Successful authors’ views on the editorial review processes of accounting journals

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to report successful authors’ views about the editorial review processes of a set of 42 accounting journals. The two main objectives are: to enlighten editors and journal publishers in their quest to improve their journals’ editorial review processes and to inform prospective authors about the past experiences successful authors have had with the 42 accounting journals. Design/methodology/approach – A Webmail survey was used to collect data about authors’ experiences with publishing in one of the 42 accounting journals. A total of 856 responses (40 per cent response rate) was received. Various statistical analyses were used to explore a range of editorial review process features, including the timeliness of editorial feedback, timeliness of publishing accepted manuscripts, quality of the feedback provided and performance of the editor. Findings – Authors were found to be generally quite satisfied with the editorial review processes of the journals in which they published. There were, however, notable leaders and laggards observed among the 42 journal titles. The survey findings also revealed that many journals use the practice of basing their editorial decisions on the comments of a single reviewer. In fact, this practice is most prevalent among the journals that are commonly perceived as the field’s “top” journals. These and other editorial review results – for example, comparisons between journal-tiers, geographical locations of editorial review offices and journal specialties – are discussed. Originality/value – This paper extends and moves well beyond Adler and Liyanarachchi (2011), by exploring such additional author perceptions of the editorial review process as the performance of journal editors, the use of multiple reviewers and reviewers’ reporting of the typical faults/weaknesses in the papers they read. Exposing to public scrutiny an academic discipline’s editorial review processes is quite common in some fields of research, most notably medicine. Doing so in the accounting discipline addresses a need that many of the respondents felt was highly necessary and long overdue. While authors will benefit from the paper’s insights, editors and publishers are expected to as well.