The composition of editorial boards in accounting: a UK perspective

Purpose – The purpose of this research is to examine the composition of the editorial boards of 60 academic accounting journals with a particular focus on the university affiliations of editorial board members. The role of ad hoc reviewers is then analysed. Design/methodology/approach – A detailed content analysis of the members of the 60 editorial boards was conducted. The authors concentrated on UK universities and journals, but also provide some data on non-UK schools and journals. Findings – There were six main findings. First, editorial appointments were normally held by nationals of the country where the journal was published. Second, US academics had a significant presence on all boards. Third, there was a lack of penetration of UK academics, particularly on US or high quality boards. Fourth, overseas academics were present in significant numbers on UK boards. Fifth, editorial board appointments tended to be concentrated in a limited number of institutions and individuals. Sixth, journals, particularly generalist journals, used reviewers extensively. Practical implications – This research will inform the debate about the degree of influence which UK academics have on journal research agendas and on the international stage. The findings show that journal editorial boards do not capture all high ranking institutions and individuals. Editors could consider widening the scope of their editorial board opportunities. Originality/value – This is the first comprehensive study into the editorial boards of accounting journals. It shows the presence of an editorial board elite.Academic staff, Accounting, Boards of directors, Serials

Measuring research quality: peer review 1, citation indices 0

This short note adds to the debate on the most effective way in which to measure research quality. A survey of UK accounting academics shows that peer reviews are perceived to be more important than citation indices. This result is also true when the respondents were partitioned by seniority, institution and research activity.Citation indices Peer review Research quality