IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/joares/v58y2020i2p519-543.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reproducibility in Accounting Research: Views of the Research Community

Author

Listed:
  • LUZI HAIL
  • MARK LANG
  • CHRISTIAN LEUZ

Abstract

We have little knowledge about the prevalence of irreproducibility in the accounting literature. To narrow this gap, we conducted a survey among the participants of the 2019 JAR Conference on their perceptions of the frequency, causes, and consequences of irreproducible research published in accounting journals. A majority of respondents believe that irreproducibility is common in the literature, constitutes a major problem, and receives too little attention. Most have encountered irreproducibility in the work of others (although not in their own work) but chose not to pursue their failed reproduction attempts to publication. Respondents believe irreproducibility results chiefly from career or publication incentives as well as from selective reporting of results. They also believe that practices like sharing code and data combined with stronger incentives to replicate the work of others would enhance reproducibility. The views of accounting researchers are remarkably similar to those expressed in a survey by the scientific journal Nature. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings and provide several potential paths forward for the accounting research community.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:joares:v:58:y:2020:i:2:p:519-543
    DOI: 10.1111/1475-679X.12305
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.12305
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1475-679X.12305?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael A. Clemens, 2017. "The Meaning Of Failed Replications: A Review And Proposal," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(1), pages 326-342, February.
    2. Maren Duvendack & Richard Palmer-Jones & W. Robert Reed, 2017. "What Is Meant by "Replication" and Why Does It Encounter Resistance in Economics?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 46-51, May.
    3. Campbell R. Harvey, 2017. "Presidential Address: The Scientific Outlook in Financial Economics," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 72(4), pages 1399-1440, August.
    4. Dewald, William G & Thursby, Jerry G & Anderson, Richard G, 1986. "Replication in Empirical Economics: The Journal of Money, Credit and Banking Project," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(4), pages 587-603, September.
    5. Ball, R & Brown, P, 1968. "Empirical Evaluation Of Accounting Income Numbers," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(2), pages 159-178.
    6. 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.
    7. Christian Leuz, 2018. "Evidence-based policymaking: promise, challenges and opportunities for accounting and financial markets research," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(5), pages 582-608, July.
    8. Harvey, Campbell R., 2019. "Editorial: Replication in Financial Economics," Critical Finance Review, now publishers, vol. 8(1-2), pages 1-9, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. A. William Richardson & Kevin Veenstra, 2022. "The Post‐earnings Announcement Drift: A Pre‐earnings Announcement Effect? A Multi‐period Analysis," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 58(4), pages 648-678, December.
    2. Adam Bordeman & Peter Demerjian, 2022. "Do Borrowers Intentionally Avoid Covenant Violations? A Reexamination of the Debt Covenant Hypothesis," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(5), pages 1741-1774, December.
    3. Brown, Timothy & Majors, Tracie M. & Peecher, Mark E., 2020. "Evidence on how different interventions affect juror assessment of auditor legal culpability and responsibility for damages after auditor failure to detect fraud," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    4. Armstrong, Christopher & Kepler, John D. & Samuels, Delphine & Taylor, Daniel, 2022. "Causality redux: The evolution of empirical methods in accounting research and the growth of quasi-experiments," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(2).
    5. Johnstone, David, 2022. "Accounting research and the significance test crisis," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Johnstone, David, 2022. "Accounting research and the significance test crisis," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    2. Nick Huntington‐Klein & Andreu Arenas & Emily Beam & Marco Bertoni & Jeffrey R. Bloem & Pralhad Burli & Naibin Chen & Paul Grieco & Godwin Ekpe & Todd Pugatch & Martin Saavedra & Yaniv Stopnitzky, 2021. "The influence of hidden researcher decisions in applied microeconomics," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(3), pages 944-960, July.
    3. Eszter Czibor & David Jimenez‐Gomez & John A. List, 2019. "The Dozen Things Experimental Economists Should Do (More of)," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(2), pages 371-432, October.
    4. Qianwei Ying & Tahir Yousaf & Qurat ul Ain & Yasmeen Akhtar & Muhammad Shahid Rasheed, 2019. "Stock Investment and Excess Returns: A Critical Review in the Light of the Efficient Market Hypothesis," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-22, June.
    5. Kewei Hou & Chen Xue & Lu Zhang, 2017. "Replicating Anomalies," NBER Working Papers 23394, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Hensel, Przemysław G., 2021. "Reproducibility and replicability crisis: How management compares to psychology and economics – A systematic review of literature," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 577-594.
    7. Christophe Hurlin & Christophe Pérignon, 2020. "Reproducibility Certification in Economics Research," Working Papers hal-02896404, HAL.
    8. Shiva Rajgopal, 2021. "Integrating Practice into Accounting Research," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5430-5454, September.
    9. Sylvérie Herbert & Hautahi Kingi & Flavio Stanchi & Lars Vilhubern, 2021. "The Reproducibility of Economics Research: A Case Study," Working papers 853, Banque de France.
    10. Stephen A. Gorman & Frank J. Fabozzi, 2021. "The ABC’s of the alternative risk premium: academic roots," Journal of Asset Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 22(6), pages 405-436, October.
    11. Marius Gros & Alexander Nevrela, 2020. "Revisiting the effectiveness of the German accounting enforcement reforms: a replication study," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 70(1), pages 135-164, February.
    12. Rolf Uwe Fülbier & Thorsten Sellhorn, 2023. "Understanding and improving the language of business: How accounting and corporate reporting research can better serve business and society," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 93(6), pages 1089-1124, August.
    13. Chowdhury, Rosen & Cook, Steve & Watson, Duncan, 2023. "Reconsidering the relationship between health and income in the UK," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 332(C).
    14. 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.
    15. Lucas C. Coffman & Muriel Niederle & Alistair J. Wilson, 2017. "A Proposal to Organize and Promote Replications," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 41-45, May.
    16. Bruns, Stephan B. & König, Johannes & Stern, David I., 2019. "Replication and robustness analysis of ‘energy and economic growth in the USA: A multivariate approach’," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 100-113.
    17. Vitor Azevedo & Christopher Hoegner, 2023. "Enhancing stock market anomalies with machine learning," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 60(1), pages 195-230, January.
    18. Maurizio Canavari & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Jayson L. Lusk & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., 2018. "How to run an experimental auction: A review of recent advances," Working Papers 2018-5, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    19. Alecos Papadopoulos, 2022. "Trade liberalization and growth: a quantile moderator for Hoyos’ (2021) replication study of Estevadeordal and Taylor (2013)," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 63(1), pages 549-563, July.
    20. McCullough, B. D., 2018. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Despite evidence to the contrary, the American Economic Review concluded that all was well with its archive," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 12, pages 1-13.

    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:joares:v:58:y:2020:i:2:p:519-543. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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=0021-8456 .

    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.