The Evolution of Behavioral Accounting Research: A 25-Year Bibliometric Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of accounting science increasingly highlights the strong interconnection between technical aspects and human behavior in decision-making, giving rise to the field of Behavioral Accounting. This study aims to analyze research trends in Behavioral Accounting using a bibliometric approach. The method employed is bibliometric analysis based on publication data from the Dimensions database for the period 2000–2024, with scientific mapping visualized using VOSviewer software. The analysis covers 6,109 peer-reviewed journal articles selected through relevant keywords, including bibliographic coupling by country, institution, journal, publication, and keyword co-occurrence. The results reveal that the United States is the dominant contributor in terms of publication volume and collaborative strength, followed by the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada. Harvard University and the University of California, Los Angeles are identified as the most productive institutions, while Behavioral Research in Accounting emerges as the leading journal in this field. The publication by Libby (2002) holds a central position, serving as a key theoretical reference and bridging various generations of literature. These findings underscore that the academic landscape of Behavioral Accounting remains largely dominated by developed countries and prominent institutions, while developing countries such as Indonesia need to improve publication quality and enhance international collaboration. The implication of this study is the provision of a comprehensive knowledge map that can serve as a foundation for future research direction and foster broader engagement from the global academic community in the advancement of Behavioral Accounting.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.167 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".