Abstract
This study examines the editorial review processes of 40 main English-language accounting journals. It reports findings for individual journals, as well as clusters of journals that have been categorized 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 40 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. As the present study reveals, while the editorial review processes of accounting journals are generally rated quite high, there are particular journals and clusters of journals that stand out from the rest.