IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/abacus/v37y2001i1p26-54.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research Misconduct in Accounting Literature: A Survey of the Most Prolific Researchers’ Actions and Beliefs

Author

Listed:
  • Charles N. Bailey
  • James R. Hasselback
  • Julia N. Karcher

Abstract

Incidents of research misconduct, especially falsification, in the hard sciences and medicine have been widely reported. Motives for misconduct include professional advancement and personal recognition. Accounting academics are under the same tenure, promotion and recognition pressures as other academics; and, without the life‐and‐death issues of medical research, rationalizing misconduct in accounting research seems much easier. It is reasonable to assume that dishonesty has occurred, even if little evidence exists about its prevalence. Further, accounting research can influence tax policy and market conditions, affecting people’s lives. This study is, to our knowledge, the first attempt to survey accounting researchers directly as to their ethical practices; it uses the randomized response technique of addressing sensitive questions. To maximize its relevance to the most respected accounting research, this questionnaire was sent only to the most prolific researchers at U.S. colleges and universities—those who have published in the ‘top thirty’ accounting journals. The results indicate that serious misconduct has occurred among these established accounting researchers. The estimated percentage of seriously tainted articles in the top thirty accounting journals, based on self‐reporting, is about 4 per cent, while the respondents on average believe that about 21 per cent of the literature is tainted. Faculty who were tenured more recently provide higher estimates of the falsification rate, and attribute more of the cause to external factors like tenure pressure. The article concludes by discussing implications and offering policy recommendations.

Suggested Citation

  • Charles N. Bailey & James R. Hasselback & Julia N. Karcher, 2001. "Research Misconduct in Accounting Literature: A Survey of the Most Prolific Researchers’ Actions and Beliefs," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 37(1), pages 26-54, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:abacus:v:37:y:2001:i:1:p:26-54
    DOI: 10.1111/1467-6281.00073
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6281.00073
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1467-6281.00073?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bailey, Charles D. & Hermanson, Dana R. & Louwers, Timothy J., 2008. "An examination of the peer review process in accounting journals," Journal of Accounting Education, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 55-72.
    2. Doucouliagos, Hristos & Paldam, Martin & Stanley, T.D., 2018. "Skating on thin evidence: Implications for public policy," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 16-25.
    3. Brian Fabo & Martina Jancokova & Elisabeth Kempf & Lubos Pastor, 2020. "Fifty Shades of QE: Conflicts of Interest in Economic Research," Working Papers 2020-128, Becker Friedman Institute for Research In Economics.
    4. Johnstone, David, 2022. "Accounting research and the significance test crisis," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    5. Horton, Joanne & Krishna Kumar, Dhanya & Wood, Anthony, 2020. "Detecting academic fraud using Benford law: The case of Professor James Hunton," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(8).
    6. Furman, Jeffrey L. & Jensen, Kyle & Murray, Fiona, 2012. "Governing knowledge in the scientific community: Exploring the role of retractions in biomedicine," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 276-290.
    7. Luzi Hail & Mark Lang & Christian Leuz, 2020. "Reproducibility in Accounting Research: Views of the Research Community," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(2), pages 519-543, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:abacus:v:37:y:2001:i:1:p:26-54. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0001-3072 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.