Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accounting journals/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of accounting journals

Featured list candidates/List of accounting journals/archive1

Nominator(s): Well-rested ^Talk 06:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is a very fine addition to the many lists of academic journals currently available on Wikipedia. :) --Well-rested ^Talk 06:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick comment, but shouldn't the journal titles all be listed in italics per the MOS and standard practices for italicizing publication names? Imzadi 1979 → 06:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, you're right. Can't believe I managed to miss that. Will fix it in a bit. -Well-rested ^Talk 07:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. All journal titles are in italics now. :) -Well-rested ^Talk 07:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, when I saw this, I decided to ask my wife who's a PhD student in Accounting what she thought, and these were her thoughts:

"The problem with "accounting journals" is that because accounting has so many sub-fields, accounting pubs often pop up in other publications like Admin Science Quarterly" - though I understand that you need to cut the list off somewhere, so I'm okay with you not including journals that are not specifically Accounting focused, even if they publish accounting papers.
"Also, the submitter must be an auditor because they are missing a bunch of tax journals like Tax Notes, JATA, etc." - you're also missing management accounting journals (Financial Accountability & Management, Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Advances in Management Accounting, Journal of Cost Management, etc.) - I'm looking at a list of journals from Penn State here, though it's not comprehensive. She's going to get me a list of journals as considered by the UW tenure process, so I'll post those here when I get them. Also, I disagree, you're more likely in financial accounting.

Beyond that, I have my own concerns-

The lead spends the majority of the time discussing academic journals in general, but not accounting journals in specific.
You really shouldn't have one/two-sentence paragraphs.
"Recent studies" is a poor term, since it changes meaning over time- instead, maybe mention that studies from 2010/2011 say blah blah.
So, Journal Citation Reports is the only source for impact factor? Even if that's true, I would expect to see something in the lead saying that you're pulling the impact factor from the latest edition of there (2012), and that they don't cover every journal, rather than just insinuating it in a footnote.
Ref 46 needs a publisher, and I don't much care for the fact that you don't link things in refs if you've linked them in the main article, though to each their own.

--Pres N 20:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply! Just leaving some quick thoughts for now since I have to head off somewhere in a bit. I agree that one issue with the list as it is is its coverage. I tried to rely on secondary sources in compiling the list of journals; the problem, of course, is that as far as I know there is no publicly-available source with an exhaustive list of accounting journals. I therefore relied on two sources: the 2006 study of journals, and the JCR list (cited in the table's headers). I'm definitely open to suggestions regarding how to makr the list "more comprehensive" while still relying on secondary sources.

And yes, accounting researchers definitely publish in other journals. Perhaps I should have worded this article to more precisely refer to journals focused on accounting. I'll try to make these and other changes you suggest in a bit.

--Well-rested ^Talk 00:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another quick reply. Regarding "not linking if linked to main article" (I believe you're referring to the journal titles?), I actually added the refs in the column headers, a practice I've seen done in other lists. Or are you referring to something else? --Well-rested ^Talk 00:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quickfail Oppose - just realized that you already have a nomination open; FLC is a one-at-a-time kind of thing. Top of the page- "Users should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." --Pres N 00:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. Didn't know about this rule. Do I de-nom this by just removing the FLC template from the talk page?_Well-rested ^Talk 00:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.