The <scp>SEC</scp> Filing Review Process: A Survey and Future Research Opportunities*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT As part of its goal to monitor and enhance the quality of information available to investors, the SEC reviews companies' filings to ensure compliance with applicable financial reporting and disclosure requirements. Increased public interest and the substantial costs for both the SEC in reviewing and the companies in responding have led to a rapidly growing body of accounting literature that examines the filing review process. We survey and comment on 80 published and unpublished academic research papers in this literature and identify significant gaps that future research should address. We also summarize the institutional features of the filing review process, aiming to inform future academic studies. Our survey should be of interest to both academics and market participants evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of the filing review process.
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 | 0.061 | 0.120 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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".