Despite these positive signs, anecdotal evidence from discussions with field researchers and our own experience with the editing and review process suggest that the quality norms of field research are not understood by many involved with the editing and review process in North American accounting journals. This happens despite the efforts of journal editors who often choose well-intentioned reviewers who are open to ‘‘new’’ methods. However, such editors and reviewers attempt to apply norms of their training to assess the quality of field research. Such reviewers often lead audit field study authors toward a more
descriptive paper leading to rejection due to lack of academic contribution