Purpose The aim of the study was to determine how isomorphic tendencies in published accounting journal articles impact AfroCentric research. Design/methodology/approach The study analyzes 63,785 English language abstracts of accounting articles published between 1966 and 2021 in Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) ranked journals supplemented by an autoethnographic account to highlight problem areas in double blind review protocols. Findings Accounting research abstracts with African descriptors in their title were more isomorphic than others for sixteen out of seventeen topics. A similar pattern of isomorphic language use was not detected in a SinoCentric group. Research limitations/implications The study assessed published abstracts rather than full papers, was limited to articles with English-language abstracts and focused on only the twenty highest GDP African countries. The autoethnographic account is only suggestive of problem areas in review processes given that properties of rejected papers cannot be readily assessed. Practical implications Journal ranking metrics created by panels outside an institution's geopolitical region can embody underlying value functions that under-value and ultimately discourage research on topics relevant to a program's target constituents. Non-Western programs may wish to sponsor regional journals and articulate their own vision of the properties of high-quality research. Social implications Bias in journal ranking metrics pose an epistemic justice issue for scholars attempting to go beyond extant paradigms to address emerging issues. Originality/value The study provides evidence that isomorphic tendencies in accounting impact work focused on some regions more than others and suggests that double blind review processes can function as a Lakatosian barrier to work that departs from dominant paradigms.
Louella Moore (Fri,) studied this question.