The CPA Journal

By Robert H. Colson, PhD, CPA, The CPA Journal

As we end the calendar year, the editorial team at The CPA Journal would like to thank its editorial board members, review board members, ad hoc reviewers, and the many diligent professionals that create the articles the rest of us read. The Journal serves the CPA profession by encouraging analysis, discourse, and debate on the most important technical and professional issues in accounting and auditing, taxation, finance, management, technology, and professional responsibilities. The Journal publishes three types of articles: feature-length analyses of interest to all CPAs; shorter technical analyses in about two dozen departments; and opinion pieces and assessments of current affairs affecting CPAs in News and Views, edited by Thomas W. Morris.

The Journal operates primarily as a reviewed submission journal. Papers are submitted from the grassroots of the profession, in public practice, academe, industry, government, regulating, standards setting, and retirement. After an editorial assessment for general appropriateness, most manuscripts are sent to two members of the editorial board, editorial review board, or ad hoc reviewers for a blind review (the reviewers do not know the author’s identity) on such dimensions as timeliness, relevance, innovativeness, readability, and technical accuracy. Reviewers can accept, reject, or request revisions from the authors based on the criteria above. Whether the reviewer agrees with the author’s point of view or conclusions is not a consideration. The editors oversee the review process, make final determinations based on the reviews received, and schedule articles for publication. The editors also offer writing assistance to achieve the straightforward style characteristic of the Journal and to meet length restrictions. Authors receive page proofs of their articles for final approval before publication.

The Journal also benefits from a continuous stream of submissions that come through senior technical committees of the NYSSCPA, which have been organized to provide periodic content for several of the departments. Some committees provide their own editorial review process, while others rely on the Journal’s general process. These submissions are valuable, and the editorial decisions to create a strong line-up are difficult because we often receive more submissions than we can use. This can include multiple submissions on the same subject, sometimes with varying depths of coverage or different points of view that all have merits.

During the year between June 1, 2001, and May 31, 2002, the Journal received 199 submissions that entered the review process. Of those, 130 were eventually accepted, 52 were rejected, and 17 were returned to the authors for revisions. Some authors choose to revise a submission, which may ultimately be accepted, while others choose to send their submission to another journal or to pursue other topics. Of the articles submitted, the average length of time in the review process was 76 days. The Journal asks its reviewers to respond within two weeks. The average article took approximately 132 days from the time of acceptance to the time of publication.

The Journal editorial staff plans the content for a particular issue in the first week of the third month preceding the issue date. For example, we selected the content for the January issue in the first week in October from the inventory of accepted articles. The production process for an issue requires approximately 45 days, with another 30 days editorial lead-time. The Journal typically “fast-tracks” an important article if timeliness is an issue, but this is limited to one or two articles per issue.

The Journal’s editorial board members develop topics and authors to write about specific topics, to review submissions, and to participate in the annual Max Block distinguished article award. The editorial and production staffs of the Journal are recognized each month, along with the editorial board, in the masthead and departmental mastheads. In addition to these hard-working and dedicated individuals, the Journal has benefited from the services of the following ad hoc reviewers:

Marie Arrigio, Alex Ampadu, Susan M. Barossi, Ian J. Benjamin, Stewart Berger, Andrew Blackman, Louis Braiotta, Lenore Briloff, Brian A. Caswell, Lynn Chambers, Rona Cherno, Eric Cohen, Mitch Danaher, Michael Deutchman, Phil Drudy, Susan Edwards, Richard Eisner, Robert Elliott, Roseanne T. Farley, Frank Federmann, Alan Fetterman, Neil Fishman, Derek A. Flanagan, Peter Frank, Martin Goldband, Gerry L. Golub, Arnold L. Haskell, Abraham Haspel, William G. Hatfield, Elliot Hendler, Mark Hettler, Jeffrey Hoops, Ira Inemer, Robert Israeloff, Mark Koziel, Zev Landau, Stephen F. Langowski, Steven Lilien, Thomas O. Linder, Joseph Maffia, Anthony Maltese, Joseph E. Manfre, Ernie Markezin, John J. McEnerney, James Metzler, Peter T. Morris, Stephan R. Mueller, Mark Mycio, Bernard Newman, Nancy Newman-Limata, Ray Nowicki, John E. Oehler, Dennis O'Connor, Dennis O'Leary, Mary Ellen Oliverio, Larry Orsini, Sanjay Paranandi, Brian K. Pearson, Jason Palmer, William Pape, Richard Piluso, William Prue, Mark Rachleff, Ronald Reis, Victor Rich, Steven Rubin, Robert Sack, Susan Schoenfeld, Barry Seidel, Robert Sohr, William Stocker, Thomas Sullivan, Stephen P. Valenti, Richard Vanger-meersch, Miklos Vasarhelyi, Wanda Wallace, Leonard J. Weinstock, Ron West, James Woehlke, Alan Woghin, Philip Wolitzer, and Jay Zellin.

Finally, thank you to all the readers that have given the Journal your input. This page has become a place where many guest editors have expressed their opinions. In addition, many responses have appeared in the News & Views section of the Journal. Your interest and participation are particularly appreciated.