Resumo:
Propsito do Trabalho:
The communication of scientific results and findings through journals has been an issue debated in accounting research (Brown, 2005; Cruz, Machado, Martins, & Rocha, 2011) and at scientific meetings. The research communication can be a crucial condition for survival and success in academic life (Chow & Harrison, 1998). Brazilian researchers need to face and overcome some factors related to the process of publishing in international high quality journals. Papers do not frequently follow all requirements demanded by the journal (Moizer, 2009) and publishing articles is involved in several intertwined factors (Schwartz & Walden, 2000). One point is related to the collective construction of papers within a particular community. This means that scientific research and knowledge construction is not a job only for authors, but also for the community in which they eventually intend to publish. Given that this community consists of researchers from different institutions in different countries, one way to meet each other during the process is through scientific meetings.
The interest in this topic was mainly instigated by Brown (2005). Brown examined the relations between papers submitted to some North American accounting journals and their circulation at scientific meetings and among individuals. In our research, we chose a European journal and included other factors in the analysis. Given what has been presented so far, the following question arises to discuss: Have studies published in European Accounting journals circulate before their final publication? With a view to contributing to this debate, we aim to analyze some factors concerning the circulation of papers in scientific meetings and their reading by individuals in a European accounting top journal.
Base da plataforma terica:
Writing a scientific paper is a joint work which includes not only the author or authors but also the readers. The authors’ arguments may be rejected by readers. By doing so, readers play an active and constitutive role in literary production (Hyland, 2001; Tardy & Matsuda, 2009). This makes the scientific community a co-author that influences the research process. Although the phase of face-to-face discussion is not inherent in the production of the written text, Hyland (2001) and Matsuda and Tardy (2009) believe a text is written directly to a target audience, demonstrating the ability of authors to build relations with their audience. This involves taking into account what is acceptable and reliable for the author’s audience (Golden- Biddle & Locke, 1997). Even before starting the research process, both the target audience (Arrington & Schweiker, 1992) and the journal which is the focus to publish the paper are matters to be considered by authors (Gilmore, Carson, & Perry, 2006). Gilmore, Carson and Perry (2006) and Giles and Councill (2004) argue that suggestions made by members of the academic community are of fundamental importance for the improvement of the paper.
Scientific literature, which includes all forms of research published, submits researcher works to the trial of scholars in order to reach an agreement regarding the reliability of what was described (Ziman, 1979). Thus, without literature, an area could not exist, because without the consensus of other researchers, knowledge gained from research would not be validated. Accounting is not impervious to this discussion. Discussion between groups doing research on accounting is indispensable for the production of knowledge (Arrington & Schweiker, 1992). But, according to Hopwood (2007), seasoned researchers may be divided into at least two groups. One consists of those who are interested in the consequences of accounting and for the other accounting is an object of study. Thus, researchers tend to communicate with those adopting the same approach.
Ziman (1979) describes ‘scientific attitude’ as the ability of a scientist to communicate with others, giving a chance of final consensus to which all aspire. The way of communicating research conducted in academia, however, is something still unresolved (Van de Ven, 2007). It can be achieved through formal and informal channels (Mueller, 2000), and among the formal channels scientific journal feature (Curty & Boccato, 2005) as one of the main means to communicate scientific discoveries (Oliveira, 2002). If the journal is taken as ‘international’, the amplitude of the communication can be more effective. However, this presents some challenges to be faced by researchers.
Writing a text in a foreign language is in itself a difficulty (Hanauer & Englander, 2011). According to Raffournier and Schatt (2010), researchers whose native language is not English are in disadvantage even before starting the study. Prior to submitting papers, researchers whose primary language is not English already have a pessimistic view in relation to acceptance by the journal (Brinn, Jones, & Pendlebury, 2001), which certainly discourages submission to publication. Other reasons that may lead researchers not to disclose their findings are not being prepared to face criticism (Ziman, 1979) or avoiding the anxiety of the paper being rejected, given that the acceptance rate of papers in top journals spin around 10% (Moizer, 2009), which makes them competitive in academia (Gilmore et al., 2006).
Mtodo de investigao:
Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS) was the journal chosen to be analyzed. Several reasons justify this option. Brown (2005) had The Accounting Review, Journal of Accounting and Economics and Journal of Accounting Research journals as sources, all of which are North American. In the accounting area, besides these journals, Accounting, Organizations and Society and Contemporary Accounting Research are among those in the top position (Bonner et al., 2006; Chan et al., 2009). Thus, besides giving new finds, AOS results are used to contrast with some of Brown’s (2005) results. With the definition of only one journal instead of a sample from several journals, it became possible to find insights for those who desire to publish in it. Hence, studying a journal separately reveals more than analyzing various journals.
Data were collected in a 10-year period, from 2003 to 2012, which totalled 363 papers. We took into account acknowledgements to comments at scientific meetings such as workshops, seminars, conferences and by individuals, because the assumption is that the contributions which emerge from the circulation of the paper increase its chances of being accepted by a journal. All the data were extracted from the acknowledgements section at the end of the paper or in footnotes on the first page. Papers without acknowledgements, in a specific section or in footnotes, were categorized as if they were not presented at any scientific meeting or receive comments from individuals. In addition, we analyze the research methods and the quantity of authors, both in relation to paper circulation in scientific events and by individuals. Research methods, as data collection procedures, were defined in five categories based on Kaplan’s (1986) study, but with some modifications. Answer papers do not comprise the sample.
Data collection in order to count acknowledgments, scientific meetings, individual comments, research methods and authors were checked by two people separately in order to increase the reliability of the data. Once all data had been collected, we decided to perform a descriptive analysis, whose goal is to gather and summarize data, with the aid of diagrams and graphs, among others.
Resultados, concluses e suas implicaes:
The results show that most papers published in AOS (79%), or at least their previous versions, had already been discussed externally, by more people than authors, editors and reviewers. This finding is in line with the advice of international accounting journal editors which recommends that authors circulate their paper before submitting it to a journal. But, where do they circulate?
Papers were subject to appreciation in meetings with small audiences such as academic seminars at universities, medium audiences, such as workshops, and high audiences such as conferences. Regarding the number of scientific meetings, conferences were preferred to workshops and seminars. However, attendances at conferences are concentrated in a number of papers. This is evinced when the average of attendances by paper in each type of meeting is calculated and results change to the opposite: seminars take the first place, followed by workshops and conferences. In this way, more papers attended seminars than conferences.
Although 61% of the papers have attended one or more scientific meetings, 71% circulated directly through individual hands. Assuming that authors acknowledge individuals by name when they read and made contributions to the paper, it can be inferred that besides the authors, 6 individuals on average actively participated in the construction of each paper that contained acknowledgements. If there is any doubt about contributions received by authors in scientific meetings, especially conferences, this is practically nil when the acknowledgement refers nominally to a person. This also confirms that no authors take part in the construction of papers (Hyland, 2001; Matsuda & Tardy, 2009).
It is important to highlight that the number of authors does not interfere in the circulation of the paper. Papers with 1, 2, 3 or 4 authors attended scientific meetings and received contributions from individuals in a similar fashion. In fact, when papers by 2 authors are compared with papers by 1 author, the former have more acknowledgements than the latter, and when papers by 3 authors are included in the analysis, these have more acknowledgments to seminars and workshops than the other two. Papers with 1, 2 or 3 authors have a similar number of acknowledgements to individuals. Only papers with 4 authors have behaved differently.
Finally, the search for external contribution occurred in papers of all research methods categorized. The difference between the methods of collecting data in making acknowledgements varied by a margin of 15%.
In consonance with Hartley (2003), there are many ways to reaching publication in a journal. The results show the search for external contribution to convert research into a scientific paper. Researchers from the accounting area who wish to publish in international top journals can make use of this study to outline their strategies.
This study has attempted to call the attention of accounting researchers to the importance of submitting their works to the community’s appreciation at scientific meetings and directly to individuals before their submission to a top journal. However, each journal has its own characteristics and may have its own scientific community, which was found in this study, exclusively concerning AOS. Further research should be conducted with other journals. Nevertheless, the results found in this study may also serve as evidence to explain the difficulty publishing in journals.
Referncias bibliogrficas:
Arrington, C., & Schweiker, W. (1992). The rhetoric and rationality of accounting research. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17, 511-533. doi: 10.1016/0361-3682(92)90011-G
Brown, L. D. (2005). The importance of circulating and presenting manuscripts: evidence from the accounting literature. The Accounting Review, 80, 55-83, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.480190
Chow, Chee W.; Harrison, Paul. (1998). Factors contributing to success in research and publications insights of influential accounting authors. Journal of Accounting Education, 5, doi: 10.1016/S0748-5751(98)00030-X.
Hopwood, A. (2007). Whiter accounting research? The Accounting Review, 82, 1365-1374.
Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the reader: addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication, 18, 549-573, doi: 10.1177/0741088301018004005
Moizer, P. (2009). Publishing in accounting journals: A fair game? Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34, 285-304, doi: 10.1016/j.aos.2008.08.003
Tardy, C., & Matsuda, P. (2009). The construction of author voice by editorial board members. Written Communication, 26, 32-52, doi: 10.1177/0741088308327269
Ziman, J. (1979). Conhecimento Público. São Paulo: Itatiaia.
|
