Defining an Editorial Review Piece in JCAF

AuthorMichael Cipriano
Date01 July 2016
Published date01 July 2016
© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley Online Library (
DOI 10.1002/jcaf.22182
Defining an Editorial Review
Piece inJCAF
Michael Cipriano
When Jim Edwards
invited me to be a part
of the JCAF Editorial
Advisory Board, I was both
honored and a bit overwhelmed
by the thought of working with
Jim in such a serious role. I met
Jim several years ago (when I
still had a relatively full head
of hair) and looked up to him
as a beacon of integrity, pas-
sion, and knowledge both in
the classroom and in his schol-
arly endeavors. We had various
talks during those years and,
at one point, he called me a
“35-year-old dinosaur” because
I was pursuing a doctorate in
accounting with the goals of
truly preparing students for
the real world and trying to
generate research that would
improve the accounting profes-
sion. Weboth agreed that doc-
toral programs, particularly in
business schools, had traded in
the professor/practical scholar
vision for the PhD student to
the “publish at all costs” model.
We also agreed that evolution
was hurting both the quality
of teaching and the usefulness
of research for the practitio-
ner. For the record, we did not
agree on everything. Jim wears
a jacket and tie to work every
day, while I choose something
in the range between workout
clothes and very casual for
most workdays. He once asked
me why I chose to dress that
way, and I delivered the snarky
response that I was the “voice
of the future of accounting
education with the wardrobe
to match that voice!” I will
never forget Jim’s response to
my half-kidding exclamation.
He said, “God help us all.” We
both laughed uncontrollably.
I tell that story not only
to recognize Jim as an incred-
ibly influential person in both
my personal and professional
life, but as the context for my
first commentary in JCAF that
will attempt to define what Jim
and the board envision for the
pieces we publish as editorial
reviews (ERs). Currently, we
have succinctly defined ERs
as pieces that are “reviewed
by members of the Edito-
rial Advisory Board … (in
which) the highest standards
of publishing are applied.
This classification is primarily
intended for authors who are
applied researchers within the
academic community and busi-
ness professionals.” (Edwards,
2016, p.8). We now feel it is
important to provide a bit
more guidance to authors for
our vision of ERs over the next
several issues/years of JCAF.
This journal distinguishes itself,
particularly under Jim’s leader-
ship, as a body of work that
informs readers of what prac-
tices are being followed within
organizations today and how,
when possible, those practices
could be improved. The general
idea is that the JCAF reader
wants to explore how she or he
can improve her or his personal
performance and/or that of her
or his organization. The uni-
verse of information is vast and
powerful and most of us only
touch a very small amount of
it in our careers, but journals
like JCAF allow us to share our
respective bodies of knowledge
in a manner that improves all
of our lives by giving us access
to information we don’t have
in a format that makes it easily
digested and useful.
Given that mission of
JCAF, how do ERs fit into that

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT