Audit Committee Effectiveness: A Synthesis of the Empirical Audit Committee Literature
- Journal
- Journal of Accounting Literature
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w15149765 →Countries where authors are citing Audit Committee Effectiveness: A Synthesis of the Empirical Audit Committee Literature
This map shows the geographic impact of Audit Committee Effectiveness: A Synthesis of the Empirical Audit Committee Literature. 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 Audit Committee Effectiveness: A Synthesis of the Empirical Audit Committee Literature with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Audit Committee Effectiveness: A Synthesis of the Empirical Audit Committee Literature more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Audit Committee Effectiveness: A Synthesis of the Empirical Audit Committee Literature
This network shows the impact of Audit Committee Effectiveness: A Synthesis of the Empirical Audit Committee Literature. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Audit Committee Effectiveness: A Synthesis of the Empirical Audit Committee Literature.
About Audit Committee Effectiveness: A Synthesis of the Empirical Audit Committee Literature
This paper, published in 2002, received 561 indexed citations . Written by F. Todd DeZoort, Dana R. Hermanson and Deborah S. Archambeault covering the research area of Management Information Systems and Accounting. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Accounting (515 citations), Strategy and Management (218 citations) and Management Information Systems (83 citations). Published in Journal of Accounting Literature.
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/w15149765.