Search results

This study aims to examine the Securities and Exchange Commission’s final rule in Modernization of Beneficial Ownership Reporting, which reduced the time for significant public company shareholders to file Schedule 13D (effective February 5, 2024). The authors corroborate prior results under the historic 10-day maximum reporting regime and provide updated academic analysis regarding how the five-day deadline between the “triggering” event, accumulating 5% of the outstanding shares and public disclosure of that event will affect abnormal returns.

This empirical archival study uses publicly available data.

The analyses show that changing from a 10-day to a 5-day Schedule 13 disclosure window will reduce activist investors’ opportunity to profit by legally delaying the filing of Schedule 13D. These excess returns for delay exist regardless of the profitability or size of the target firm or the shareholder’s disclosed reason for filing. The authors conclude that accelerating the timing of the disclosure window is an improvement that is in the best interest of the general investing public.

To the authors’ knowledge, this is the only academic study of Schedule 13D filings to include the postpandemic period. As such, the authors establish an updated “baseline projection” for expectations regarding how the Modernization final rule will impact activist investors and stock returns under a five-day reporting regime. In addition, the authors measure and test abnormal returns after considering differences between “triggering” events and filing dates of Schedule 13Ds in the sample rather than grouping all filings. This approach allows the authors to account for the time difference between the triggering event and the filing date.

We examine whether female faculty in US universities have a higher tenure benchmark relative to their male counterparts. Using survey data from 317 accounting faculty, we compare the role of gender for both favorable and unfavorable tenure decisions. Specifically, we compare: the research output of female faculty who are awarded tenure to that of similarly successful male faculty, and the research output of female faculty who are not awarded tenure to that of similarly unsuccessful male faculty. Contrary to past research investigating gender bias at upper ranks within organizations, we find no evidence that female faculty must achieve higher research output than male faculty in order to be awarded tenure.

Lists research evidence that organizations are often unaware of underutilized capacity resources and examines the implications of explicit unused capacity reporting which identifies the cost of unused capacity, pointing out that although this information is useful, it may increase evaluator outcome effects. Describes an experiment to test this and shows that where unused capacity is reported biased performance evaluation results; and individual decision makers may inappropriately reduce capacity or increase production to avoid negative evaluations. Considers how management accountants can mitigate this effect, recognizes the limitations of the study and calls for further research.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether audit professionals exhibit greater performance evaluation bias compared to non‐accounting professionals.

Both audit and non‐accounting professional subjects read a case study and evaluated the performance of a hypothetical subordinate. Two factors were manipulated the subordinate's work performance history and the subordinate's current performance relative to a budget.

It was found that reputation bias and hindsight bias are prevalent in both professional groups. The groups exhibit no difference with respect to reputation bias; however, it was found that public accountants exhibit significantly greater hindsight bias relative to non‐accounting professionals.

The paper provides evidence that accountants are relatively harsh critics of subordinate performance. Importantly, the paper investigates accountant vs non‐accountant comparisons where subordinates' ex ante decisions are consistent with superiors' ex ante guidance (i.e. ex post performance being either favorable vs unfavorable is purely outcome‐effect driven). If the findings are robust, this study provides a fundamental reason why employee retention in public accounting is relatively low.

This paper is the first to make direct comparisons of performance evaluation bias effects between auditors and similarly experienced working professions.

Online labor pools continue to grow in popularity, serving as an inexpensive, readily available source of research data. Despite early skepticism, accounting research has generally found evidence that supports the use of these labor pools. However, one important distinction unique to online labor markets is the pre-screening process that qualifies participants for future studies. As the identity of online participants are generally unknown, researchers rely on participants’ self-reported identities to establish a pool of qualified respondents. This paper aims to provide evidence of the reliability of online participants’ answers to pre-screening questions.

Following the current literature’s recommendations on pre-screening candidates, I employ a multi-stage design using two similar surveys that are taken by each participant. I compare participants' answers on the first survey and the second survey to provide evidence on the consistency of their responses.

My results indicate that online participants are responding with substantial inconsistency to survey questions related to their social identity at a rate that may not be tolerable for many researchers. This has implications for researchers who use these online labor markets to represent a particular population of interest.

This study is the first to provide evidence on the consistency of online labor market participant responses. Additionally, it is the first to test the efficacy of current recommended guidelines for identifying populations of interest in the literature.

The paper seeks to provide a structured review of the literature on gender and scholarly career outcomes in the social sciences and discuss its relevance to research on IS scholarship, in order to guide researchers who seek to conduct studies on the role of gender in academic IS careers.

The authors review the literature to identify all published studies that compare (or theorize about) various academic career outcomes for men and women in the social sciences.

In comparing the literature from the IS field with other social science disciplines, the authors conclude that gender has been entirely overlooked in studies of IS scholars' publication patterns and other career outcomes. Propositions are developed for researchers in order to guide future studies that examine the relationship between gender and academic career outcomes.

The paper focuses on studies that compare research productivity and other career outcomes for men and women in social science disciplines. Studies in other disciplines such as engineering, physical sciences, arts and humanities, are omitted. Studies that focus on women only or studies that examine the general antecedents to scholarly outcomes but which ignore gender are also excluded.

This paper seeks to open up a discussion of gender as a valid issue for investigation regarding career outcomes for IS scholars. The authors seek to motivate other researchers to examine whether women are achieving parity in the IS academic field.

This paper provides a comprehensive, structured literature review to systematically study whether gender plays a role in research productivity and other career outcomes for IS scholars.