Suchergebnisse

The Role of Case Studies in Effective Data Sharing, Reuse and Impact

ABSTRACT
Using the design science methodology, we develop an automated grading bot using robotic process automation (RPA) software. This grader demonstrates RPA's capability to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of grading structured query language (SQL) queries. Validation of the RPA grader demonstrates that it can grade assignments and/or exams in 30 to 60 minutes, a task that would take a human grader approximately 50 hours. In contrast to human graders, who misgraded 5 to 8 percent of queries, the RPA grader graded all queries correctly. Notably, it correctly evaluated 188 distinct correct solutions submitted by students to a single question. To facilitate broad adoption, we provide instructions and the necessary code for implementing the RPA grader. We validate that professors and teaching assistants can successfully implement the RPA grader even with no previous bot building experience.

Brood-parasitic brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater) have been implicated as a cause of songbird population declines. Cowbirds can have particularly severe negative impacts on already endangered hosts. Removal of cowbirds by trapping has become a popular management action to benefit hosts. Cowbird trapping often decreases parasitism frequency and can help to increase the reproductive success of hosts. However, its role in the recovery of host populations is equivocal. Based on our experience at Fort Hood Military Reservation, Texas, the site of a long-term, landscape-scale trapping program, we discuss factors that we believe are important for the success of a trapping program (e.g., timing of trapping). Although cowbird removal is generally accepted as a songbird conservation tool, its use is not without controversy. So, we also review some of the economic, ethical, legal, and scientific issues associated with cowbird trapping. Ultimately, our continued ability to remove cowbirds as a tool for songbird conservation may depend on the resolution of these controversies. Although cowbird removal may not be a viable long-term solution to songbird population declines in of itself, it can be an integral part of integrated songbird management strategies.

ABSTRACTThis paper ranks individual accounting researchers based on their research productivity in the most recent six, 12, and 20 years. We extend prior individual faculty rankings by providing separate individual faculty research rankings for each topical area commonly published in accounting journals (accounting information systems [AIS], audit, financial, managerial, and tax). In addition, we provide individual faculty research rankings for each research methodology commonly used by accounting researchers (analytical, archival, and experimental). These findings will be of interest to potential doctoral students and current faculty, as well as accounting department, business school, and university administrators as they make decisions based on individual faculty members' research productivity.JEL Classifications: M4, M40, M41, M42, M49.Data Availability: Requests for data may be made to the authors.

ABSTRACT: This paper makes two novel contributions to ranking accounting research programs constructed from publication counts in top journals (AOS, Auditing, BRIA, CAR, JAE, JAR, JATA, JIS, JMAR, RAST, and TAR). In contrast to previous studies, we recognize the mobility of intellectual assets tied to the human capital of accounting researchers, and therefore base our rankings on the researchers' current affiliations rather than their affiliations at the time of publication. Also, we categorize each article written by topical area (auditing, financial, managerial, accounting information systems, tax, and other) and by methodology (analytical, archival, experimental, and other) and provide separate accounting program rankings by topical area and by methodology. These two innovations provide a rich, centralized information resource for decision-makers—both institutional and individual—in choosing how to allocate time, resources, and expertise.

ABSTRACT
We update the Wood (2016) survey about academics' perceptions of the review and publication process. We find that accounting academics generally perceive the overall process has not improved or has become worse since 2015. Respondents think acceptance rates in top journals should nearly double, there is too much focus on publishing in top journals, and top journals favor certain topic areas and methodologies. They also believe that reviewers and editors underweight practice relevance and overweight the criteria of incremental contribution, method, and rigor. These opinions are held more strongly by new assistant professors than prior assistant professors, suggesting the rising generation has stronger negative views of the publication process than the past generation. The perceptions are also held by the leaders of the journals, suggesting the results are not the opinions of a few disgruntled academics. We provide additional commentary about changes the academy should consider based on these results.

ABSTRACTThis paper reports perceptions of over 1,000 accounting faculty regarding 12 accounting journals, specifically in how open they are to: (1) diverse topic areas, (2) diverse research methodologies, how effectively they produce new and useful knowledge for (3) non-academic stakeholders, and (4) academics. We find that the traditional Top 6 journals do not lead the academy along these four dimensions; in fact, some are viewed as the worst performers in these areas. Furthermore, we find that academics have a relatively poor understanding of the actual diversity of several journals. We also report how the academy perceives each journal's current value and how each journal should be valued when evaluating faculty on research productivity. We find that respondents believe the traditional Top 6 journals are and should continue to be weighted highly in faculty evaluation, but that the other journals should receive greater weighting.

ABSTRACTMany question the value of accounting scholarship to society. We compare the attention the general public, policymakers, and academics give to academic accounting research relative to other business disciplines and other more general disciplines (economics, psychology, and other sciences). The results indicate that accounting research receives significantly less attention from the general public than all other disciplines and also performs relatively poorly in receiving policymakers' attention compared to both economics and finance. Within accounting subtopics, tax research receives more attention from the general public and policymakers than other topic areas. We also find that articles in other disciplines' elite journals cite relatively few of accounting's elite-level publications, but non-elite journal articles cite accounting research in similar numbers to other disciplines. Finally, we rank scholars, institutions, and journals by the attention they receive. We discuss how these findings could impact accounting education.Data Availability: Requests for data may be made to the authors.

ABSTRACTThe primary purpose of this study is to update the Glover et al. (2006) publication benchmarking study by providing benchmarking statistics of faculty promoted to associate and/or full professor from 2004 to 2009. We also extend Glover et al. (2006) by examining new benchmarking metrics and by investigating publication productivity differences between studies. Our results indicate that, on average, faculty promoted from 2004 to 2009 had more publications in leading accounting journals at the time of promotion than faculty promoted from 1995 to 2003. We explore possible explanations for the increase in publication productivity. We find that increases in the time to promotion, number of total published journal articles, and number of co-authors can explain some, but not all of the observed increase in publication productivity. Finally, we find that publication records at the time of promotion are similar between public and private institutions within similar university publication productivity portfolios.Data Availability: Data used in this paper are available from the authors upon request.

ABSTRACTPrevious rankings of accounting literature have largely ignored the subtopic of accounting education research. Given the important role that rankings play in creating incentives and benchmarks, ranking education research may improve both the quality and quantity of research in this subtopic. This paper ranks academic institutions and individual accounting researchers based on their production of accounting education research. We show that the correlation between education research rankings and singular, noneducation research rankings is very low (i.e., ranges from 0.20 to 0.31), emphasizing the importance of considering education rankings separately from other topical areas in accounting research. We also provide evidence of the institutional factors that contribute to producing accounting education research and when professors produce this type of research in their careers. These findings will likely be of interest to current faculty, administrators, and industry leaders as they make decisions based on accounting education research.JEL Classifications: M4; M40; M41; M49.Data Availability: Requests for data may be made to the authors.