Editorial boards in accounting: The power and the glory

This paper examines the perceptions of editorial board members about the composition, role and purpose of editorial review boards and issues relating to the ethical behaviour of reviewers and authors. It reports the views of 159 academics from a range of countries who are members of the editorial boards of English language accounting journals. There is little variation in the views of board members irrespective of professional background, age and success in publishing. However, some differences do exist based on the journal perspective which our reviewers adopted. In particular, reviewers of top 20 journals allowed reviewers and editors more discretion. Overall, the respondents believed that board appointments should be made on the basis of publication record and research reputation. Board members favour merit-based appointments and disapprove of institutional or group dominance of journals. There are, however, mixed views on attempts to engineer the composition of journal boards to include women or racial minorities. The journal editor is expected to respect the reviewing process and not accept manuscripts outside it. Wide latitude for editors to reject articles is accepted. Once the review process is initiated editors are expected not to attempt to interfere with, guide or override it. Reviewers are expected to be unbiased and professional, but it is acceptable for them to know the identity of a manuscript's author. There is also overwhelming support for the current system of sequential submission of manuscripts to journals. Overall, the results provide an insight into the standards of behaviour expected from all the major parties to the publication process. The unstated rules with which each of the parties is expected to comply are made explicit. The results have general relevance as they reflect the views of a broad constituency of experienced respondents.