AN EXPERIMENTAL EXAMINATION OF THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Research in Accounting Regulation

Volumn 16, Issue C, 2003, Pages 209-225

  Payne, Jeff L ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 65249179448     PISSN: 10520457     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1052-0457(02)16013-9     Document Type: Review

References (27)

1. AICPA, The Panel on Audit Effectiveness Report and Recommendations (2000). AICPA (August).
2. Alam P., Hoffman R.C., and Meier H.H. Perceptions of the peer review program of the accounting profession: Implications for management. Journal of Managerial Issues 12 Winter (2000) 427-445
3. Deis Jr. D.R., and Giroux G.A. Determinants of audit quality in the public sector. The Accounting Review 67 July (1992) 462-479
4. DeJong D.V., Forsythe R., and Uecker W.C. The methodology of laboratory markets and its implications for agency research in accounting and auditing. Journal of Accounting Research 23 Autumn (1985) 753-793
5. DeJong D.V., Forsythe R., Lundholm R.J., and Uecker W.C. A laboratory audit of the moral hazard problem in an agency relationship. Journal of Accounting Research 23 Supplement (1985) 81-120
6. Dopuch N., Ingberman D.E., and King R.R. An experimental investigation of multi-defendant bargaining in "joint and several" and proportionate liability regimes. Journal of Accounting & Economics 23 July (1997) 189-221
7. Dopuch N., King R.R., and Schatzberg J.W. An experimental investigation of alternative damage-sharing liability regimes with an auditing perspective. Journal of Accounting Research 32 Supplement (1994) 103-131
8. File R.G., Ward B.H., and Gray C.A. Peer review as a market signal: Effective self-regulation?. Research in Accounting Regulation 6 (1992) 179-193
9. Francis, J. R., Andrews, W. T., Jr., & D. T (1990). Voluntary peer reviews, audit quality, and proposals for mandatory peer reviews. Journal of Accounting Auditing and Finance, 5(Winter), 369-377.
10. Giroux G., Deis D., and Bryan B. The effect of peer review on audit economies. Research in Accounting Regulation 9 (1995) 63-82
11. Gramling A.A., Schatzberg J.W., Bailey Jr. A.D., and Zhang H. The impact of legal liability regimes and differential client risk on client acceptance, audit pricing, and audit effort decisions. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance 13 Fall (1998) 437-460
12. Grant J., Bricker R., and Shiptsova R. Audit quality and professional self-regulation: A social dilemma perspective and laboratory investigation. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 15 Spring (1996) 142-156
13. Kachelmeier S. A laboratory market investigation of the demand for strategic auditing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 11 Supplement (1991) 25-48
14. King R.R. Reputation formation for reliable reporting: An experimental investigation. The Accounting Review 71 July (1996) 375-397
15. King R.R., and Schwartz R. Planning assurance services. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 17 Supplement (1998) 9-36
16. King R.R., and Schwartz R. An experimental investigation of auditors' liability: Implications for social welfare and exploration of deviations from theoretical predictions. The Accounting Review 75 October (2000) 429-451
17. Klein B., and Leffler K. The role of market forces in assuring contractual performance. Journal of Political Economy 89 August (1981) 615-641
18. Krishnan J., and Schauer P.C. The differentiation of quality among auditors: Evidence from the not-for-profit sector. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 19 Fall (2000) 9-25
19. Lundholm, R. (1999). Historical accounting and the endogenous credibility of current disclosures (Working paper). University of Michigan.
20. Pitt, H. L. (2002). Public regulation of the accounting profession. Public Statement by SEC Chairman. U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission, January 17, SEC headquarters, Washington, DC. http://www.sec.gov/news/speech/spch535.htm
21. Schneider A., and Ramsay R.J. Assessing the value added by peer and quality reviews of CPA firms. Research in Accounting Regulation 14 (2000) 23-38
22. Schatzberg J.W., and Sevcik G.R. A multi-period model and experimental evidence on independence and 'low balling'. Contemporary Accounting Research 11 Summer (1994) 137-150
23. Shapiro C. Premiums for high quality products as returns to reputations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 98 November (1983) 659-679
24. Smith V.L. Microeconomic systems as an experimental science. The American Economic Review 72 December (1982) 923-955
25. Turner, L. E. (2000). Shifting paradigms in self-regulation. Speech by SEC staff. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, January 27. 27th Anniversary Securities Regulation Institute. http://www.sec.gov/news/speeches/spch340.htm
26. U.S. House. 107th Congress, 2nd Session (2002). H. R. 3763, An Act to Protect Investors by Improving the Accuracy and Reliability of Corporate Disclosures Made Pursuant to the Securities Laws, and for Other Purposes. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_bills &docid=f:h3763enr.txt.pdf
27. Wallin D.E. Legal recourse and the demand for auditing. The Accounting Review 67 January (1992) 121-148