Comparing the Publication Process in Accounting, Economics, Finance, Management, Marketing, Psychology, and the Natural Sciences

Abstract

I present two types of data about the publication and review process in the accounting, economics, finance, management, marketing, psychology, and natural science disciplines. First, I collect all articles published in 2012 in top tier journals of these disciplines and compare the articles based on word counts, figures and tables included in each article, the time it took to be published, citations, the number of co-authors, and submission fees. I then survey academics in each discipline. Survey questions were designed to evaluate overall perceptions of the review process; changes in the review process in the last 5 years; opinions about appropriate acceptance rates; assessment of reviewers and editors; and general assessments of reviewers and the review process, faculty evaluation, and journals. While there are many results, key results for the accounting discipline include very low citation patterns relative to other disciplines, a belief that reviewers have not improved in the last 5 years, a desire for acceptance rates twice as high at the top-tier journals, and that reviewers focus too much on incremental contribution and rigor and not enough on research that contributes to practice. Additional results are presented and discussed.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 90 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.