tar-topic-selection

Topic Selection & TAR Fit (tar-topic-selection)

When to trigger

• You have a dataset (Compustat/CRSP/Audit Analytics/EDGAR) and want a publishable accounting question
• You have a regulatory or institutional shock and want to know what it can identify
• You are unsure whether the question belongs at TAR, JAR/JAE, or a specialist journal
• A colleague says "this is a finance paper, not an accounting paper" and you need to reposition

The TAR fit test

TAR is open to all rigorous methods across financial accounting, capital markets, auditing,

management accounting, taxation, and accounting information systems. Its single overriding criterion

is the significance of the contribution to the accounting literature. A good TAR question

therefore must clear four gates:

1. Accounting-centered. The phenomenon turns on accounting information, measurement, disclosure,

assurance, internal control, or taxation — not a generic finance or economics question that

merely uses accounting data. If the dependent variable is a stock return, the accounting

construct (earnings quality, disclosure, audit, tax) must be doing the theoretical work.

1. Identifiable. There is a credible path to a causal or well-specified association — a shock, a

staggered regulation (e.g., a standard adoption, a PCAOB regime change), a setting that breaks the

endogeneity, or a clean analytical structure.

1. Contribution-bearing. The answer changes how the field thinks, not just confirms an obvious

prior; "significance of the contribution" is the explicit bar.

1. Feasible under TAR norms. It fits the 55-page initial limit and the data-authenticity /

code-access regime (you can describe the data and share the processing code).

Where TAR sits versus neighbors

• TAR vs JAR/JAE: all three are top-3 archival accounting journals, but JAR (Chicago Booth) and

JAE (Elsevier) are separately owned with their own norms; pick by editor fit and conversation, not

prestige alone. TAR's openness to experimental and analytical work is comparatively broad.

• TAR vs AAA section journals (Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory; JATA for tax; JMAR for

management accounting; JIS for systems): a section journal suits a question of primarily

sub-field interest; TAR suits a question with broad accounting significance.

• TAR vs finance journals: if the accounting construct is incidental, target finance instead.

Scoping the question

• State the question as one sentence naming the accounting construct and the outcome.
• Name the identifying variation up front (shock, setting, model) — a TAR question without an

identification idea is premature.

• Decide the method lane (large-sample archival, experiment, or analytical) honestly; do not retrofit

a borrowed design onto an ill-suited question.

Checklist

• [ ] The accounting construct, not a generic finance variable, drives the theory
• [ ] An identification idea (shock/setting/model) is named, not just "I have data"
• [ ] The contribution to the accounting literature is statable in one sentence
• [ ] TAR vs JAR/JAE vs a section journal chosen deliberately
• [ ] Scope fits 55 pages and the data-authenticity/code-access regime

Anti-patterns

• Data-first fishing: "I have WRDS access, what can I run?" with no accounting question.
• Finance in disguise: an asset-pricing or corporate-finance question wearing an accounting label.
• Replication without contribution: re-running a known result on a new sample with no new insight.
• Prestige targeting: choosing TAR over JAR/JAE/section purely by ranking, ignoring conversation fit.

Output format

【Accounting construct】... (financial / audit / tax / managerial / AIS)
【Question (1 sentence)】...
【Identifying variation】shock / setting / model: ...
【Contribution claim】the field will learn ...
【Venue fit】TAR vs JAR/JAE vs section journal — chosen because ...
【Method lane】archival / experiment / analytical
【Next step】tar-theory-development, then tar-literature-positioning