Two Decades of African Accounting Research 2000–2019: Synthesis, Reflection, Gaps, and Future Directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This structured literature review analyzes 179 African accounting research articles in 38 major accounting journals published from 2000 to 2019 (inclusive) to assess trends of publications in these journals, topics covered or neglected, research methods employed, the main contributing authors, their research impact, opportunities for future research, and challenges confronting this field. It found that, despite the increase in research publications on Africa, they were almost absent in the top 6 accounting journals and had little presence in the remaining 32. The analysis of research methods, contributing authors, and research impact found that much African research has adopted a qualitative approach, unlike the U.S. tradition employing mostly quantitative and economics-based methods, and most top-contributing authors either originated from Africa or were affiliated with an African university. There was a regional imbalance of African accounting research, which covered only 19 of the 54 countries. These were larger, richer, and had stock markets.
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 | 0.013 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.037 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".