(Partial reproduction of the Letter published in the EAA Newsletter No. 52, December 2015)
Dear EAA Members, EAR Readers, Authors and Reviewers:
It is with some emotion that I address this first letter to you, only a short time before the start of my mandate as Editor of the European Accounting Review. First of all I would like to most sincerely thank the Members of the EAA Publications Committee and the EAA Management Committee who have shown their great trust in me by assigning me this noble task.
This task is also challenging because EAR has an excellent international reputation and is known to be an open-minded generalist accounting publication outlet. I am following in the footsteps of prestigious Editors (Ann Jorissen, Anne Loft, Peter Walton, Kari Lukka, Salvador Carmona and Laurence van Lent) who have all been working to the successful development of the journal, resulting in its current enviable position of being highly regarded and well respected in the academic community. The journal has been included in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) for several years now and it is more and more frequently classified in the best categoryFootnote1. From a practical point of view, the journal is very well managed with very “reasonable” Footnote2 response times to the authors, as can be seen in the statistics provided by all successive EditorsFootnote3. The statistics presented each year during the annual congress of the Association also show a wide thematic and epistemological variety as well as a geographic diversity of the authors.
In this letter I would therefore like to share with you some ideas that are close to my heart and that will guide my actions during the four years of my mandate in order to maintain and, if possible, to reinforce these established strengths, such as maintaining the high quality level of the journal, and hopefully even increase its reputation and renown worldwide.
Respect for Diversity
The first strength of EAR appears at the beginning of its “Aims & Scope”: “openness and flexibility, not only regarding the substantive issues of accounting research, but also with respect to paradigms, methodologies and styles of conducting that research”. I would summarize this statement as respect towards diversity (topics, methodologies, etc.).
As an international association's journal, respect for diversity is of utmost importance. Diversity of methodologies in research and diversity of sub-field contents within the ever more complex accounting world: financial reporting, financial analysis, auditing, governance, managerial accounting and control, taxation, social and environmental reporting, accounting and information systems, public sector accounting, accounting education, international accounting, analytical research, experimental research, behavioural accounting, critical and interdisciplinary accounting, online and XBRL reporting, gender issues, etc. I strongly commit to maintain and to reinforce this spirit of diversity. I am fully aware that being a “generalist” accounting publication makes EAR both an original and challenging journal as its quality and reach must draw the potential authors to choose it over more specialized publications.
International Visibility
As mentioned above, thanks to the tremendous efforts of past Editors, EAR is now included in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) and belongs to a very limited list of accounting journals therein (24 journals, to be precise, as of August 2015)Footnote4. This recognizes the international visibility of EAR and is the acknowledgement of its high quality in the growing field of knowledge, covering all aspects of accounting.
However, belonging to the SSCI also creates a pressure on the Editor of the journal and his or her team: how can we have the highest impact factor possible, alongside to an active policy of publishing special issues (see below)? The answer seems self-evident: to publish quality and innovative papers, which can serve as foundations for further research or provide keys to understanding important issues, thus having a high likelihood of being referenced and cited by researchers, teachers and professionals. All previous EAR Editors have focused their efforts in this direction and I can only commit to continue working in their footsteps. I will highlight below a few elements that are, in my mind, particularly important to keep the momentum going.
Team of Associate Editors and Editorial Board Members
I have built a team of 21 Associate Editors and 82 Editorial Board Members with a view to demonstrating that, as is currently the case, diversity is fully represented in EAR. In order to anticipate a (hopefully) increasing number of submissions and to take into account the increasing workload of the Associate Editors and Editorial Board Members, I thank the EAA Publications Committee and the EAA Management Committee for having allowed me to increase my team with a few more members. I realise that I am very lucky to have within this team outstanding scholars, who have accepted to play a role in EAR, despite their heavy (not to say overloaded) work schedules, because they have an excellent opinion about EAR and EAA.
The international diversity among the team members should also contribute to the international visibility of EAR.
A Well-Managed Journal
A key metric of efficiency of the work-flow management of EAR is the number of days between submission and editorial decision. As mentioned above, EAR has always been well managed. All statistics published by the Editors show that EAR has a very low average number of days of work in process, which places it among the best managed journals and one for which the decisions are achieved in the shortest time.
A speedy decision is very important for authors who always have a choice between different journals or outlets. The efficient management of EAR is something acknowledged in our community. Of course, good management is necessary but not necessarily sufficient to attract high quality papers. I commit to do all that is possible to maintain this quick turnaround for editorial decisions.
Constructive Reviews
If authors are happy to get a clear decision in a reasonable period of time, it is even more important to provide them with constructive feedback, in all cases, including rejection decisions. Year after year, Editor after Editor, the Editorial team of EAR has built a group, or rather a community, of reviewers who do a wonderful job in respecting deadlines and providing extremely constructive feedback. This quality of EAR is, ever more, acknowledged by our colleagues. Authors often compare EAR to others journals which do not offer the same (positive) characteristics, and this leads them to consider EAR as a preferred outlet for their submissions.
I commit to maintaining this excellent situation and will do my best to enlarge the pool of high quality reviewers, which should hopefully come along with an increase in the number of submissions.
Considering that EAR is an Association journal, and after discussion with several of my Associate Editors, I have decided to call upon two reviewers for each submission (allowing for some exceptions). I am aware of the difficulty of finding reviewers for some papers but I believe that the feedback of two reviewers is important and that the extra effort will be well worth it.
Generating Submissions of High Quality Papers
To have an efficiently managed journal and to provide constructive reviews written by dedicated and competent reviewers is, as already mentioned, necessary but not sufficient to attract high quality papers. Generating submissions has always been a major challenge for Editors. Some actions are considered as part of the core responsibilities of the position and have already been adopted by the past EAR Editors. I plan to continue their good work in this regard: availability to participate in Editors' panels, active participation in congresses (in particular, of course, the EAA and AAA annual meetings), availability for meeting constituents at annual meetings and other events if attending, and organization of special issues managed by Associate Editors or Guest Editors.
In order to increase the number of high quality papers submitted to EAR, I plan to follow two possible directions:
− Special issues/special sections/special debating forums on path-breaking or “hot” topics with invited and/or selected papers.
− EAR workshops or conferences, linked to special issues and not conflicting with the EAA annual congress, with a limited number of articles selected and a fast-track process for publication after the workshop or meeting. The conference papers could be assigned formally to discussants, and the discussion could also be published alongside the original paper.
It goes without saying that, as EAR Editor, I will push for the submission and publication of innovative, original, and mind-changing papers. Being able to attract papers that really make a contribution and are useful to the academic community is clearly the main task of the Editor. I do believe that an open-minded approach about research topics and methodologies, combined with a rigorous review process, will encourage authors to reveal their potential without self-censorship and to choose to submit their papers to EAR.
Young Scholars Track
Emerging scholars are particularly encouraged to submit their work to the Young Scholars Track. EAR is especially committed to providing emerging authors with constructive, clear and timely feedback. We encourage submissions by PhD students and non-tenured faculty. Editors and reviewers of papers submitted to the Young Scholars Track will provide the authors with feedback that either explains carefully why the paper cannot be accepted or, in case there is a path to publication, what the authors need to do to pass the publication threshold.
EAR and Ethics
With increasing frequency, journals encounter ethical problems such as plagiarism, self-plagiarism, data fabrication, simultaneous submission of the same paper to two journals, resubmission of a previously rejected paper to the same journal (without the consent of the Editor), etc. Even if this letter is not the place to discuss the causes of the development of these phenomenaFootnote5, it is the duty of an Editor to be aware of their existence and to do the maximum to fight them.
In order to fight plagiarism, self-plagiarism and resubmission to EAR of a previously rejected paper by EAR (without the consent of the Editor), EAR has signed a partnership agreement with Urkund, one of the leaders in plagiarism detection, allowing EAR to use their platform. This partnership will take effect on 1st January 2016. Thereafter all papers submitted to EAR will undergo the scrutiny of the Urkund software.
Similarly, fighting data fabricationFootnote6 is also becoming mandatory. This is why as a policy EAR will require the following two measures from the author(s) when submitting or resubmitting a paper:
− An official statement proclaiming that all authors have had access to the basic data as concerns the paper and any subsequent treatments;
− The advance approval of the author(s) to give EAR reviewers access to their data, should such a request be made of them during the review process.
For certain papers, the use of online supplemental material should be noted. This material allows authors to not only provide additional elements related to the paper, while respecting the number of pages limitation, but also to contribute to transparency by providing e.g. the robustness tests often referred to in papers, which were previously not readily accessible.
Finally, simultaneous submission of the same paper to two journals is more difficult to detect as this would require a coordinated effort between the journals in question, and such a scheme is currently lacking. Luckily, as the academic world is relatively small, this type of double submission is often detected given that the same reviewer(s) is/are called upon by different journals.
To close off this theme, may I remind you that EAR subscribes to the COPE Publication Ethics guidelinesFootnote7, thus signalling its intention to follow the highest standards of publication ethics.Footnote8 Severe sanctions can be inflicted on the authors (affecting the whole team of authors and not just the corresponding author) notably including the banning or blacklisting of paper submissions for several years.
Use of Social Media
One potential area of further development for EAR is the use of social media. More and more academic journals are using this type of media to increase their visibility and impact. I would strive to implement and develop these tools, beginning with a Facebook page.
Transition Policy
Papers submitted during Laurence van Lent's tenure will continue to be handled by the originally assigned (Associate) Editor, if a first-round decision has been made.
Conclusion
To conclude I would like the EAR community to be aware that they are most welcome to send their remarks any time, comments or questions to my email address ([email protected]).
Looking forward to serving as the EAR Editor for the next four years – as well as to a great collaboration with the authors, readers, and the entire team, in ensuring the continued success of EAA's journal.
Notes
1See Laurence van Lent, “News from European Accounting Review”, EAA newsletter 50, May 2015, available at: https://gallery.mailchimp.com/ffab1869b934ebf881c40649e/files/EAR_newsletter_may_2015_Van_Lent.pdf.
2Even if authors would like these times to be even shorter …
3See EAR, volume 24, issue 4, December.
4See: http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/publist_ssci.pdf (Last retrieved: November 25, 2015).
5The pressure to publish is certainly one of these causes.
6Phenomenon unfortunately recently exemplified by the Hunton case (see the report on this case at the following address: https://www.bentley.edu/files/Hunton%20report%20July21.pdf ) (Last retrieved: November 25, 2015).
8See Laurence van Lent, “Letter from the European Accounting Review Editor”, EAA newsletter 44, Issue 4 2013, available at: http://www.eaa-online.org/userfiles/file/EAA-Newsletter-Nr44-2013.pdf