The existence of a gap between accounting research and accounting practice has been extensively described in literature. In order to be able to publish a research in a high-ranked accounting journal, it seems that methodological issues are more important than those related to the relevance of the topics covered. To improve research and accounting practice and to avoid the risk of accounting research becoming selfreferential, every effort should be made to bridge the current gap between research and accounting practice. To this end, the development of mutual knowledge of the agenda of researchers and practitioners on the one hand, and participation in joint projects on the other, could represent possible future solutions to be pursued.
This paper represents a contribution from the point of view of a practitioner who strongly believes that it is essential to continue to invest in accounting research. The cooperation between chief financial officers, auditors and academic institutions is central not only for improving the process of accounting regulations but also for relaunching, at the same time, the industrial system (and not only it), by creating a strong feeling of trust in general economic and financial communication, thus fostering higher level of accountability.
Keywords: Accounting profession, accounting research, research impact, impact factor, accountability.
Research evaluation and bibliometrics: reflections from a business economics perspective
In dependence of the lack of resources and the consequent need to manage better the allocation process, there is a growing interest regarding the issue of research evaluation. In particular, it is possible to notice a more frequent use of bibliometrics and citation-based indexes (impact factor, h-index, eigenfactor, etc.).
The aim of this paper is to analyse to what extent citation-based indexes can be used to evaluate the research in business economics
In order to achieve the abovementioned aim, the paper proposes a review of the main indexes analyzing their pros and cons and then it tries to draw some critical conclusions with reference to the citation behavior and to the used data base. In the last section, the paper proposes some reflections regarding the use of citation-based indexes for evaluating the research in business economics
An international comparison among scientific research assessment systems
This paper critically compares and discusses the periodic scientific research assessment systems of Italy and of four comparable Countries. The four Countries are: United Kingdom, Australia, France and Spain. I discuss the key features of the abovementioned systems, including: the research quality assessment criteria, the reference to international research quality standards, the impact and relevance of the research outside the academia, the consistency of the scientific researcher’s outputs with the scientific discipline and with the hosting institution’s strategy and activities. I conclude with a direct comparison with the Italian system and with some possible proposals for improving the current Italian scientific research assessment framework.
The recent exercise of Evaluation of Quality and Research boosted by the Italian Agency for the Evaluation of University and Research has reopened reflections on the evaluation methods, including the bibliometric ones. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the impact factor as the main instrument of bibliometric evaluation, “old” in the field of natural and technological sciences but recently introduced by Law and by the Agency also for business and economic disciplines (Bonaccorsi, 2012). The reflections proposed come to the conclusion that the impact factor is not suitable and then it is proposed a new indicator capable of taking into account the usefulness for all users (both primary and secondary): the real impact factor.
The recent commitment to an evaluation of the quality of research fostered by the ANVUR – Agenzia Nazionale di Valutazione del sistema Universitario e della Ricerca – National Agency for the Evaluation of University and Research (VQR 2004-2010) raised a number of questions about what is important to be assessed, which aspects are worthwhile (e.g. scientific quality, practical impact, internationalization etc.) and which methods and tools for measuring and evaluating are to be used (peer-reviewed journals, impact factors, journal rankings, etc.). (Coda, 2011; Palumbo, 2011; Dalli, 2012; Rebora, 2012; Sostero, 2012). Besides the quality of research strictu sensu, one of the aspects that could be considered in the evaluation is the so-called “impact” of research. Although neglected in the Italian system, this dimension is present, even if with different connotations, in some of the evaluation systems used in other countries (Palumbo, 2011; De Nicolao, 2013th, b; Sargiacomo, 2013). The purpose of this paper is to analyse and systematize the main national and international contributions dealing with the concept of “research impact” in order to propose the first critical reflections.
L’articolo analizza i rischi connessi alle modalità di utilizzo degli indici bibliometrici adottate nelle università italiane per la valutazione comparativa della produttività scientifica nell’ambito disciplinare del Public Management. Si propone quindi un sistema alternativo, che tenta di correggere alcuni degli effetti distorsivi generati dalle metodologie attuali.
The present paper reviews the risks attached to the use of the bibliometric indices currently in use in Italian Universities for the assessment of scientific works in the field of Public Management. The work proposes an alternative way of consolidating journal lists and rankings, which tries to solve some of the negative side effects generated by the ranking methods in use at the moment.
Key words: Public Management, Impact factor, Research assessment