Abstract
This analysis advances faithful representation of statistical evidence as a substantive basis for assessing accounting journal research quality. The analysis builds upon recent work by Cready et al. (2019) indicating that accounting research articles commonly misrepresent null outcomes in their abstracts. Our analysis exploits this reporting deficiency to objectively assess journal reporting quality. The analysis determines misrepresentation rates for five leading general interest academic accounting journals based on direct review of article abstract contents. While all five of these journals commonly publish articles with containing such misrepresentations, the relative frequencies with which they do so differ considerably among them. Moreover, the resulting rankings vary from those commonly reported in existent accounting journal quality and impact assessments. The analysis also finds that financial and archival studies are less prone to statistical evidence misrepresentation while audit and experimental studies are more prone to engaging in such misrepresentation.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.