Search

The purpose of this paper is to provide advice to accounting doctoral students and new accounting Ph.D.s on managing the review process. We also hope that our advice and suggestions will assist more experienced accounting faculty in their research endeavors. We offer suggestions from the point of view of researchers at various stages in their career. We also interview a variety of current and former journal editors and provide their suggestions and insights. We first provide suggestions to help position the article so as to receive a more helpful review. We then discuss strategies for responding to the editorial process and provide specific advice for handling various editorial decisions including a rejection, a reject-and-resubmit, a revise-and-resubmit, and an acceptance. We build upon prior research by providing a summary of advice for each type of editorial decision and by providing advice and suggestions from editors and associate editors at a wide range of accounting journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We offer this paper as a primer for accounting doctoral students and new faculty on how to discuss a paper. We believe that this topic can serve to "jump start" the engagement of students and junior faculty in developing and delivering quality discussions. We begin by emphasizing the importance and benefits of being a good discussant to both the profession and the discussant. We then outline the discussion process and provide detailed suggestions on points to consider in each phase of this process: (1) volunteering to discuss, (2) receiving the discussion assignment, (3) preparing the discussion, (4) presenting the discussion, and (5) following up with the authors after the discussion. Next, we examine data that highlight the need for additional discussant volunteers at conferences. Finally, we present possible innovations to foster high-quality discussions. This paper formalizes the ideal process typically learned through years of mentoring and conference experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper introduces the review process to new researchers, describes the institutional background for reviews, and provides advice to reviewers. The objectives of a quality review are (1) to assist the editor in his/her gatekeeping role, and (2) to assist the authors in improving their work. We argue that the review process plays a critical role in the dissemination of research that ultimately provides credibility to the body of academic knowledge. This process relies on expert, anonymous reviews by established researchers (typically those who have already published in top journals on similar topics). Because reviewers are relatively scarce, and anonymous, the review process also relies on the personal ethics of reviewers. Invitations to review should only be accepted if the researcher has the skill, time, objectivity, and inclination to do a quality review. A quality review should consider the contribution, execution, and conclusions of the paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]