arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

Fraudulent Research Practices in Accounting: A Replication and Extension of Bailey, Hasselback, and Karcher (2001)

Charles D. Bailey

Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting2024https://doi.org/10.1108/s1574-076520240000026005book-chapter
AJG 1ABDC B
Weight
0.52

What the paper says

Abstract Bailey et al. (2001) queried accounting researchers concerning admitted fraudulent research practices, their beliefs about the prevalence of such practices among their peers, and their perceptions of the causal factors. They used a randomized response technique that assures anonymity, and it remains the only published study to ask these questions explicitly. Over the past two decades, publication pressures have increased, and accounting academia has experienced a shocking instance of fraud. The current study replicates Bailey et al. (2001) and extends the study by asking new questions about the adequacy of participants’ graduate training, the perceived attitudes and practices of mentors and coauthors, and whether their awareness and concern have evolved. Participants’ comments provide insights about the accounting research environment. Importantly, they indicate a lack of consensus about the legitimacy of research practices.

1 citation

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/s1574-076520240000026005

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{charles2024,
  title        = {{Fraudulent Research Practices in Accounting: A Replication and Extension of Bailey, Hasselback, and Karcher (2001)}},
  author       = {Charles D. Bailey},
  journal      = {Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting},
  year         = {2024},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/s1574-076520240000026005},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Fraudulent Research Practices in Accounting: A Replication and Extension of Bailey, Hasselback, and Karcher (2001)

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.52

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.54 × 0.4 = 0.21
M · momentum0.53 × 0.15 = 0.08
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.