The Journal of Financial Reporting (JFR) is the academic journal of the Financial Accounting and Reporting Section of the American Accounting Association. JFR’s target audience is financial reporting researchers. JFR will publish two regular issues each year. JFR will also occasionally publish themed issues dedicated to studies that launch a new question or move the literature forward in an existing area.

JFR is open to research on a broad spectrum of financial reporting issues related to the production, dissemination, and analysis of information produced by a firm’s financial accounting and reporting system. Appropriate topics include accounting standard setting, the production and dissemination of accounting information, the relation between financial information and firm policies such as compensation and corporate governance, the role of financial intermediaries, and analysis by decision-makers such as equity investors, creditors, and analysts.

JFR welcomes research that employs empirical archival, analytical, and experimental methods, and especially encourages less traditional approaches such as field studies, small sample studies, and analysis of survey data. JFR also especially encourages “innovative” research, defined as research that examines a novel question or develops new theory or evidence that challenges current paradigms, or research that reconciles, confirms, or refutes currently mixed or questionable results.

JFR has a wide-ranging definition of research that constitutes a high-quality contribution to a body of scholarly work and JFR is willing to give weight to innovation and thought-provoking ideas when evaluating papers. At the same time, JFR maintains the highest standards for execution quality.

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/aaajfir. This site as well as the journal homepage (https://aaahq.org/Research/Journals/Journal-of-Financial-Reporting) 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 coauthored a paper with an author. 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 single-blind. Protecting the anonymity of 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 review, as outlined above, is an overview of the actual process. 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.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

JFR’s co-editors have discretion over the content of each regular issue. The primary content will be discovery research. Not all types of manuscripts will be represented in every issue and JFR will not have distinct sections dedicated to specific types of content.

Original Discovery Research

Studies can use various methods, including analytical models, empirical analysis of archival data or data from experiments, surveys, and field studies. JFR welcomes short articles as appropriate to convey the main idea in a manuscript.

Perspectives and Discussions

JFR will include articles that are thought-provoking about a new issue in financial reporting or suggest directions for future research (“Perspectives”). JFR will also include summaries of lessons learned from existing research (“Discussions”). Most Perspectives and Discussions will be solicited, but the JFR is open to unsolicited submissions of Perspectives and Discussions

Replications

Replications include a partial or comprehensive repeat of an experiment that sustains as many conditions as possible but uses a different sample. The sample employed in the replication should be at least as “strong” as the original sample. JFR also uses the term “Replication” to describe an archival empirical analysis that primarily performs the same analysis as an existing study but adds, for example, another control variable or additional sensitivity analysis, or uses a slightly different sample.

Replications are expected to be short. The Introduction should provide a limited review of the essential features of the analysis being replicated: the research issue addressed, the contribution of the original article, and the key differences between the manuscript’s analysis and the replicated study. The remainder of the paper need only provide a limited summary of the analysis that restates the central theory and hypotheses or research questions addressed in the replicated study. Authors should provide more detail about the sample, if using a new sample is the purpose of the replication, or about any new variables. Sufficient results should be presented to support conclusions drawn regarding the comparison of the results of the current paper to the replicated study.

Comments on Previously Published Papers

Authors who wish to comment on previously published articles should first communicate directly with the author(s) of the original article to eliminate any misunderstandings or misconceptions. If substantive issues remain after the initial exchange of views with the author(s), the Commentator may submit the proposed Comment to the JFR. The correspondence between the Commentator and the author(s) of the original article should be submitted as a supplementary file. Comments will generally be reviewed by two reviewers, usually including an author of the original article to ensure that the Comment represents the prior article accurately and an additional reviewer who is independent of the original article. If a Comment is accepted for publication, then the original author will generally be invited to reply.

Commentaries

JFR’s co-editors will have the discretion to write Commentaries or to invite other researchers, including the manuscript’s reviewers, to provide Commentaries to accompany some discovery research articles. Commentaries can provide: (1) a balanced exposition for studies that present results or ideas that conflict with existing evidence or paradigms; (2) independent and objective insights about how the findings in an individual paper can be a meaningful contribution when viewed as part of the broader literature; and/or (3) emphasis on the limitations of an article. Commentaries are expected to be short (one or two pages).

The editor in charge of a paper will provide the authors of the original discovery research with the opportunity to review and respond to the draft of a Commentary on their article before the Commentary is published. The purpose of the response is to correct misunderstandings and incorrect facts or to raise alternative views to a point made in the Commentary. The editor makes a decision to publish the Commentary as is, recommend/require modifications, or reject the proposed Commentary taking into account the feedback from the original authors. In exceptional cases, the original authors may ask that their response be published as a “Rebuttal.” This situation should be unusual because Commentaries are commonly written by one of the paper’s reviewers and the authors have had a chance to respond to the reviewer’s concerns. If, however, the authors believe the Commentary mischaracterizes or misrepresents their article, they can ask to publish a Rebuttal. Rebuttals should be short and they should focus on major issues not on countering each individual point. The editor in charge of the paper can reject a Rebuttal or recommend/require modifications. Commentaries (and Rebuttals, if published) will appear in the same issue as the original article except in unusual circumstances.

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