From the Editor
I take this opportunity to report on recent developments and thank all who continue to support AHJ.
Submissions: the quality of submissions to AHJ continues to improve though the rejection rate still remains rather high. An analysis of the reasons why referees suggest that papers be re-jected shows that the principal concerns are deficiencies in his-torical scholarship. Negative comments usually relate to one or more of the following: a tendency to submit purely descriptive papers as opposed to those exhibiting a combination of description, narrative and analysis; a failure to identify the contribution made by the paper (the absence of a research question or historical problem, not answering the ‘so-what’ question); inadequate gathering of pertinent evidence; disconnection from the relevant literature and inadequate literature review; and, an absence of contextualization. It should be emphasized that weak English and an ‘uncritical’ approach are seldom reasons for the rejection of papers. If the submission has the potential to make a contribution then concerns about language and grammar can invariably be remedied with assistance from the editor or a kindly member of the editorial board.
Special Sections: The current issue contains an Autobiographical section. While AHJ is primarily concerned with publishing the results of quality historical research, it is also receptive to submissions which relate the experiences of those who have contributed to the evolution of accounting thought and practice. As source material, memoirs, of course, should be interpreted with much circumspection. However, the paper by George Staubus further illustrates the increasing recognition in accounting history of the need to record personal experiences. Like biographical studies in general, the points at which the individual’s life course converges with significant events in accounting are of particular value. Hence, the paper illuminates the development of key concepts such as decision-usefulness and activity costing as well as the work of institutions such as the FASB and the AAA. Staubus’ autobiographical account also highlights the contributions of other significant actors, the nature of academic life and accounting research in past decades.
The manuscript referees identified these contributions of the paper and were also impressed by its candid and engaging style.
Richard Vangermeersch (rvang@uriacc.uri.edu) is guest editing a special section on International Congresses of Accounting to coincide with the theme of the World Congress of Accounting Historians in 2004. See the Noticeboard section (p. 158) in the December 2002 number.
Cheryl McWatters, Reviews Editor, would be pleased to hear from potential contributors to the Interfaces section. Authors should identify published works in sister disciplines which have implications for accounting history research.
Prize Winners, 2002: I am delighted to announce that the editorial board have decided that the prize for the best paper in Volume 29 be awarded to Alan J. Richardson for his article on “Professional Dominance: The Relationship Between Financial Accounting and Managerial Accounting, 1926-1986”. The following papers were also highly commended: Margaret Lamb, “Defining ‘Profits’ for British Income Tax Purposes: A Contextual Study of the Depreciation Cases, 1875-1897”, and Christopher J. Napier, “The Historian as Auditor: Facts, Judgments and Evidence”.
