Anatomy of a journal: A reflection on the evolution of <i>Contemporary Accounting Research</i> , 1984–2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our study outlines the evolution of a highly rated accounting journal, Contemporary Accounting Research ( CAR). We examine two tensions (high quality, global journal versus Canadian authorship and homogeneous versus diverse research) that arose during CAR’s history, using Canadian Academic Accounting Association documents (CAAA) and evidence from the main articles published in CAR’s first 27 volumes. We address three research questions relevant to exploring the identified tensions: Where have CAR’s published authors been concentrated in terms of geographical location? What types of research have been published in CAR over the period? How well has CAR succeeded in meeting its original and later editorial objectives? With respect to published main articles, our findings indicate that being a high quality, global journal has won over promoting Canadian authors and that articles published in CAR tend to be more homogeneous than might be expected from the original objectives and later editorial statements. Our findings should be relevant to those interested in the history of accounting research and to those trying to publish in CAR.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.034 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".