Official Accounting JM Thread 2022 « Economics Job Market Rumors

2 years - 3746 posts - Latest - RSS
Thread: 1730 Goods vs 769 No Goods

Economics Job Market Rumors » Job Market » General Economics Job Market Discussion

Official Accounting JM Thread 2022

Economist
2d07

60 hours isn’t needed to publish in the top journals.

The game is rigged. So what? Do you really want to be tenured at a top school? Those people work 60+ hours a week. For what? A little extra money? Bragging rights?
Life is good at low-ranked schools. Don’t let anyone tell you differently. The pay is less, but you will probably make more per hour than faculty at top-ranked places. If you really want to be in the top school/journal club then focus on the things you can control (your work) instead of the things you can’t (the system).

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
37ba

More like 70. It takes a lot of time and effort.

60 hours isn’t needed to publish in the top journals.

The game is rigged. So what? Do you really want to be tenured at a top school? Those people work 60+ hours a week. For what? A little extra money? Bragging rights?
Life is good at low-ranked schools. Don’t let anyone tell you differently. The pay is less, but you will probably make more per hour than faculty at top-ranked places. If you really want to be in the top school/journal club then focus on the things you can control (your work) instead of the things you can’t (the system).

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
cfd1

I highly doubt grifters hired at 250k a year work more than 40 hours a week.

1 year ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
6bb6

The "proven good researchers" in this case being glorified RAs without an independent thought in the world?

Not every senior person has a big heart to listen to RAs' independent thoughts. Sometimes he listens and then the idea becomes his.

1 year ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
ca51

Excellent!

For those who think they are “locked out” of JAR/JAE here is the formula:
1- Find an institutional setting from finance or econ. Replace the dependent variable with something acctg researchers care about… analysts, voluntary disclosure, earnings management, tax avoidance, conservatism, (though not so much conservatism anymore … thanks Ross)
2- Claim the setting provides exogenous variation in a theoretical construct of interest, and that most prior research on the construct suffers from endogeneity and is therefore crap, from which we can learn nothing. Your paper is different, and not crappy like prior work, because you have exogenous variation. This allows you to draw causal inferences… when all prior work is “mere associations”.
3- Claim broad generalizable inferences that extend beyond your narrow setting. While it is true your study examines an exogenous shock to companies operating in the salt mines of Rura Pente, it can nonetheless inform us about some great underlying truth broadly applicable and holds in settings where it is yet untested. Again, assertion is key, you don’t have to know it is generalizable to assert it.
4- Add the words “The Economics of” shortly before the title. Because nothing says JAE/JAR like “The Economics of Disclosure” or “Economics of Audit Partner Tenure” or “Economics of Earnings Management” or “Economics of Tax Avoidance” or “Economics of Audit Fees”
5- Use big “econ” words like externality, spillovers, adverse selection, moral hazard, real effects, signalling, equilibrium, etc. Whether you use these terms correctly is irrelevant, what matters is that you use them.
6- No matter the topic of your paper, be sure to reference Jensen and Meckling. They showed that incentives matter. No matter the setting you have, I’m pretty sure that incentives matter. So Jensen and Meckling motivated your predictions..
7- Include about 2 tables of descriptives and 8 tables of regression results. And don't forget the 50 page Internet Appendix that repeats all your main tables with a different fixed effect structure, standard error clustering choice, or choice of variable measurement. Sure you measured ETRs/discretionary accruals/disclosure using method 1, but what about method 2 through 5.
8- Present the paper around. Insecure editors often look to acknowledgements to validate that the paper has been vetted by someone other than themselves
Those 8 things should get you most of the way to a Jar/jae pub but their is one more thing you can do if you get an r&r
9- Finally, if given the opportunity schmooze the editor (and reviewer) telling them how important their work is, how great and brilliant their comments are and how important they were to improving the paper. Remember, editors hear this all the time and many actually believe it.
….The rest is randomness that can only be reduced by social connections of you/your coauthors. Good luck!

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
8f0c

it is true everywhere, why particularly JAR/JAE?

Excellent!

For those who think they are “locked out” of JAR/JAE here is the formula:
1- Find an institutional setting from finance or econ. Replace the dependent variable with something acctg researchers care about… analysts, voluntary disclosure, earnings management, tax avoidance, conservatism, (though not so much conservatism anymore … thanks Ross)
2- Claim the setting provides exogenous variation in a theoretical construct of interest, and that most prior research on the construct suffers from endogeneity and is therefore crap, from which we can learn nothing. Your paper is different, and not crappy like prior work, because you have exogenous variation. This allows you to draw causal inferences… when all prior work is “mere associations”.
3- Claim broad generalizable inferences that extend beyond your narrow setting. While it is true your study examines an exogenous shock to companies operating in the salt mines of Rura Pente, it can nonetheless inform us about some great underlying truth broadly applicable and holds in settings where it is yet untested. Again, assertion is key, you don’t have to know it is generalizable to assert it.
4- Add the words “The Economics of” shortly before the title. Because nothing says JAE/JAR like “The Economics of Disclosure” or “Economics of Audit Partner Tenure” or “Economics of Earnings Management” or “Economics of Tax Avoidance” or “Economics of Audit Fees”
5- Use big “econ” words like externality, spillovers, adverse selection, moral hazard, real effects, signalling, equilibrium, etc. Whether you use these terms correctly is irrelevant, what matters is that you use them.
6- No matter the topic of your paper, be sure to reference Jensen and Meckling. They showed that incentives matter. No matter the setting you have, I’m pretty sure that incentives matter. So Jensen and Meckling motivated your predictions..
7- Include about 2 tables of descriptives and 8 tables of regression results. And don't forget the 50 page Internet Appendix that repeats all your main tables with a different fixed effect structure, standard error clustering choice, or choice of variable measurement. Sure you measured ETRs/discretionary accruals/disclosure using method 1, but what about method 2 through 5.
8- Present the paper around. Insecure editors often look to acknowledgements to validate that the paper has been vetted by someone other than themselves
Those 8 things should get you most of the way to a Jar/jae pub but their is one more thing you can do if you get an r&r
9- Finally, if given the opportunity schmooze the editor (and reviewer) telling them how important their work is, how great and brilliant their comments are and how important they were to improving the paper. Remember, editors hear this all the time and many actually believe it.
….The rest is randomness that can only be reduced by social connections of you/your coauthors. Good luck!

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
801e

it is true everywhere, why particularly JAR/JAE?

For all its faults, TAR (and RAST/CAR/MS) is at peace with who/what it is. JAR/JAE editors -- more so JAR, but to some extent JAE too -- have absolutely massive inferiority complexes with respect to economists and want to be considered as economists (just look at CL's paper titles). Hence the advice to game their insecurities in getting one's own work published.

1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
c713

it is true everywhere, why particularly JAR/JAE?

For all its faults, TAR (and RAST/CAR/MS) is at peace with who/what it is. JAR/JAE editors -- more so JAR, but to some extent JAE too -- have absolutely massive inferiority complexes with respect to economists and want to be considered as economists (just look at CL's paper titles). Hence the advice to game their insecurities in getting one's own work published.

CL is an NBER research associate, quite rare.

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
c713

it is true everywhere, why particularly JAR/JAE?

For all its faults, TAR (and RAST/CAR/MS) is at peace with who/what it is. JAR/JAE editors -- more so JAR, but to some extent JAE too -- have absolutely massive inferiority complexes with respect to economists and want to be considered as economists (just look at CL's paper titles). Hence the advice to game their insecurities in getting one's own work published.

CL is an NBER research associate, quite rare.

for an accountant

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
ffe2

CL is a root problem of accounting.

it is true everywhere, why particularly JAR/JAE?

For all its faults, TAR (and RAST/CAR/MS) is at peace with who/what it is. JAR/JAE editors -- more so JAR, but to some extent JAE too -- have absolutely massive inferiority complexes with respect to economists and want to be considered as economists (just look at CL's paper titles). Hence the advice to game their insecurities in getting one's own work published.

CL is an NBER research associate, quite rare.

1 year ago # QUOTE 2 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
38f5

It's always been full of superlemons and their connections which is why some of them publish. If you consider all 12 journals for tenure this problem would be solved within a year.

Thank you for revealing your type. We now understand that you are a low skill researcher who wants to equate first, second, and third tier journals. No one with high quality research skills thinks these are equivalent. You would probably be a happier person if you just recognized that you are a low skill researcher. You can have a nice career publishing in third tier journals. All of this bitterness from low skills is not productive. I enjoy skiing with some members of the national team. Yet, I recognize they have much higher skill and enjoy my own, much lower, skiing accomplishments.

What are your "high quality research skills"? The ability to repackage a finance paper (which was likely itself repackaged from economics) into a first-tier accounting journal?

The problem in accounting is a large number of weak researchers who think their 3rd tier articles are of the same quality as the first tier ones. They see two explanations for their rejections. One is their research is boring/poorly executed. The second is that journal editors are unconcerned with publishing the best articles they and reject their articles out of bias. They all glom onto the second explanation without any systematic evidence and in-spite of evidence rejecting their biased view. As a former editor and current reviewer, the big problem is poor quality and uninteresting work in most papers. These are not lemons that people misjudged. Instead, they are well recognized job market duds. They often have one good pub or a bunch of 3rd tier articles that somehow inflates their egos. Then they come here and complain in the shadows. When you call them out, offer to interview them based on their claims here, they never respond. Duds hiding in the shadows.

1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 4 Vlad !
Economist
c873

^ yes that’s true. It is equally true that many pubs in top 3 and even more in CAR are garbageee. I remember someone posted in last year’s thread that one TAR paper reports probability of restatement is 30%+ for compustat firms. That clearly is wrong. Such garbagee papers is no better than 3tier pubs. That’s why people with 3 rd tier pubs complain that their papers are as good but get rejected

1 year ago # QUOTE 4 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
5144

It's always been full of superlemons and their connections which is why some of them publish. If you consider all 12 journals for tenure this problem would be solved within a year.

Thank you for revealing your type. We now understand that you are a low skill researcher who wants to equate first, second, and third tier journals. No one with high quality research skills thinks these are equivalent. You would probably be a happier person if you just recognized that you are a low skill researcher. You can have a nice career publishing in third tier journals. All of this bitterness from low skills is not productive. I enjoy skiing with some members of the national team. Yet, I recognize they have much higher skill and enjoy my own, much lower, skiing accomplishments.

What are your "high quality research skills"? The ability to repackage a finance paper (which was likely itself repackaged from economics) into a first-tier accounting journal?

The problem in accounting is a large number of weak researchers who think their 3rd tier articles are of the same quality as the first tier ones. They see two explanations for their rejections. One is their research is boring/poorly executed. The second is that journal editors are unconcerned with publishing the best articles they and reject their articles out of bias. They all glom onto the second explanation without any systematic evidence and in-spite of evidence rejecting their biased view. As a former editor and current reviewer, the big problem is poor quality and uninteresting work in most papers. These are not lemons that people misjudged. Instead, they are well recognized job market duds. They often have one good pub or a bunch of 3rd tier articles that somehow inflates their egos. Then they come here and complain in the shadows. When you call them out, offer to interview them based on their claims here, they never respond. Duds hiding in the shadows.

Which legally recognized organization can define for legal purposes, such as tenure, the 1st, the 2nd and 3rd tier journals?

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
7095

Schools usually have their own lists. Lots rely on FT 50, ABS, ABDC. The very top schools don’t pay any attention to the lists. They “read the papers.” That’s really the way it should be because we all know some garbage makes it into the “top” journals and some good papers don’t. But that also opens the door for a lot of biases to creep into the tenure process. Honestly the current process seems like the best bad option.

1 year ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
4a8f

It's always been full of superlemons and their connections which is why some of them publish. If you consider all 12 journals for tenure this problem would be solved within a year.

Thank you for revealing your type. We now understand that you are a low skill researcher who wants to equate first, second, and third tier journals. No one with high quality research skills thinks these are equivalent. You would probably be a happier person if you just recognized that you are a low skill researcher. You can have a nice career publishing in third tier journals. All of this bitterness from low skills is not productive. I enjoy skiing with some members of the national team. Yet, I recognize they have much higher skill and enjoy my own, much lower, skiing accomplishments.

What are your "high quality research skills"? The ability to repackage a finance paper (which was likely itself repackaged from economics) into a first-tier accounting journal?

The problem in accounting is a large number of weak researchers who think their 3rd tier articles are of the same quality as the first tier ones. They see two explanations for their rejections. One is their research is boring/poorly executed. The second is that journal editors are unconcerned with publishing the best articles they and reject their articles out of bias. They all glom onto the second explanation without any systematic evidence and in-spite of evidence rejecting their biased view. As a former editor and current reviewer, the big problem is poor quality and uninteresting work in most papers. These are not lemons that people misjudged. Instead, they are well recognized job market duds. They often have one good pub or a bunch of 3rd tier articles that somehow inflates their egos. Then they come here and complain in the shadows. When you call them out, offer to interview them based on their claims here, they never respond. Duds hiding in the shadows.

So, how many finance papers have you repackaged into "1st tier" accounting journals?

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
38f5

The problem in accounting is a large number of weak researchers who think their 3rd tier articles are of the same quality as the first tier ones. They see two explanations for their rejections. One is their research is boring/poorly executed. The second is that journal editors are unconcerned with publishing the best articles they and reject their articles out of bias. They all glom onto the second explanation without any systematic evidence and in-spite of evidence rejecting their biased view. As a former editor and current reviewer, the big problem is poor quality and uninteresting work in most papers. These are not lemons that people misjudged. Instead, they are well recognized job market duds. They often have one good pub or a bunch of 3rd tier articles that somehow inflates their egos. Then they come here and complain in the shadows. When you call them out, offer to interview them based on their claims here, they never respond. Duds hiding in the shadows.

Which legally recognized organization can define for legal purposes, such as tenure, the 1st, the 2nd and 3rd tier journals?

This is more evidence of the poor thinking, which is evident in many of the shoddy papers and complaints that we see. Tenure is not a legal process.

Every school is free to use any research standards they prefer. For this discussion there is a widely recognized 1st, 2nd and 3rd tier that even the JMC sheet recognizes each year (delineated as top 3, top 6, and other). The mapping should be clear even to a dud hiding in the shadow.

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 3 Vlad !
Economist
f88f

The problem in accounting is a large number of weak researchers who think their 3rd tier articles are of the same quality as the first tier ones. They see two explanations for their rejections. One is their research is boring/poorly executed. The second is that journal editors are unconcerned with publishing the best articles they and reject their articles out of bias. They all glom onto the second explanation without any systematic evidence and in-spite of evidence rejecting their biased view. As a former editor and current reviewer, the big problem is poor quality and uninteresting work in most papers. These are not lemons that people misjudged. Instead, they are well recognized job market duds. They often have one good pub or a bunch of 3rd tier articles that somehow inflates their egos. Then they come here and complain in the shadows. When you call them out, offer to interview them based on their claims here, they never respond. Duds hiding in the shadows.

Which legally recognized organization can define for legal purposes, such as tenure, the 1st, the 2nd and 3rd tier journals?

This is more evidence of the poor thinking, which is evident in many of the shoddy papers and complaints that we see. Tenure is not a legal process.
Every school is free to use any research standards they prefer. For this discussion there is a widely recognized 1st, 2nd and 3rd tier that even the JMC sheet recognizes each year (delineated as top 3, top 6, and other). The mapping should be clear even to a dud hiding in the shadow.

My.... is a judge, and he said the following. "Hiring someone is a legal process as is firing. Everything that can be brought to the court is something that will undergo a legal process. Tenure is a legal process as depending on what you can fire someone. I am not an accountant and I don't know how to balance sheet but I can tell an accountant or professor of accountancy to not talk to me like that in the court room but bring legal evidence. I repeat - legal evidence. I look only in what's written and by who. The rest is just coffee shop talk."

I wonder why on earth schools do not write the tenure requirements in clear language when it comes to pubs?

FYI, Vergara v. California.

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 1 Vlad !
Economist
ca51

Excellent point!

Schools usually have their own lists. Lots rely on FT 50, ABS, ABDC. The very top schools don’t pay any attention to the lists. They “read the papers.” That’s really the way it should be because we all know some garbage makes it into the “top” journals and some good papers don’t. But that also opens the door for a lot of biases to creep into the tenure process. Honestly the current process seems like the best bad option.

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
ca51

"The problem in accounting is a large number of weak researchers who think their 3rd tier articles are of the same quality as the first tier ones." That statement would be correct if so many connected people were not publishing junk in the so-called top tier journals (that's the real problem). How would you feel if a journal would reject your paper and then turn around and publish a poorly executed version of your idea?

It's always been full of superlemons and their connections which is why some of them publish. If you consider all 12 journals for tenure this problem would be solved within a year.

Thank you for revealing your type. We now understand that you are a low skill researcher who wants to equate first, second, and third tier journals. No one with high quality research skills thinks these are equivalent. You would probably be a happier person if you just recognized that you are a low skill researcher. You can have a nice career publishing in third tier journals. All of this bitterness from low skills is not productive. I enjoy skiing with some members of the national team. Yet, I recognize they have much higher skill and enjoy my own, much lower, skiing accomplishments.

What are your "high quality research skills"? The ability to repackage a finance paper (which was likely itself repackaged from economics) into a first-tier accounting journal?

The problem in accounting is a large number of weak researchers who think their 3rd tier articles are of the same quality as the first tier ones. They see two explanations for their rejections. One is their research is boring/poorly executed. The second is that journal editors are unconcerned with publishing the best articles they and reject their articles out of bias. They all glom onto the second explanation without any systematic evidence and in-spite of evidence rejecting their biased view. As a former editor and current reviewer, the big problem is poor quality and uninteresting work in most papers. These are not lemons that people misjudged. Instead, they are well recognized job market duds. They often have one good pub or a bunch of 3rd tier articles that somehow inflates their egos. Then they come here and complain in the shadows. When you call them out, offer to interview them based on their claims here, they never respond. Duds hiding in the shadows.

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
3130

Why are some schools posting job ads on SSRN just a few days before Miami even though they are attending the rookie camp in person? Seems weird.

1 year ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

« Previous 1…108109110…188 Next »

Recently Announced

Upcoming

Economics

Job Market

Off Topic

Math

Job Market Wiki

Job Market Candidates

Updates

Official Accounting JM Thread 2022

Reply »