Disclosure Quality and its Impact on Financial Reporting Quality, Audit Quality, and Investors’ Perceptions of the Quality of Financial Reporting: A Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to review the most recent empirical studies on corporate disclosures, in the aim of examining the link between disclosure quality (DQ) and financial reporting quality, audit quality, and investors’ perceptions of the quality of financial reporting and providing recommendations for future research on this topic. Seventy-eight empirical studies, published in several relevant journals from 2003 onwards (i.e. one year after the commencement of the SOX 2002), have been categorized and analyzed in order to identify the link between the aforementioned variables. The analysis has revealed that the Sarbanes Oxley Act (2002) has significantly increased management awareness of the importance of accounting disclosures. In general, the majority of the studies which have been reviewed have identified the presence of a positive correlation between four aforementioned variables. These findings lend credence to the belief that these variables may well be classified as dependent since they are complementary. Finally, the review presents a discussion of the limitations of the studies and provides useful recommendations for future research on this topic.
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 | 0.044 | 0.255 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".