Financial Accounting Standards Research Initiative

I like the idea, IF the FARS section starts their own journal. Otherwise, I could see editors sending tax, audit, systems, etc. to the section journals and not doing the same thing for the financial journals. All ready review reports come back saying “this article is better suited for a section journal” (although I do recognize and commend the current editor for his work in changing this) for non-financial articles. I think without a financial section journal this tendency would grow. Note: there would be a problem with BRIA which is not topical but methodological based…what do you do with it?

In addition, why reuse reviewers? Why couldn’t one set of reviewers review the paper and offer an opinion for publication in TAR and a separate opinion for publication in the section journal. That way a “base hit” (as Steve Kachelemeier) calls it would not have to use more review time and undergo the additional time required for a separate evaluation to be published in a section journal.

Or even more drastic, why have a “single” top tier AAA journal? What would happen if we went to “The Accounting Review – Financial,” “The Accounting Review – Audit,” etc. This may solve several problems, although it would undoubtedly raise others.

The big drawback to the method done in Economics is that it gives more power to fewer people. If you don’t like the opinion at TAR you can currently go to a completely separate journal with a separate evaluation. Combining the journals (or quasi-combining them) would enhance problems if an editor were to be biased for/against certain types of research for publication in all AAA journals–that would be very scary if you are untenured and working in an area that was not appreciated by the editor.