The Timeliness of Financial Reporting among Jordanian Companies: Do Company and Board Characteristics, and Audit Opinion Matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the influence of board independence, board size, auditor's opinion, profitability (good or bad news) and industry sector, on the timeliness of annual financial reports among Jordanian companies. It covers 114 listed companies on the Amman Stock Exchange for the year 2012. The timeliness of the financial reports is measured by audit report lag. We find that the firms, on average, take more than two months to complete the audit of financial reporting. Consistent with most studies, we find that firms with improved performance (good news) are faster in publishing their financial reports than firms with declining performance (bad news). The results also show that firms with an unqualified audit opinion release their financial reports earlier than those that do not receive a clean opinion. In addition, firms with a smaller board report faster than those with a larger board. Nevertheless, there is no evidence of the influence of independent directors and type of sector on the timeliness of financial reporting. This study serves as an input to policy makers and regulators in formulating policies and strategies with respect to the timeliness of financial reports.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".