The executive committee said it proposed this elimination primarily for cost reasons. The then AAA president claimed that the association could save at least $25,000 from this action. Critics responded that the cost savings were exaggerated because the allocation of indirect costs favors The Accounting Review over the other two journals. (Arguments among academic accountants often turn soporific!) More bluntly, critics think that members of the executive committee tend to have a bias for The Accounting Review while the rank-and-file lost interest in reading it years ago.

The executive committee added that it would like to replace these two journals with a new high quality journal that pooled the benefits from the collaboration of research-teaching-practice. In doing so it tipped its hand toward possibly the real motivation behind the proposal -- to support a high quality journal such as The Accounting Review but dismiss the other journals because of their perceived low research quality. Some critics would disagree with this evaluation; others answer that quality isn't that important if it strongly correlates with that which is uninteresting.

There was (and is) room for a journal that discusses important and controversial topics. The Journal of Accountancy published this type of article during the early 1970s but reverted to dull and uninteresting papers in the mid-1970s. By then the AICPA wanted to squelch dissent within the profession, which is still the case, so it continues to publish bland articles. After a while, several AAA members observed the vacuum created by the AICPA's decision with respect to the Journal of Accountancy and the lack of any outlet for open and reasoned argumentation on professional topics. They desired a journal that fostered more debate, and their initiatives eventually led to the creation of Accounting Horizons. At the beginning Horizons allowed dissenting opinion to be published, but this orientation lasted only a short while. Apparently Horizons came under attack by the more finance-research-oriented members of the AAA who dominated the AAA executive committee. These individuals wanted Horizons to publish articles that were less opinionated pieces and passed the rigors of peer review, according to their standards. In addition, the journal became the dumping ground for committee reports purportedly illuminating the rest of the world on topical issues in financial accounting and auditing. The commentary section, once open to all, now became a forum only for those with power within the AAA, for members of the FASB or the SEC, or for those from firms that contributed to the AAA. In the eyes of some, Accounting Horizons became The Accounting Review Junior.

The most revealing incident occurred when Accounting Horizons refused to publish a well thought out but disparaging piece by long-time accounting critic Abraham Briloff. Not having the guts to say that they would not publish any material so reproachful of the accounting industry, the editors instead claimed the piece did not pass muster with the peer reviewers. This less than candid statement provides evidence that peer reviewers sometimes act like dolts and that the AAA, like Arthur Andersen, can be unduly influenced by those who contribute the funds.

Similarly, Issues in Accounting Education seems to have suffered the fate of appearing less than academically rigorous. My hypothesis is that a coalition within the upper echelons of the AAA allowed the journal to continue as long as the editorial staff raised the bar and made it much more difficult to get an article accepted in the journal. Not too long ago, the number of articles published in Issues in Accounting Education slowed to a trickle and became more academic. On the one hand, the goal was accomplished -- articles appearing in the journal did increase in quality. My complaint is that the scope restrictions on what is acceptable for printing leaves out commentaries and thought pieces and other exciting essays that can stimulate thought about accounting education, even though they don't follow a research paradigm. (I guess I should disclose the fact that I am co-editor of Advances in Accounting Education with Bill Schwartz and that I wouldn't mind receiving more submissions. Just make them appealing.)

Recently I received my copy of Accounting Horizons and find these editors following the same pattern. The September 2004 issue is so small -- only 47 pages -- that the title on the binding requires a magnifying glass to read. We are supposed to believe that only two articles and two comments were worth printing. Given the thousands of academics and the thousands of practitioners whom the AAA is supposedly trying to attract to this journal, I doubt it. The executive committee doesn't have the courage to discontinue the journals and receive the backlash of the AAA members, so it just thins it out instead.

Of course, these recommendations and tactics by the executive committee should not be surprising to the AAA members. This committee has long been populated with the more successful researchers who push the research-teaching-practice paradigm to justify their position of power within the association. They do not appreciate other points of view, nor do they realize that some wish to have a real dialogue about professional and practical issues and about educational matters.

Last year, the AAA president Pete Wilson announced rapprochement. The executive committee voted to continue both publications for at least three years and initiate the new journal by 2007. Given what they are doing to the journals, why not just kill them now?

Some believe that the struggle over these journals is really only part of the problem. At least a vocal minority feels disengaged and disaffected -- they are working to effect a more open process of nominating and electing AAA officers.

Maybe the members of the AAA not so fortunate to be part of the inner circle should try a different strategy. Next time your membership in the AAA comes up for renewal, don't send in the check. That of course means not attending the AAA meeting -- at least not on an official basis. If enough disenchanted members drop out of the AAA, they will exert far more influence than they will with more emails. Maybe then we can have a journal that fosters debate and commentary among a broad set of members over accounting issues, and maybe we can have an education journal that includes some titillating essays on teaching methods and philosophy. Until then, what's the point of belonging to the AAA?

J. EDWARD KETZ is accounting professor at The Pennsylvania State University. Dr. Ketz's teaching and research interests focus on financial accounting, accounting information systems, and accounting ethics. He is the author of Hidden Financial Risk, which explores the causes of recent accounting scandals, and columnist of The Accounting Cycle for SmartPros.com.