Recent Management Accounting Literature: Bibliometric Analysis and Contributions from Latin America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Journals and citations are networks of practice in which management accounting, management control systems, and performance management carry significance. A total of 2,560 publications and 43,425 citations from the Web of Science between 2000-2020 were used to perform a citation analysis of articles, authors, and journals, along with a bibliometric study to map keywords co-occurrence. Citations and publications had an explosive growth due to new journals and Web of Science expansion, with the number and share of top journals decreasing over time. Performance management is eclectic with journals and authors from various disciplines; bibliometric maps suggest that management accounting and performance literature rooted in strategy are competing to integrate this emerging topic. Regardless of the increase in citations and publications, there are only 28 Latin American articles (1% of the total). Despite calls for more diversity in accounting research, we observe the pre-eminence of Western academic norms and practices. Although management accounting is an active field in Latin America with many local publications, few appear in internationally ranked academic journals.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.090 | 0.142 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".