پارس پروژه پرتال خدمات دانشگاهی
این مقاله علمی پژوهشی (ISI) به زبان انگلیسی از نشریه الزویر مربوط به سال ۲۰۲۱ دارای ۲۳ صفحه انگلیسی با فرمت PDF می باشد در ادامه این صفحه لینک دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی و بخشی از ترجمه فارسی مقاله موجود می باشد.
کد محصول: H739
سال نشر: ۲۰۲۱
نام ناشر (پایگاه داده): الزویر
نام مجله: Critical Perspectives on Accounting
نوع مقاله: علمی پژوهشی (Research articles)
تعداد صفحه انگلیسی: ۲۳ صفحه PDF
عنوان کامل فارسی:
مقاله انگلیسی ۲۰۲۱ : تحقیقات حسابداری و بحران آزمون معناداری
عنوان کامل انگلیسی:
Accounting research and the significance test crisis
برای دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی بر روی دکمه ذیل کلیک نمایید
وضعیت ترجمه: این مقاله تاکنون ترجمه نشده برای سفارش ترجمه ی مقاله بر روی دکمه ذیل کلیک نمایید (کد مقاله:H739)
مقالات مرتبط با این موضوع: برای مشاهده سایر مقالات مرتبط با این موضوع (با ترجمه و بدون ترجمه) بر روی دکمه ذیل کلیک نمایید
Abstract
The emerging or at least threatening ‘‘significance test crisis” in accounting has been prompted by a chorus across multiple physical and social sciences of dissatisfaction with conventional frequentist statistical research methods and behaviors, particularly the use and abuse of p-levels. There are now hundreds of published papers and statements, echoing what has been said behind closed doors for decades, namely that much if not most empirical research is unreliable, simply wrong or at worst fabricated. The problems are a mixture of flawed statistical logic (as Bayesians have claimed for decades), ‘‘phacking” by way of fishing for significant results and publications, selective reporting or ‘‘the file drawer problem”, and ultimately the ‘‘agency problem” that researchers charged by funding bodies (their Universities, governments and taxpayers) with conducting disinterested ‘‘objective science” are motivated more by the personal need to publish and please other researchers. Expanding on that theme, the supply of empirical research in the ‘‘market for statistical significance” is described in terms of ‘‘market failure” and ‘‘the market for lemons”.
Keywords: Empirical accounting research, Significance tests, Replication crisis, p-levels, p-hacking, Registered reports
۱.Introduction
In October 2011, Joseph Simmons, a psychologist at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, published a clearly preposterous result in the respectable journal Psychological Science. Together with Uri Simonsohn, also at Wharton, and Leif Nelson of the University of California, Berkeley, Simmons showed that people who listened to the Beatles song ‘‘When I’m Sixty-Four” grew younger, by nearly 18 months. But if the result was laughable, the point of the paper was serious: to show how standard scientific methods could generate scientific support for just about anything. . . . The paper came at a critical time for psychologists. Earlier that year, another paper using standard methods had shown that extrasensory perception was a real phenomenon – a result the authors meant seriously, to the dismay of other psychologists. ‘‘If you use the techniques that everyone is using in their normal research . . . and it supports the existence of bullshit, then there is good reason to think that that method is wrong more generally and you shouldn’t be using it,”. . .. (Kupferschmidt, 2018)…
۵.Conclusion
It is a curiosity in accounting research that analytical research papers that rest explicitly on Bayesian reasoning, and empirical research papers that are totally reliant on frequentist non/anti-Bayesian methods (p-levels), sit equally side by side in the same journal issues, presumably satisfying the same refereeing and scientific standards, if not the same referees. In some empirical papers, hypotheses are hatched on a Bayesian depiction of investor behavior but are tested using frequentist logic. Such apparent cognitive dissonance within the accounting research community has been buried by different sleights of hand. Typically, for example, empirical researchers misrepresent significance tests by twisting their meaning in ways that sound sensible and pseudo-Bayesian or (more commonly) by saying nothing explicit as if to let low p-values speak for themselves.
| مقالات مرتبط با این موضوع |