EAR Editorial Report for the Year 2012

LAURENCE VAN LENT, Editor

I am pleased to report that 2012 was another good year for European Accounting Review. We received 279 new submissions ¹. This number includes 22 manuscripts that were submitted to the special issue on The influence of political forces on financial reporting and capital market activity. The Young Scholar Track received 75 submissions, which are included in the grand total.

In 2012, the journal published 26 articles and two book reviews (after which the book review section was discontinued). The journal’s visibility and impact remain good. The 1-year impact factor over 2011 (the latest available, cites during 2011 to articles published in 2009 and 2010 divided by the total number of articles published in those two years) is 1.154. Our position relative to our closest competitor journals (CAR, TAR) has remained unchanged. Note, however, that impact factors can be quite volatile from year to year, especially for a journal newly included in the ISI citation index. The 5-year impact factor is 1.349.

Table 1 details the number and timing of submissions received throughout the year. The country of origin of the submitting authors is summarized in Table 2. Authors from Australia, Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the US are among the most frequent contributors.

Table 3 present the (self-reported) subject area of new manuscripts. Almost half of the submissions are in financial accounting, followed by work in managerial accounting (16 percent) and auditing (13 percent). The journal attracts a diverse set of papers. While 60 percent of submissions is (self-reported) empirical/archival, we also receive a nontrivial proportion of papers using field work (cases and/or survey data) and mathematical modeling. A substantial number of submissions use experiments (and these include field experiments). Finally, we received a small number of manuscripts (but of high quality) using historical methods.

The editorial team invested a great deal of effort in ensuring a good turnaround time for authors. The online submission platform has definitely smoothed the process and increased turnaround performance. In addition, however, (associate) editors and reviewers have worked hard to return high quality reports and decisions within the target 100 day timeframe. The average number of days from submission to first decision is 45. The average reviewer turnaround time is 44 days for original submissions and 32 days for revisions. Details based on manuscripts decisioned in 2012 are reported in Table 4.

About 7% of submissions (20 papers) were in review for more than 100 days (and therefore exceeded the informal target turnaround). Let me comment on these papers and provide a little more background. In one instance, the delay is because the authors appealed the original decision and the statistics are computed based on the date of the decision on the appeal. In this particular case, the appeal required a new review report. Three submissions took more than 130 days (but fewer than 160 days), all remaining manuscripts were decided within 130 days. The delays are mostly due to the assigned reviewer(s) returning their report late. Sometimes, however, a sequential reviewer might be assigned after the editor feels that the first reviewer’s report provides an insufficient basis for a decision. In a few instances, the assigned associate editor took a longer time to write a decision. This might happen for example when the (associate) editor feels that he or she needs to provide detailed comments in the letter.

Table 5 provides information on the acceptance and rejection rates. These statistics need to be interpreted with care as they only include manuscripts submitted to the current editorial team and for many papers no final decision has been made. A relatively robust statistic, however, is the percentage of papers rejected in the first round (including desk rejections), which equals approximately 70 percent. Consistent with editorial policy, all accepted papers received a favorable decision in the second or third round. The editorial team is trying to reduce the number of revision rounds by offering authors maximum feedback on the initial submission so that the revised submission is close to publication standards.

European Accounting Review relies to a great extent on the voluntary contribution from a large group of reviewers. These individuals, both ad hoc reviewers and members of the editorial board, almost without exception, write constructive, insightful and timely reports. Their efforts are greatly appreciated and are the cornerstone of the journal’s success. A complete list of reviewers is included in the first issue of the 2013 volume of the journal. The associate editors’ team too plays a vital role in the running of the journal. In 2012, Jennifer Francis stepped down due to increased administrative responsibilities at her school. Jennifer was a meticulous editor in the capital markets area for many years. Her contribution to the journal will be missed. Eddy Cardinaels, Beatriz Garcia Osma, and Guochang Zhang were appointed as associate editors. These appointments reflect in part the journal’s strategy to increase submissions of papers using experimental methods and to increase visibility in the Asian-Pacific region.

The functioning of the EAR editorial office is the responsibility of Mrs. Kristel Suijs. She deals with the initial screening of the submissions, the prepublication interface with Taylor and Francis, and she compiles the statistics for the editor’s report. She contributes in an important way in the smooth running of the day-to-day business of the journal.

European Accounting Review has a tradition of publishing special issues. The topic of the special issue is showcased during the EAA annual meeting by means of a dedicated symposium. In 2012, the symposium on Political Forces with guest-editor Joseph Piotroski and speakers Karthik Ramanna, Ahmed Tahoun, and TJ Wong was very successful. I commissioned a new special issue with guest-editors Eddy Cardinaels and Naomi Soderstrom on Accounting and Health Care. The associated symposium is scheduled for the 2014 EAA annual meeting. I have invited these guest-editors to write a survey that outlines important research questions in health care accounting, which I hope to publish in 2013 (so that the paper can provide inspiration to researchers in the area). Currently, papers are invited to a special issue on Executive Compensation and Disclosure, guest edited by Robert Goex and Fabrizio Ferri. The 2013 symposium on this special issue features as speakers Yaniv Grinstein and Wayne Guay.

EAR inaugurated an appeals procedure in 2012. I have used diverse media (including the EAA newsletter) to broadcast its existence and purpose. So far, only one appeal has been lodged. This appeal was rejected by a newly assigned editor after inviting another review report. Nevertheless, the appealing authors wrote explicitly to express their appreciation of the care exercised in the editorial process. Details on the appeals procedure are now part of the author guidelines, which are published on the Taylor and Francis website and in the back matter of the journal.

¹ These numbers exclude the revised submissions received by the Past Editor, which are under his team’s responsibility.

Table 1
Submission Timing of Papers Submitted in 2012

Table 2
Country of Origin of Corresponding Author Submitted Articles

Table 3
Original Submissions by Subject Area and Method

Submissions by subject area

Note: In two cases, the authors did not provide information about the subject area as
part of their submission, which explains why the number of papers is 277 in this table.

Submissions by method

Note: In two cases, the authors did not provide information about the method as part
of their submission, which explains why the number of papers is 277 in this table.

Table 4
Turnaround Statistics of Submissions Decisioned in 2012

Note: the editorial office started to receive submissions in November 2011. At the end of 2012, not all
submissions received in 2012 were decisioned. For these reasons, the total number of submissions with a
decision in this table is different from the 277 original submissions received in 2012.

Table 5
Decisions Statistics of Submissions Decisioned in 2012

Note: the editorial office started to receive submissions in November 2011. At the end of 2012, not all
submissions received in 2012 were decisioned. For these reasons, the total number of submissions with a
decision in this table is different from the 277 original submissions received in 2012.