What was the news at JFR session?
The discussant, DC appeared as petty and overly defensive. Not a scholar.
Official Accounting JM Thread 2022
-
It’s your preference though (and you’re entitled to it). I can tell you that many seniors add phds to papers who are no more than glorified RAs. And make no mistake: many glorified RAs manage to get placements at top schools. Yet, I don’t give a f about them. I’m selecting a colleague for my institution, not anyone else’s institution
weird, I personally like people who will publish. Very few seniors I know (although there are a few whose papers are easy to throw out) are willing to give coauthorship when it’s inappropriate. I look at the informative signal (what they will do over the course of their career by being able to work with other people) as opposed to their one solo-authored paper.
Take a look at the top people at places like MIT, Wharton and Stanford over the last ten or twenty years and you might be surprised how many never published their dissertation. It’s not as overwhelming as people make it out to be here.It’s not badmouthing any candidate. We’d rather hire a candidate with a good pipeline and a solid jmp (regardless of R&R) than a candidate with R&Rs and pubs with their senior faculty but a weak dissertation. Besides that, presentation is what matters most. A candidate who knows how to write a good dissertation and present well knows how to do research. The same cannot necessarily be said about a candidate that piggybacks on the shoulders of seniors
Those here bad mouthing JMCs with published co-authored papers are very sinical! Tell me who at PhD level gets work published without co-authors these days? Who? If a JMC has no RRs/Pubs their application go down the list, if so, they are glorified RAs. That's hypocrisy at its best form. I hope this view is just voiced by angry m.f. and not a reflection of the hiring system.
That is true.
-
TAR is A on every P&T committee
I view RAST better than TAR now. TAR is clear one notch below JAR and JAE.
Somebody is promoting the idea of top six A journals as if it’s a widely accepted norm. But the reality is Top 3 > RAST >>>>> CAR >>>>>> AOS
If your colleagues want to keep you around, it doesn't matter where and how many 'top' papers you have. A case can always be made - the same for the alternative outcome.
-
Not true. If you publish only in RAST and CAR, you won’t make it many places.
TAR is A on every P&T committee
I view RAST better than TAR now. TAR is clear one notch below JAR and JAE.
Somebody is promoting the idea of top six A journals as if it’s a widely accepted norm. But the reality is Top 3 > RAST >>>>> CAR >>>>>> AOS
If your colleagues want to keep you around, it doesn't matter where and how many 'top' papers you have. A case can always be made - the same for the alternative outcome.
-
Soon it will not be.
TAR is A on every P&T committee
<>I view RAST better than TAR now. TAR is clear one notch below JAR and JAE.Somebody is promoting the idea of top six A journals as if it’s a widely accepted norm. But the reality is Top 3 > RAST >>>>> CAR >>>>>> AOS
-
The top six all have pretty unique taste functions. Some have lifetime editors that make those tastes more rigid. I think that’s why many have a hard time accepting that the top 3 is necessarily “better.”
JAR - requires an exogenous shock, cares about identification at the expense of generalizability, also follows CLs pet topics like ESG and fair value
JAE - still focused on identification but less than JAR. Follows old school Rochester view of agency theory, nexus of contracting, rational behavior, theory at the expense of practical application, not a fan of anomalies or empirical regularities without theory
TAR/CAR - most wide open in terms taking all types of papers, probably because editors turn over a lot, and they work hard to have a diverse editorial slate. So harder to predict what the taste function is. The issue with stricter editor terms is more variance in quality and the more potential for favor trading.
RAST - focused mainly on financial archival but much more open to interesting empirical regularities motivated by logic rather than theory, less concerned about endogeneity, more interested in practical insights
AOS - focused mainly on non archival research. Otherwise similar to RAST.
-
TAR is A on every P&T committee
I view RAST better than TAR now. TAR is clear one notch below JAR and JAE.
Somebody is promoting the idea of top six A journals as if it’s a widely accepted norm. But the reality is Top 3 > RAST >>>>> CAR >>>>>> AOS
TAR fuxked up with some lavatorial-sewer reviewers this time.
-
I mean, basically JAR and JAE are run by second class citizens at elite business schools who are constantly told that accounting is derivative and that economics and finance are so much better. So they turn their nose up to actual accounting papers and want the accounting literature to look like econ and finance.
-
This is very good except AOS is very interested in theory.
The top six all have pretty unique taste functions. Some have lifetime editors that make those tastes more rigid. I think that’s why many have a hard time accepting that the top 3 is necessarily “better.”
JAR - requires an exogenous shock, cares about identification at the expense of generalizability, also follows CLs pet topics like ESG and fair value
JAE - still focused on identification but less than JAR. Follows old school Rochester view of agency theory, nexus of contracting, rational behavior, theory at the expense of practical application, not a fan of anomalies or empirical regularities without theory
TAR/CAR - most wide open in terms taking all types of papers, probably because editors turn over a lot, and they work hard to have a diverse editorial slate. So harder to predict what the taste function is. The issue with stricter editor terms is more variance in quality and the more potential for favor trading.
RAST - focused mainly on financial archival but much more open to interesting empirical regularities motivated by logic rather than theory, less concerned about endogeneity, more interested in practical insights
AOS - focused mainly on non archival research. Otherwise similar to RAST. -
LOL
Soon it will not be.
TAR is A on every P&T committee
<>I view RAST better than TAR now. TAR is clear one notch below JAR and JAE.Somebody is promoting the idea of top six A journals as if it’s a widely accepted norm. But the reality is Top 3 > RAST >>>>> CAR >>>>>> AOS
-
Submitting to JAR or JAE is pointless for 80%+ of the profession. (Most posting here believe they are in the 20%, or don’t believe that) TAR and CAR you’ve got some shot regardless of area or topic. RAST…. It better be financial archival. AOS is “eclectic” and harder to categorize.
-
What was the news at JFR session?
The discussant, DC appeared as petty and overly defensive. Not a scholar.
On the contrary. He did a good job given the position JFR editors put him in. He explained clearly why the study being presented is simply nonsense. I actually learned something from his comments. I would have been way more critical on the reexamining authors. BTW – the authors of the other paper being re-examined didn’t even bother to attend and provide comments. JFR needs to be careful with these kind of projects/strategies if they want to be relevant. This creates unnecessary controversy and drama, which of course EJMR likes….To me, this seems a waste of everyone’s time.
-
People should not be afraid of others revisiting their work.
What was the news at JFR session?
The discussant, DC appeared as petty and overly defensive. Not a scholar.
On the contrary. He did a good job given the position JFR editors put him in. He explained clearly why the study being presented is simply nonsense. I actually learned something from his comments. I would have been way more critical on the reexamining authors. BTW – the authors of the other paper being re-examined didn’t even bother to attend and provide comments. JFR needs to be careful with these kind of projects/strategies if they want to be relevant. This creates unnecessary controversy and drama, which of course EJMR likes….To me, this seems a waste of everyone’s time.
-
People should not be afraid of others revisiting their work.
What was the news at JFR session?
The discussant, DC appeared as petty and overly defensive. Not a scholar.
On the contrary. He did a good job given the position JFR editors put him in. He explained clearly why the study being presented is simply nonsense. I actually learned something from his comments. I would have been way more critical on the reexamining authors. BTW – the authors of the other paper being re-examined didn’t even bother to attend and provide comments. JFR needs to be careful with these kind of projects/strategies if they want to be relevant. This creates unnecessary controversy and drama, which of course EJMR likes….To me, this seems a waste of everyone’s time.
100% agreed! As long as they do it in an appropriate way. My impression was, given the comments RB made, that the re-examining authors were out of line. That's why it took so long.