There are few acknowledged multidisciplinary quality standards for research practice and evaluation. This study evaluates the face validity of a recently developed comprehensive quality model that includes 32 defined concepts based on four main areas (credible, contributory, communicable, and conforming) describing indicators of research practice quality. Responses from 42 senior researchers working within 18 different departments at three major universities showed that the research quality model was–overall–valid. The vast majority believed all concepts in the model to be important, and did not indicate the need for further development. However, some of the sub-concepts were indicated as being slightly less important. Further, there were significant differences concerning ‘communicable’ between disciplines and academic levels, and for ‘conforming’ between genders. Our study indicates that the research quality model proposes the opportunity to move to a more systematic and multidisciplinary approach to research quality improvement, which has implications for how scientific knowledge is obtained.

This article uses an experiment to investigate how professional financial analysts evaluate a corporate acquisition announced by an IFRS preparer. The findings suggest that professional analysts are affected by preparers' acquisition premium allocations in a potentially misleading way as the participants considered the acquisition to be value-enhancing when the premium was allocated to goodwill, but value-reducing when allocated to identifiable intangible assets. These effects were mitigated at the aggregate level when additional discounted cash flow analysis information was provided; however, there were significant differences in information search behaviour as quite many participants focused primarily on the exploitation of earnings information.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract