Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper looks at the evolution of the European Accounting Review as the journal of the European Accounting Association. It provides an historical background to the launch of the journal in 1992, and traces how the European Accounting Review has developed to be a widely accepted academic journal in accounting. The journal tried at one and the same time, and managed with some success, to fulfil several different functions: to be an academic journal, a newsletter for the members and a place for debate on European accounting regulation. It seems that one of the main reasons that this was possible was the way EAR grew out of earlier initiatives by the EAA such as the Newsletter, the annual doctoral colloquium and the EIASM accounting workshops. The journal was thus a product of the development of a community of accounting researchers in Europe. In turn it began to play a constructive role in contributing to the further development of the accounting research community in Europe. During its first decade, the period on which our analysis concentrates, the European Accounting Review has acted to develop the idea of European accounting research in a research environment which has tended, at the international level, to be dominated by the Anglo-Saxon countries. EAR has tried to become a journal for European academics, and to be sensitive to European issues while being published in English. Being published in English, it thus directly competes for submissions and for readers in the global market for accountancy journals. In this way it has acted as one of the catalysts in the process of internationalization of the European academic accounting community. After the reform of 1999, the structure and aims of the journal are now more tightly focused on being a successful academic research journal, and less on playing a role as a forum for information and discussion. In this article we hope that we can contribute to celebrating the 25th anniversary of the EAA and reflect on EAR 's future role in a world where the focus in both research and practice in accounting is more and more at the ‘global’ level.
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 | 0.019 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".