encouraged to provide an ORCID.
3. Manuscripts under consideration by another journal or other publisher should not be submitted. The submitting author will be asked to verify this during the web-based submission process.
4. For manuscripts reporting on field surveys or experiments: Please ensure that reporting of descriptive statistics and of models and tests of hypotheses is complete. For experimental papers, this would generally include: (1) reporting standard deviation and cell sizes in any tables of means, (2) including degrees of freedom along with any reported test statistics that have degrees of freedom, whether in the tables, footnotes, or text, and (3) ensuring ANOVA, MANOVA, ANCOVA, etc., tables are complete, including all estimated terms, including the error term, along with the associated degrees of freedom. Note that if test statistics and associated degrees of freedom are reported in the tables, authors need not repeat this material in the text. For example, authors could provide only the p-values for effects (tests) of interest in the text, if desired. If the additional documentation (e.g., questionnaire, case, interview schedule) is sent as a separate file, then all information that might identify the author(s) must be deleted from the instrument.
5. Manuscripts that report surveys, interviews, qualitative studies, or experiments utilizing human subjects must verify approval by the institution at which the experiment took place. This includes manuscripts reporting quantitative data or testing the use of cases or instructional resources (e.g. surveys, interviews or quotes from students, faculty or others about the materials being tested). Notation of approval should be made within the manuscript. In addition, the submitting author will be asked to verify approval during the web-based submission process. Before submission, please refer to the disclosure on human subject research below in Additional Information.
6. Authors are responsible for recognizing and disclosing any financial or non-financial conflicts of interest that could be perceived to bias their work. Conflict of interest disclosures include, but are not limited to, grants or research funding, employment, affiliations, patents, inventions, honoraria, stock options/ownership, royalties, and consultancies. Authors must (1) indicate whether there are conflicts of interest in the cover letter, (2) include definitive disclosure statements for each author on the separate title page after the acknowledgements, and (3) during submission, affirm that disclosures have been made for each author. The existence of a conflict of interest does not preclude publication in the journal.
7. Authors are also responsible for disclosing any potential conflict of interest that might prevent an unbiased review. Potential conflicts for editor or reviewer assignments include when an editor or reviewer (1) is an author of the paper; (2) has a personal relationship with an author that prevents the editor or reviewer from being objective; (3) chaired an author’s dissertation committee or an author chaired the dissertation committee of the editor or reviewer; (4) works at the same institution as an author, or worked at the same institution within the last five years; or (5) has co-authored a paper with an author. Note, this may not be an exhaustive list. For example, for case studies or learning strategies a conflict is presumed to exist when an editor or reviewer has helped the authors with their efficacy and/or data. Authors are requested to complete and submit an Author Conflict of Interest form upon submission.
8. Authors need to disclose the use of generative AI and AI-assisted tools in their work. Use of AI and AI-assisted writing tools must be consistent with the AAA policies on Authorship and Plagiarism, as well as other requirements listed in the AAA’s Publications Ethics for Academic Research .
9. All journal submissions require payment of a non-refundable submission fee, with AAA members paying a reduced amount as a member benefit. Payments can be made at https://my.aaahq.org/Shop/Product-Catalog.
10. Revisions should be submitted within the deadline requested by the journal or the editor, otherwise they will be considered new submissions, requiring a new submission fee.

REVIEW PROCESS

The review process consists of the following:

1. The editor reviews the submitted manuscript for proper format and consistency with the mission of the journal. The author(s) is notified if the manuscript is deemed inappropriate for further consideration.
2. Manuscripts that pass the initial review are sent to a minimum of two reviewers for formal review. The editor is responsible for ensuring reviewers have the appropriate expertise to review the manuscript and have no conflicts of interest. Editorial board members serve as the primary panel of reviewers, though ad hoc reviewers with appropriate expertise may be asked to review. All reviews are double-blind. Protecting the anonymity of authors and reviewers is one of the most critical goals of the editorial process.
3. The editor evaluates comments and recommendations of the reviewers and informs the author(s) of the decision regarding the publication of the manuscript (reject, accept, or revise/resubmit). The editor’s decision and comments, without identifying information, are forwarded to the reviewers.
4. Requested revisions are returned to the same reviewers. In addition to the revised manuscript, the author(s) should submit responses to the reviewer comments that restate the comments and identify how and where the comment is addressed in the revision.
5. The process will continue as described above until a final publication decision is made.
6. All decisions are final and not subject to appeal.
7. Consistent with our Publication Ethics policy on plagiarism all articles are automatically processed through CrossCheck prior to publication to identify text taken from published and unpublished works, print or digital, that is not properly cited or quoted. Authors are responsible for obtaining reprint permissions. For a full version of the Plagiarism policy, please refer to the American Accounting Association’s Publications Ethics for Academic Research .

The process described above is a general one. The editor may, in some circumstances, vary this process at his or her discretion. Through its constructive and responsive editorial procedures, the journal aims to render research efforts relevant and rewarding for all concerned.

Human Subject Research Disclosure

Many approaches to accounting research involve interactions with, and about, human beings. Given the general rise in hybrid, multi-method, and blended research projects, many accounting research projects are now subject to human participant review. Broadly speaking, any research that involves interactions with human participants, even tangentially, are subject to country-specific government rules and regulations.

In the US, rules promulgated by the FDA of the US government (HRP-001) set out the following definitions:

Universities are generally responsible for enforcing these rules and regulations for all researchers affiliated with the university, and researchers are often required to obtain training on IRB regulations. Researchers are responsible for familiarizing themselves with the appropriate rules and regulations before undertaking a research project. If human subjects are involved in any way—as a participant in a lab experiment, a respondent to a survey, a focus of an interview, or as the result of an intervention associated with a field experiment–it is highly likely that the project will require review by the researcher’s university-based Institutional Review Board (IRB). Projects by accounting researchers may be exempt from IRB review or eligible for an expedited review process. However, the decision to obtain an IRB review is not the researcher’s and it is always best, when in doubt, to obtain an assessment from the local IRB.

Failure to obtain appropriate clearance from the IRB of an author’s university is grounds for a desk reject of a submitted paper. Personal assurance from an author is not adequate support for waiving this policy. Authors should be aware that different universities may have different approaches to IRB approval, including whether all authors have to seek IRB approval at their local institution. Further, US-based researchers normally need local IRB approval for cases where the human participants are in different countries or legal jurisdictions. Author teams composed entirely of non-USA based authors must comply with the local equivalence to US IRB rules and be prepared to offer proof of such clearance. This policy statement does not substitute for an assessment by the local IRB and, if in doubt, always obtain clearance from your local IRB.

For more information, please refer to the Human Subjects Research policy in the American Accounting Association’s Publications Ethics for Academic Research.

Updated July 2024