Abstract
This study examines the editorial review processes of a broad set of widely circulated and read English-language academic accounting journals. It reports findings for individual journals, as well as clusters of journals that have been categorised by the geographical region of their editorial offices and functional specialty. A survey-based study was used. Authors who had papers accepted at one of the 38 accounting journals during the period 2004-2005 were asked to comment on their experiences with the editorial review process. The authors were also separately asked to comment on the editorial review process of a journal in which they received their most recent manuscript rejection. While the average author experience with the editorial review process was perceived as slightly favourable, significant differences were observed between journals, journal specialty (e. g. accounting and finance, management accounting, etc.), location of editorial review offices and accepted versus rejected manuscript experiences. These more granular findings reveal that some journals, and clusters of journals, were perceived to stand out from the rest.