Examining the use of Accounting Information in Planned Careers: A Group Project to more Fully Engage Students in Introductory Accounting Courses

Most undergraduate business students are required to complete one or two introductory accounting courses, but many fail to see the value that such coursework offers their career (Chen, Jones, and McIntyre 2004). However, engaging students in exercises that explicitly demonstrate the link between course content and planned areas of study enhances the student experience in introductory accounting courses (Turner, Lesseig, and Fulmer 2006). This article presents a group project for introductory accounting courses that links course content to planned areas of study across business disciplines. We discuss all elements of the semester-long project and offer several tools to help with implementation (e.g., project instructions, timeline, grading rubric, peer evaluation forms). Further, we provide insight into the advantages and disadvantages of different project administration approaches. Our pre and post surveys reveal the project helps students across nearly all business majors see that accounting information is used in their planned careers at significantly higher levels than once believed. We also find that the project helps students either increase enthusiasm for their major/planned career or pushes them to consider other majors/career paths. Such insight is invaluable for students early in their business education

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.Peer reviewe

Co-authorship in accounting history: advantages and pitfalls

Relatively little has been written about co-authorship in accounting and even less specific to accounting history. This paper endeavours to track co-authorship patterns in the discipline, both quantitatively and qualitatively. The three specialist accounting history journals provide the data to render quantitative judgements, whilst a survey of accounting history scholars has generated information on how co-authorship is perceived in the field, particularly its benefits and pitfalls. A matching technique is used to gauge whether patterns in accounting history are similar to those within the broader accounting discipline. Consideration will also be given to comparisons of how co-authorship is viewed by US and non-US academicians.accounting history, co-authorship, co-authorship quantitatively and qualitatively, US and non-US co-authorship surveys,

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical science. © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press