Abstract The article presents an analysis of attitudes of a sample of the American Accounting Association (AAA) members towards the periodical "The Accounting Review." Some conclusions suggested from the above analysis are respondents appeared basically to be satisfied with the research published in the periodical, which is similar to the conclusion of scholars Edwin H. Caplan and Charles H. Griffin cited earlier. Responding practitioners seemed to be concerned about the read ability of the published research. Although their attitudes were in general agreement with using multiple research methods as deemed appropriate, the analysis suggested a stronger interest in publishing abstracts. Responding academicians were not as much interested in publishing abstracts as in reporting the detailed construction of the techniques used. Responding practitioners appeared to favor publishing research which is different from that of the other two journals, the "Journal of Accounting Research" and "Journal of Accountancy." Responding academicians appeared to favor differentiating the type of research publishable in the periodical only from what is published in the Journal of Accountancy.
A. Rashad Abdel-Khalik (Thu,) studied this question.