Affiliation:
1. University of Melbourne , Melbourne , VIC , Australia
Abstract
AbstractOhlson (2023. Empirical accounting seminars: Elephants in the room.Accounting, Economics, and Law: A Convivium) draws on his experience in empirical accounting seminars to identify five “elephants in the room”. I interpret each of these elephants as either a variant or a symptom of p-hacking. I provide evidence of the prevalence of p-hacking in accounting research that complements the observations made by Ohlson (2023. Empirical accounting seminars: Elephants in the room.Accounting, Economics, and Law: A Convivium). In this paper, I identify a number of steps that could be taken to reduce p-hacking in accounting research. I conjecture that facilitating and encouraging replication alone could have profound effects on the quality and quantity of empirical accounting research.
Subject
Law,Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous),Accounting
Reference53 articles.
1. Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2008). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton University Press.
2. Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2014). Mastering ’metrics: The path from cause to effect. Princeton University Press.
3. Bach, L., Bozio, A., Guillouzouic, A., & Malgouyres, C. (2023). Dividend taxes and the allocation of capital: Comment. American Economic Review Forthcoming.
4. Ball, R., & Brown, P. (1968). An empirical evaluation of accounting income numbers. Journal of Accounting Research, 6, 159–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/2490232
5. Ball, R., & Brown, P. (2019). Ball and Brown (1968) after fifty years. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 53, 410–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2018.12.008