This paper presents rankings of accounting journals disaggregated by topical area (AIS, audit, financial, managerial, tax, and other) and methodology (analytical, archival, experimental, and other). We find that only for the financial topical area and archival methodology does the traditional top-3 characterization of the best journals accurately describe what journals publish the most-cited work. For all other topic areas and methodologies, the top-3 characterization does not describe what journals publish the most-cited work. For only analytical research does the traditional top-6 journal characterization accurately describe what journals publish the most-cited work. In AIS, the traditional top-3/-6 journals are even less representative, as only one traditional top-3 journal is listed among the six journals publishing the most-cited AIS work, and only three of the traditional top-6 journals are in this list. In addition to creating journal rankings using citations, we create rankings using a unique measure of the attention given by stakeholders outside of the academy. With this measure we find similar results; the traditional top journals are not publishing the articles that receive the most attention in some topical areas. The results call into question whether individuals and institutions should rely solely on the traditional top-3/-6 journal lists for evaluating research productivity and impact. JEL Classifications: M4; M40; M41; M42; M49. Data Availability: Requests for data may be made to the authors.

No abstract

No abstract

This study experimentally investigates the effects of confirmation bias underlying staff-level tax research on supervisors' initial assessments and recommendations made during the review process for tax research memoranda. The theoretical framework underlying our hypotheses posits that tax professionals strive to make recommendations that meet both accuracy and advocacy objectives. Participants in our study addressed a client scenario in which both objectives could not be met because the client-preferred position did not have a “realistic possibility” of being successfully defended on its merits. In this context, we find that supervisors are more persuaded by an unbiased memo correctly concluding that the client-preferred position is not appropriate than by a biased memo reaching the same conclusion. This result suggests that when tax research memoranda are not consistent with the client advocacy objective, professionals are more persuaded by memoranda that fulfill their accuracy objective. On the other hand, we also find that supervisors are more persuaded by a biased memo incorrectly concluding in favor of the client's preferred position than by a biased memo correctly concluding that the client-preferred position is inappropriate. This result suggests that, when neither memorandum meets the accuracy objective, supervisors are more persuaded by memoranda that offer encouragement that their advocacy objective might be met than by those that do not. Finally, results also indicate that supervisors act to correct confirmation bias by requesting more rework of staff who prepare biased memos than of staff who prepare unbiased memos.

No abstract