Review of Accounting Studies

1.0k papers and 59.4k indexed citations i.

About

The 1.0k papers published in Review of Accounting Studies in the last decades have received a total of 59.4k indexed citations. Papers published in Review of Accounting Studies usually cover Accounting (929 papers), Finance (548 papers) and Strategy and Management (379 papers) specifically the topics of Auditing, Earnings Management, Governance (779 papers), Corporate Finance and Governance (594 papers) and Financial Markets and Investment Strategies (457 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Review of Accounting Studies are Scott Richardson, James A. Ohlson, Richard G. Sloan, Partha S. Mohanram, Douglas J. Skinner, William H. Beaver, Stephen H. Penman, Stephen A. Hillegeist, T.J. Wong and Xi Li.

In The Last Decade

Fields of papers published in Review of Accounting Studies

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in Review of Accounting Studies. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers published in Review of Accounting Studies.

Countries where authors publish in Review of Accounting Studies

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Review of Accounting Studies. 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 papers published in Review of Accounting Studies with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Review of Accounting Studies more than expected).

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.

Explore journals with similar magnitude of impact

Rankless by CCL
2025