Premium
No System Is Perfect: Understanding How Registration‐Based Editorial Processes Affect Reproducibility and Investment in Research Quality
Author(s) -
BLOOMFIELD ROBERT,
RENNEKAMP KRISTINA,
STEENHOVEN BLAKE
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
journal of accounting research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 6.767
H-Index - 141
eISSN - 1475-679X
pISSN - 0021-8456
DOI - 10.1111/1475-679x.12208
Subject(s) - investment (military) , quality (philosophy) , affect (linguistics) , process (computing) , psychology , actuarial science , accounting , computer science , operations research , data science , economics , political science , law , engineering , epistemology , philosophy , communication , politics , operating system
The papers in this volume were published through a Registration‐based Editorial Process (REP). Authors submitted proposals to gather and analyze data; successful proposals were guaranteed publication as long as the authors lived up to their commitments, regardless of whether results supported their predictions. To understand how REP differs from the Traditional Editorial Process (TEP), we analyze the papers themselves; conference comments; a survey of conference authors, reviewers, and attendees; and a survey of authors who have successfully published under TEP. We find that REP increases up‐front investment in planning, data gathering, and analysis, but reduces follow‐up investment after results are known. This shift in investment makes individual results more reproducible, but leaves articles less thorough and refined. REP could be improved by encouraging selected forms of follow‐up investment that survey respondents believe are usually used under TEP to make papers more informative, focused, and accurate at little risk of overstatement.