car-topic-selection
GitHub用于选定或优化当代会计研究(CAR)论文的研究问题，评估其与CAR广泛范围的契合度，并根据问题性质选择档案、实验等合适的研究传统，确保问题具有张力且符合透明性要求。
触发场景
安装
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill car-topic-selection -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "car-topic-selection",
"description": "Use when choosing or sharpening a research question for a Contemporary Accounting Research (CAR) manuscript — testing fit with CAR's deliberately method-agnostic, all-topic-areas accounting scope and picking the research tradition (archival, experimental, analytical, field, qualitative) that the question demands."
}
Topic Selection & CAR Fit (car-topic-selection)
When to trigger
- You have a phenomenon or dataset but no sharp accounting research question
- You are unsure whether the topic fits CAR versus a narrower or non-accounting outlet
- You cannot yet say which research tradition (archival, experimental, analytical, field, qualitative) the question requires
- A coauthor asks "is this a CAR paper or a finance/economics paper?"
What CAR is looking for
CAR welcomes "interesting and intellectually rigorous work in all topic areas of accounting, using any appropriate method, and based in any discipline or research tradition." This is a genuine big-tent mandate: financial reporting, auditing and assurance, managerial/cost accounting, taxation, disclosure, accounting information in capital markets, governance, and accounting's role in organizations and society are all in scope. The defining test is therefore not method but whether the question advances understanding of accounting — its production, properties, use, or consequences. A question that merely uses accounting data to answer a pure-finance asset-pricing or pure-economics question is a weaker fit than one whose answer changes how we understand accounting itself.
Pick the research tradition the question demands
CAR's broad scope means the same topic can be pursued several ways; choose the tradition that can actually deliver the inference:
| If the question is about… | Lean toward… |
|---|---|
| Capital-market consequences of reporting/disclosure | Archival / capital-markets empirical |
| How preparers, auditors, or investors process information | Experiment (causal, mechanism) |
| Optimal contracting, disclosure incentives, equilibria | Analytical / modeling |
| Practice inside firms, audit teams, or standard-setting | Field study / qualitative |
| A new construct's measurement or external validity | Survey, or multi-method triangulation |
Sharpen the question
- State the question as a single sentence: what accounting phenomenon, for whom, with what consequence?
- Name the tension or puzzle — competing predictions are more "interesting" to CAR than a one-directional gap.
- Check feasibility against CAR's transparency regime early: can you share the data/code, or get ethics approval for human participants? A question requiring non-shareable proprietary data needs a verification plan (see
car-methods).
Checklist
- The answer changes our understanding of accounting, not just of markets generally
- The research tradition matches what the question can support
- A tension/puzzle is articulated, not just an unstudied cell
- Data/instrument access and (if human subjects) ethics approval look feasible
- The contribution is plausibly large enough for a top accounting journal
Anti-patterns
- Accounting-data-as-convenience: a finance question dressed in Compustat variables.
- Method-first: forcing an experiment or model onto a question better answered archivally (or vice versa).
- Gap-spotting: "no one has studied X" with no tension or consequence.
Fit pass for Contemporary Accounting Research
Use this as a second-pass capability check. First lock the accounting construct, setting, identification or theory, and disclosure/market/organizational implication; then test whether the manuscript addresses accounting reviewers who expect accounting-specific constructs, credible design, and contribution to reporting, auditing, tax, or governance debates.
- Primary move: Score fit, novelty, evidence readiness, and audience ownership; reject prestige-only targeting when a sibling venue owns the contribution.
- Decision ledger: return
claim / evidence / blocker / next editrows so the next pass can patch the manuscript directly. - Neighbor test: compare against The Accounting Review for US flagship breadth, JAR for Chicago-style accounting research, JAE for economics/accounting interface; if the neighboring outlet has the stronger audience claim, recommend re-routing before polishing.
- Verification floor: before submission-ready advice, re-open
resources/official-source-map.mdfor volatile rules and name the one unresolved fact that could change the recommendation.
Output format
【Question】one sentence: phenomenon / who / consequence ...
【CAR fit】advances accounting understanding? broad-tent area ...
【Tradition】archival / experimental / analytical / field / qualitative — why ...
【Tension】competing predictions or puzzle ...
【Feasibility】data/instrument; ethics if human subjects ...
【Next step】car-theory-development
版本历史
- 1839142 当前 2026-07-05 12:48
