Co-authorship in accounting history: advantages and pitfalls

R. Fleischman, Karen Schuele
{"title":"Co-authorship in accounting history: advantages and pitfalls","authors":"R. Fleischman, Karen Schuele","doi":"10.1080/09585200903246536","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Relatively little has been written about co-authorship in accounting and even less specific to accounting history. This paper endeavours to track co-authorship patterns in the discipline, both quantitatively and qualitatively. The three specialist accounting history journals provide the data to render quantitative judgements, whilst a survey of accounting history scholars has generated information on how co-authorship is perceived in the field, particularly its benefits and pitfalls. A matching technique is used to gauge whether patterns in accounting history are similar to those within the broader accounting discipline. Consideration will also be given to comparisons of how co-authorship is viewed by US and non-US academicians.","PeriodicalId":399197,"journal":{"name":"Accounting, Business & Financial History","volume":"125 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"26","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounting, Business & Financial History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09585200903246536","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 26

Abstract

Relatively little has been written about co-authorship in accounting and even less specific to accounting history. This paper endeavours to track co-authorship patterns in the discipline, both quantitatively and qualitatively. The three specialist accounting history journals provide the data to render quantitative judgements, whilst a survey of accounting history scholars has generated information on how co-authorship is perceived in the field, particularly its benefits and pitfalls. A matching technique is used to gauge whether patterns in accounting history are similar to those within the broader accounting discipline. Consideration will also be given to comparisons of how co-authorship is viewed by US and non-US academicians.
会计史上的合著:优势与缺陷
相对而言,很少有人写过关于共同作者在会计,甚至更少具体到会计历史。本文试图从定量和定性两方面跟踪该学科的合著模式。这三家专业会计史期刊提供了量化判断的数据,而对会计史学者的调查产生了关于该领域如何看待合作的信息,特别是它的好处和缺陷。使用匹配技术来衡量会计历史中的模式是否与更广泛的会计学科中的模式相似。还将考虑比较美国和非美国学者如何看待共同作者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信