Defining an Editorial Review Piece in JCAF

• Author: Michael Cipriano
• Date: 01 July 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/jcaf.22182
• Published date: 01 July 2016

69

© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).

DOI 10.1002/jcaf.22182

C

o

m

m

e

n

t

a

r

y

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