SYNOPSIS Submit-to-accept (STA) times in accounting journals have increased significantly over the last two decades (Hurley, Gal-Or, Knechel, and Pesch 2025). We investigate how these longer STA times affect tenure outcomes for accounting faculty in their first post-doctoral academic appointment. Understanding this relationship can help faculty and administrators more effectively anticipate the extent to which prolonged STA delays may impact the tenure process. We find that longer STA times for articles published late in the probationary period reduce the probability of an academic earning tenure at their first institution, particularly for tenure candidates hired at universities ranked below the top 15. Additionally, female candidates experiencing longer STA times are less likely to earn tenure compared with males with similar STA delays. These findings are important for journal editors, reviewers, provosts, deans, tenure committees, and tenure-track academics seeking to understand and manage the implications of lengthening publication timelines. Data Availability: The data used in this study are available from the sources indicated herein. Survey responses are available upon request from the authors. JEL Classifications: I23; M41; J44; J16; J24.

SYNOPSIS I experimentally investigate the influence of the degree heterogeneity among employees’ abilities and the salience of this knowledge on the effectiveness of relative performance information (RPI) on performance in tournaments. Consistent with predictions, results show that RPI is more motivating or effective when employees’ abilities are of similar levels, or homogeneous, and also the knowledge of abilities is more highly salient than when employee abilities are perceived as more heterogeneous. Also, making homogeneous ability salient affects high and low performers differently. The results suggest that firms should be conscious of employee ability differences when using tournament incentives. Disclosing the low ability difference benefits firms when the participating employees are relatively homogeneous in ability, whereas the cost of not disclosing becomes high among the best employees. Data Availability: Data are available from the author upon request. JEL Classifications: J24; D83; D84; M41; M52.

SYNOPSIS We examine whether adopting a promotion focus while reviewing working papers helps audit reviewers identify more inconsistencies among evidence items relative to reviewers adopting a prevention focus. A promotion focus broadens attention and encourages big picture thinking, whereas a prevention focus has the opposite effect. We expect and find that a promotion focus is a good fit for holistically attending to inconsistencies in evidence sets, improving auditor review. Our second experiment extends the first by investigating whether a promotion focus improves responses to a segmented review structure, but we find no effects of review structure while replicating the effects of promotion focus. Further, in Experiment 2 we do not replicate the initial link in our theoretical judgment process between promotion focus and holistic thinking. Overall, our findings indicate that changing the way reviewers approach their task can improve audit quality and that additional research investigating the mechanism is needed. Data Availability: Data are proprietary and not available for sharing.

SYNOPSIS This editorial is in response to the emerging issue of using artificial intelligence (AI) in academic research. We share our experience as editors in dealing with such an issue, provide a framework for understanding this issue, and encourage the academic community to ask questions about research, scholarship, and the role of humans in the world of increased availability of new technology. Our editorial should be of interest to authors, reviewers, editors, and readers of academic research as well as those who are involved in training future generations of researchers.

SYNOPSIS Addressing the risks climate change poses may involve various policy responses. This article explains how carbon taxation could serve as an effective market-based mechanism for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. By incorporating all costs of carbon into market prices, a carbon tax corrects a market failure, incentivizing cleaner production and consumption choices. Compared to alternative policies like subsidies, carbon taxes avoid market distortions and allow greater financial flexibility, as carbon taxes generate revenue that can be used elsewhere. Although implementation challenges exist, experience suggests that a well designed carbon tax can reduce emissions, offering a pragmatic tool for addressing climate change. These reductions have costs, of course, and it is a question of public policy whether the costs of a carbon tax are worth its benefits. This article is intended as a primer for students, policymakers, and practitioners, and anyone less familiar with carbon taxation, on the price-based case for carbon taxation. JEL Classifications: H23; H20; Q58; Q54.

SYNOPSIS To inform its standard setting approach and agenda, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants’ Auditing Standards Board (ASB) collaborated with three accounting academics to survey 276 U.S. auditors about the challenges and potential standard setting solutions associated with audits of less complex entities (LCEs). This study reports the results from this survey. Respondents described significant challenges associated with these audits. Most preferred the ASB issue additional guidance on scaling or modifying existing generally accepted auditing standards rather than issue a standalone LCE audit standard to converge with the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board’s approach. Consistent with practitioner preferences, the ASB declined to issue a standalone LCE audit standard. This paper discusses whether this decision portends a fracturing of the convergence ideal or merely involves an exceptional case driven by jurisdictional differences that negate the need for a standalone standard. It concludes with suggestions for future standard setting research. Data Availability: Survey data are available upon request. JEL Classifications: M4; M40; M41; M42; M48.

SYNOPSIS Artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping corporate disclosure practices, offering new efficiencies while raising regulatory, governance, and ethical challenges. We examine AI’s impact on disclosure through three lenses: practitioner insights from investor relations (IR), legal and regulatory developments, and academic research on capital markets. Drawing on a survey of IR professionals, we document cautious AI adoption, concentrated in low-risk tasks such as summarization and administrative support, alongside concerns over selective disclosure, bias, and information governance. We review emerging literature on AI’s influence on disclosure quality, internal controls, and the role of analysts and regulators. Our findings imply that although AI can enhance disclosure quality and efficiency, there remains a substantial role for governance in mitigating legal, regulatory, and informational risks. Data Availability: Data are available from the authors upon request. JEL Classifications: G14; K22; M41; M42; M48.

SYNOPSIS This study examines the relationship between the comparability of non-generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) earnings and the cost of equity capital. Using data from 1998 to 2020, we find that greater non-GAAP earnings comparability is associated with a lower cost of equity capital. Furthermore, the effect of non-GAAP comparability is in addition to and significantly greater than the effect of GAAP comparability. This suggests that investors place more weight on the comparability of non-GAAP figures in determining their required rate of return. Additional cross-sectional analyses suggest that the negative association between non-GAAP comparability and the cost of equity is more pronounced for firms with weaker information environment or those facing stronger product market competition. The findings highlight the importance of non-GAAP earnings comparability as a crucial factor affecting capital market participants. Our evidence also provides insights for policy makers seeking to improve the comparability of non-GAAP metrics. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources listed in the text. JEL Classifications: M41.

SYNOPSIS To investigate whether student expectations match with early-career realities at Big 4 and midsized audit firms, we analyze survey responses from 344 Dutch business and accounting students and 161 junior auditors. The findings reveal that students consistently misjudge key aspects of the junior auditor role: they underestimate attractive features—such as intellectual challenge, client interaction, and autonomy—and overestimate less appealing features, including repetitiveness and overtime. These misperceptions are particularly pronounced for Big 4 audit firms. Moreover, a larger expectations-reality gap for job content and organizational culture significantly decreases students’ likelihood of pursuing an audit career. Our results highlight the need to improve the accuracy of student expectations to help address the audit talent shortage. Yet, our analyses show that conventional outreach methods, with the exception of in-house days, have limited impact, suggesting a need for alternative approaches to better align student expectations with the realities of audit work. JEL Classifications: M40; M41.

SYNOPSIS Auditing standards require auditors to perform at least one fraud brainstorming session during planning. We examine the effect of a justification intervention used in preparation for a group brainstorming meeting on a novice auditor’s contributions during a face-to-face brainstorming meeting. The justification intervention involves the novice auditor documenting the reasons to discuss or not discuss a fraud risk factor in an upcoming brainstorming session. We focus on novice auditors’ subsequent contributions in a fraud brainstorming session because of their increasing audit responsibilities and because they often possess information unknown to the entire audit team due to their interactions with the client. We find that the pre-brainstorming justification intervention improves novice auditors’ brainstorming effectiveness (defined as number of quality fraud risks identified) without decreasing auditor efficiency. The results contribute to the fraud brainstorming literature and are of interest to audit practitioners and regulators as they conduct and inspect fraud brainstorming sessions. Data Availability: Data are available from the authors upon request. JEL Classifications: M41; M42; M48.