The Relation Between Auditors' Fees for Non-Audit Services and Earnings Management
- Journal
- SSRN Electronic Journal
In The Last Decade
doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.296557 →Countries where authors are citing The Relation Between Auditors' Fees for Non-Audit Services and Earnings Management
This map shows the geographic impact of The Relation Between Auditors' Fees for Non-Audit Services and Earnings Management. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by The Relation Between Auditors' Fees for Non-Audit Services and Earnings Management with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites The Relation Between Auditors' Fees for Non-Audit Services and Earnings Management more than expected).
Fields of papers citing The Relation Between Auditors' Fees for Non-Audit Services and Earnings Management
This network shows the impact of The Relation Between Auditors' Fees for Non-Audit Services and Earnings Management. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the The Relation Between Auditors' Fees for Non-Audit Services and Earnings Management.
About The Relation Between Auditors' Fees for Non-Audit Services and Earnings Management
This paper, published in 2002, received 1.1k indexed citations . Written by Richard M. Frankel, Marilyn F. Johnson and Karen K. Nelson covering the research area of Strategy and Management and Accounting. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Accounting (1.1k citations), Strategy and Management (462 citations) and Finance (206 citations). Published in SSRN Electronic Journal.
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.
This paper is also available at doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.296557.