Collaboration Network Analysis of Papers Published in English language Accounting and Finance Journals in Iran

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 PhD Student of Accounting, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

2 Management and Accounting Faculty, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

3 Assistant Professor of Accounting, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.

4 Associate Professor of Accounting, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.

Abstract

The MSRT authorized the publication of four English journals in accounting and finance, which produced 853 papers by 2022. This study examines the scholarly collaboration network of authors in these journals, analyzing authorship patterns, productivity, and the features of the network. Using scientometrics indexes and social network analytics, the study employs ucinet and VOSviewer software to analyze the network. Results of this study suggest that 853 papers have been authored by 2438 authors among which only 53 papers(6%) have been authored cooperating with international professors. Investigation of paper authorship patterns indicates that only 8%of the papers(72items) were authored individually while the rest were authored in groups of two(25%- 213papers), through scholarly collaboration of three scholars(42%-354 papers), and the other 25%in collaborative groups with more than 3 scholars. The most productive authors are Rahnamay Roodposhti, Nikoomaram, and Fallah Shams with 28,24&19 papers respectively who have published more than 80%of their publications in the journal under their own management (IJFMA). Analysis of scholarly collaborations network shows collaboration of 1406 scholars among which 1002 scholars(71%) have published merely one paper. Scholarly collaborations network of journals with compression index of 0.018 has low coherence and includes many isolated nodes; nevertheless, compression index in IJFMA(0.051) shows the greatest coherence among journals. Rahmany Roodposhti and Nikoomaram had the highest number of cooperation in the network with ten collaborations. The study provides policymakers in English-language journals of accounting and finance with insights into the level of collaboration and a roadmap for achieving their goals.

Keywords

Main Subjects

©2024 The author(s). This is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0)

References

1. Aly, D., El-Halaby, S. and Hussainey, K. (2018). Tone disclosure and financial performance: evidence from Egypt. Accounting Research Journal, 31(1), pp. 63-74. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARJ-09-2016-0123
2. Amernic, J. and Craig, R. (2009). Understanding accounting through conceptual metaphor: accounting is an instrument? Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 20(8), pp. 875-883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2009.06.004
3. Bellucci, M., Simoni, L., Acuti, D. and Manetti, G. (2019). Stakeholder engagement and dialogic accounting: Empirical evidence in sustainability reporting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 32(5), pp. 1467-1499. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-09-2017-3158
4. Bolan, R.S. (1999). Rationality revisited: An alternative perspective on reason in management and planning, Journal of Management History, 5(2), pp. 68-86. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552529910260082
5. Bordt, M. (2018). Discourses in ecosystem accounting: a survey of the expert community. Ecological Economics, 144(2), pp. 82-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.032
6. Boyce, G. (2000). Valuing customers and loyalty: The rhetoric of customer focus versus the reality of alienation and exclusion of (de-valued) customers, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 11(6), pp. 649-689 https://doi.org/10.1006/cpac.2000.0408
7. Boyce, M.C. and Arruda, E.M. (2000) Constitutive Models of Rubber Elasticity: A Review. Rubber Chemistry and Technology, 73, pp. 504-523. http://dx.doi.org/10.5254/1.3547602
8. Brown, J. (2009). Democracy, sustainability and dialogic accounting technologies: Taking pluralism seriously. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 20(3), pp. 313-342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2008.08.002
9. Brown, J. and Dillard, J. (2021). Accounting for non-financial matters: technologies of humility as a means for developing critical dialogic accounting and accountability. Meditari Accountancy Research, 29(2), pp. 197-218. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-01-2020-0692
10. Budding, T. and Helden, J. V. (2022). Theme: Politicians’ use of accounting informationEditorial: Unraveling politicians’ use and non-use of accounting information. Public Money & Management, 42(3), pp. 137-139.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2022.2028467
11. Chen, H., Tian, Y. and Daugherty, P. J. (2009). Measuring process orientation. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 20(2), pp. 213-227. https://doi.org/10.1108/09574090910981305
12. Corrigan, L. T. (2018). Budget making: the theatrical presentation of accounting discourse. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 55(1), pp. 12-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2017.12.001
13. Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9(2), pp. 119- 161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1999.tb00355.x
14. Craig, R. T. (2008). Communication as a field and discipline. The International Encyclopedia of Communication, 2(2), pp. 675-688.
15. Dey, C. (2003). Corporate ‘silent and ‘shadow social accounting. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, 23(2), pp. 6-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969160X.2003.9651696
16. Dianati Deilami. Z. (2014). Research Method in Accounting: A Practical Guide for Writing Dissertations and Articles, Iranian Management Accounting Association, Second Edition. Tehran, Iran. (In Persian)
17. Dillard, J. and Vinnari, E. (2019). Critical dialogical accountability: From accounting-based accountability to accountability-based accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 62(1), pp. 16-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2018.10.003
18. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), pp. 39-50.
19. Fremeaux, S., Puyou, F. R. and Michelson, G. (2020). Beyond accountants as technocrats: A common good perspective. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 67, A. 102054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2018.07.003
20. Ghanbari, V., Abdoli, M., Valiyan, H. (2021). The Design of Effectiveness of Environmental Accounting Mechanisms Model Aimed at Sustainable Development of Stock Exchanges Companies by Grounded Theory Approach. Environmental Researches, 11(22), pp. 57-72. (In Persian)
21. Godowski, C., Nègre, E. and Verdier, M. A. (2020). Toward dialogic accounting? Public accountants’ assistance to works councils− A tool between hope and illusion. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 69(3), A. 102095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2019.102095
22. Gray, R. and Bebbington, J. (2001). Accounting for The Environment. 2nd ed. London: Sage. London, England
23. Gray, R., Dey, C., Owen, D., Evans, R. and Zadek, S. (1997). Struggling with the praxis of social accounting: Stakeholders, accountability, audits and procedures. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 10(3), pp. 325-364. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513579710178106
24. Grossi, G., Biancone, P. P., Secinaro, S. and Brescia, V. (2021). Dialogic accounting through
popular reporting and digital platforms. Meditari Accountancy Research, 29(7), pp. 75-93.
https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-01-2021-1163
25. Gunarathne, N., Lee, K. H. and Hitigala Kaluarachchilage, P. K. (2023). Tackling the integration challenge between environmental strategy and environmental management accounting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 36(1), pp. 63-95. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-03-2020-4452
26. Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), pp. 195-204.
27. Hussain, S., Liu, L. Y. J. and Miller, A. D. (2020). Accounting as a dichotomized discipline: An analysis of the source materials used in the construction of accounting articles. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 66(2), A. 102086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2019.04.007
28. Jones, A. and Willis, M. (2003). The challenge of XBRL: business reporting for the investor. Balance sheet, 11(3), pp. 29-37. https://doi.org/10.1108/09657960310491172
29. Littlejohn, S. W. and Foss, K. A. (2011). Theories of Human Communication. Tenth Edition, Waveland Press, Long Grove, Illinois
30. Mael, F. and Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), pp. 103-123.
31. Malthus, S. and Fowler, C. (2009). Perceptions of accounting: a qualitative New Zealand study. Pacific Accounting Review, 21(1), pp. 26-47. https://doi.org/10.1108/01140580910956849
32. Manetti, G., Bellucci, M. and Oliva, S. (2021). Unpacking dialogic accounting: a systematic literature review and research agenda. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 34(9), pp. 250-283. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-08-2020-4736
33. McGoun, E. G., Bettner, M. S. and Coyne, M. P. (2007). Pedagogic metaphors and the nature of accounting signification. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 18(2), pp. 213-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2005.12.003
34. Medawar, C. (1976). The social audit: a political view. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 1(4), pp. 389-394. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(76)90041-6
35. Melissa Walters‐York, L. (1996). Metaphor in accounting discourse. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 9(5), pp. 45-70. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513579610367242
36. Merkl-Davies, D. M. and Brennan, N. M. (2017). A theoretical framework of external accounting communication: Research perspectives, traditions, and theories. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30(2), pp. 433-469. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-04-2015-2039
37. Millar, E. and Searcy, C. (2020). The presence of citizen science in sustainability reporting. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 11(1), pp. 31-64. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-01-2019-0006
38. Morgan, G. (1988). Accounting as reality construction: towards a new epistemology for accounting practice. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 13(5), pp. 477-485. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(88)90018-9
39. Nicholls, A. (2018). A general theory of social impact accounting: Materiality, uncertainty and empowerment. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 9(2), pp. 132-153. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2018.1452785
40. Pärl, Ü., Paemurru, E., Paemurru, K. and Kivisoo, H. (2022). Dialogical turn of accounting and accountability integrated reporting in non-profit and public-sector organizations. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 34(1), pp. 27-51. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBAFM-11-2019-0178
41. Rutherford, B. A. (2002). The production of narrative accounting statements: An exploratory study of the operating and financial review. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 6(3), pp. 25-56. https://doi.org/10.1108/96754260280001031
42. Sami, S., khosravipour, N., lashgari, Z. (2021). Effect of Dialectical Metaphor of Auditors' Negotiation Maturity Process. Journal of Accounting Knowledge, 2(2), pp. 1-24. (In Persian)
43. Shahri, M., Fazeli, N., Abdoli, M. (2021). Expanding of Anthropocene Theory Paradigm in Examining Corporate Environmental Behaviors on Green Accounting Strategic Consequences. Management Accounting, 14(48), pp. 193-214. (In Persian)
44. Simon, H. A. (1997). Models of Bounded Rationality. Vol. 3: Empirically Grounded Economic Reason. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 2(2), pp. 1-93. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4711.001.0001
45. Uvaneswaran, S. M., Tsega, Z. and Seid, M. (2019). Efficacy of Social Accounting Practices on the Financial Performance: Evidence from Ethiopia. Journal of Innovation in Business and Economics, 3(1), pp. 11-22. https://doi.org/10.22219/jibe.v3i01.7192
46. van der Meer‐Kooistra, J. and Vosselman, E. (2012). Research paradigms, theoretical pluralism and the practical relevance of management accounting knowledge. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 9(3), pp. 245-264. https://doi.org/10.1108/11766091211257452
47. Webber, B. (2006). Accounting for discourse relations: Constituency and dependency. Intelligent linguistic Architectures, 1(1), pp. 339-360.
48. Yen, A. C., Riley, T. J. and Liao, P. (2017). Chinese vs US investors’ reactions to accounting narratives: An experiment. Asian Review of Accounting, 25(4), pp. 526-548. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARA-12-2016-0144
Send comment about this article
CAPTCHA Image

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics