Perceptions of Accounting Academics on the Review and Publication Process: An Update and Commentary

Abstract

We update the Wood (2016) survey about academics’ perceptions of the review and publication process. We find that accounting academics generally perceive the overall process has not improved or has become worse since 2015. Respondents think acceptance rates in top journals should nearly double, there is too much focus on publishing in top journals, and top journals favor certain topic areas and methodologies. They also believe that reviewers and editors underweight practice relevance and overweight the criteria of incremental contribution, method, and rigor. These opinions are held more strongly by new assistant professors than prior assistant professors, suggesting the rising generation has stronger negative views of the publication process than the past generation. The perceptions are also held by the leaders of the journals, suggesting the results are not the opinions of a few disgruntled academics. We provide additional commentary about changes the academy should consider based on these results.