Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Ethical practice in the accounting publishing process: Contrasting opinions of authors and editors. [REVIEW]Susan C. Borkowski & Mary Jeanne Welsh - 2000 - Journal of Business Ethics 25 (1):15 - 31.
    Academic accounting researchers often offer anecdotal evidence that the publishing process is rife with unfair and unethical practices, and similar contradictory evidence supports accounting journal editors' claims that the process is fair and ethical. This study compares the perceptions of accounting authors and editors on the ethicacy and frequency of specific author, editor and reviewer practices. Both authors and editors are in general agreement about the ethical nature of editors and author practices. However, there are significant differences between the groups (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Ethics and the accounting publishing process: Author, reviewer, and editor issues. [REVIEW]Susan C. Borkowski & Mary Jeanne Welsh - 1998 - Journal of Business Ethics 17 (16):1785-1803.
    Are codes of ethics needed to guide author, reviewer and editor publishing practices in accounting journals? What practices are considered unethical, and to what extend do they occur? A survey of ninety-five journal editors who publish accounting articles rated author, reviewer and editor practices as ethical or unethical, and estimated the frequency with which these practices occur. Respondents also commented on current publishing practices regarding the double-blind review process, payments for reviews, confirmatory bias, and whether codes of ethics are needed (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Evaluating the Pros and Cons of Different Peer Review Policies via Simulation.Jia Zhu, Gabriel Fung, Wai Hung Wong, Zhixu Li & Chuanhua Xu - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (4):1073-1094.
    In the academic world, peer review is one of the major processes in evaluating a scholars contribution. In this study, we are interested in quantifying the merits of different policies in a peer review process, such as single-blind review, double-blind review, and obtaining authors feedback. Currently, insufficient work has been undertaken to evaluate the benefits of different peer review policies. One of the major reasons for this situation is the inability to conduct any empirical study because data are presently unavailable. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Corruption and representations of scholarly output.Robert Liebler - 2008 - Journal of Academic Ethics 6 (3):259-269.
    In this paper I analyze representations of scholarly output for the purpose of identifying corrupt practices. Accordingly, the components of output—price, quantity, and time—are examined. A key part of the analysis is recognizing the unique role that the scholarly community plays in scholarship and the implications this has for the roles of groups other than the scholarly community. Finally, a survey of students indicates that particular representations of scholarly output are viewed by students as unethical.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark