Co-authorship in accounting history: advantages and pitfalls
Relatively little has been written about co-authorship in accounting and even less specific to accounting history. This paper endeavours to track co-authorship patterns in the discipline, both quantitatively and qualitatively. The three specialist accounting history journals provide the data to render quantitative judgements, whilst a survey of accounting history scholars has generated information on how co-authorship is perceived in the field, particularly its benefits and pitfalls. A matching technique is used to gauge whether patterns in accounting history are similar to those within the broader accounting discipline. Consideration will also be given to comparisons of how co-authorship is viewed by US and non-US academicians.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 19 (2009)
Issue (Month): 3 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/RABF21|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/rabf21|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:acbsfi:v:19:y:2009:i:3:p:287-303. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.