Questions related to Audit
Tress et al. (2014) present a step-by-step present a step-by-step guide on how to write a paper for a successful publication in a peer-reviewed journal. They propose a ten-step approach to the entire process of paper writing from preparation, manuscript writing, and submission to the stages of peer-review and revision. The steps include defining paper objectives, authorship, journal selection, writing routines, requirements of manuscript sections, editing and proof-reading as well as how to communicate successfully in submission and review. Authors with a ten-step guide on how to write a paper that gets published in a peer-reviewed journal. Step 1. Define the objective, type and title of the paper. Step 2. Decide on co-authors. Step 3. Define the audience and select the correct journal. Step 4. Write for readers. Step 5. Write in short, but regular sessions. Step 6. Write a well-focused and clearly structured manuscript. Step 7. Edit the text for clarity,-logic, language and length. Step 8. Ask colleagues to read the manuscript critically. Step 9. Communicate clearly in submission, review and revision. Step 10. If a manuscript is rejected, do not give up.
Tress, G., Tress, B. and Saunders, D. (2014). News and Views How to write a paper for successful publication in an international peer-reviewed journal INTRODUCTION. Pacific Conservation Biology, 20, 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1071/PC140017
I am searching for a website that has all CS journals (specially machine learning and artificial intelligence ones) and writes the TTP (Time To Publish) for each paper.
TTP = E[1st review + revision + 2nd review + revision + ... + final review + accept + internet publish]
I submitted my manuscript to one of the famous X journal last year. I got my third major revision mail today. I am kind of concerned about a rejection after 2 years of submission-revision process.
I am kindly asking about recommendations and opinions about it.
Me interesa la revisión del concepto MODELO Y DISEÑO , basado en SALUD PÚBLICA, PROMOCIÓN DE LA SALUD, DETERMINANTES SOCIALES DE LA SALUD, FUNCIONES ESENCIALES, posterior a la PANDEMIA.
After two rounds of revision, the status of my manuscript has changing from "Awaiting Reviewer Invitation" to "Awaiting Reviewer Assignment" within a span of three months. This change has occurred multiple times. Does anyone have any insights into why this is happening?
My manuscript, which I sumbit to a journal of Sage in September 2022, passed the Editor stage and was taken for peer review. After 11 months, the referee evaluation was finalised. They rejected it without revision today. The editor said that "Although the reports are generally positive, we are unable to accept your submission for publication. This is due to the sheer volume of submissions we have received over the past few years. As a result, the acceptance rate had to be strongly reduced." There are contradictory statements that I cannot make sense of. How can an article with a "positive report" be rejected without revision after 11 months with the excuse of the acceptance rate of the journal? If they are sensitive to the acceptance rate, why do they take it to peer review and how do they see themselves the right to keep it waiting for 11 months? Isn't it unfair to keep them waiting for 11 months to give a direct rejection?
Despite the positive reports, they only showed me the review text of one referee. Unfortunately, the review of the referee full of contradictions is very superficial and there is not even a concrete argument and criticism. I cannot see the other reviews at all. After 11 months, I am very upset to be rejected with an acceptance rate excuse and an inconsistent referee review. What can I do against this situation? How can I claim my rights? How can I complain about the editor's unfair attitude and approach. I need your help very much. Thank you!
I want to add a co-author(who helped during revisions) in my paper at revision stage. But the submission portal does not allow it by following line "This journal has chosen to lock changes to the Author list. Please contact the Admin for changes to your Author list".
Please guide me, how to handle this issue? or share your experiences.
Hope you are doing well.
I want to share my experience with PLOS ONE.
Recently we have submitted some papers in PLOS ONE and after two or three rounds of revision they accepted it officially and send an acceptance Email to all authors.
Then after checking 5-6 months, they have rejected our paper "with no reason".
I summary, for our 5-6 accepted papers, they have just wasted our 1 years and do not forget that they have high charges for the publication.
In addition, we have submitted some new papers in the PLOS ONE and the paper is still "Submitted to the Journal" from the last four months.
Remember that they are also charging very high publication fees.
I just convey to all my colleagues and seniors that think twice and thrice, when you will plan to submit a paper in PLOS ONE.
Compare to this, MDPI can publish a paper just within 3 weeks, and PLOS ONE is taking three months just for changing the status of the paper.
Muhammad Hamzah Saleem
In their joint fight against tax avoidance and tax evasion international governance developed different tools. One of these tools is the joint audit. The term “joint audit is used to express that two or more countries join together to form a single audit team to examine an issue(s)/transaction(s) of one or more related taxable persons with cross-border business activities.
Taking into account that countries like Australia, the UK, Canada and the US are effectively engaging in joint tax audits, I would like to look into statistical evidence obtained in these countries (e.g. the time length, outcome achieved, resources employed between an internal audit and a joint audit).
what is the difference between major revision and revision with justification of criticisms in CBM journal?
I sent an email to the Editor-in-Chief (EIC), Associate Editor (AE), and journal administrator inquiring about the possibility of extending the revision deadline, four days before the deadline. However, I did not receive any responses. In this situation, may I submit the original manuscript to the journal again?
what can I use to measure audit risk and audit quality in analyzing data gotten from financial statements? I have gotten the financial statements of deposit money banks, but I do not know how to measure the audit risk and audit quality. my research topic is audit risk and audit quality in deposit money banks
I'm looking for a database with data on several corporate governance structures such as;
Board Size, Board Independency, CEO Duality, Board Gender Diversity, etc.
Is there a database around that holds this kind of data for e.g. NASDAQ or NYSE companies?
Furthermore, I am looking for a database that contains data with information from annual reports such as Audit Commitee Size or Number of Board Meetings.
Instead of collecting this data by hand out of firms' annual reports, it's more efficient if there is a database available that contains this kind of data. Is there any?
I am reading about Refinitiv, BoardEX or Bloomberg. Somebody who can help me out?
Thanks in advance.
I am looking forward to publish my work in the Science or Nature. I have submitted a paper before to the Science but it was rejected with decision as transfer option. However, on submitting the same paper to an SCI journal, it got accepted without any revision.
I want to know that what journals like these expect in a paper. What essentially is the criteria. I have seen many papers related to my field published in the Science and Nature and they are just like the papers published in journals of Springer or Elsevier. I personally feel, the work published in journals of Springer or Elsevier are more exhaustive and enriched with a lot of experiments.
Kindly guide me on the same.
Currently I'm struggling with choosing between various analysis options, ranging from repeated measures design, to 4-way ANOVA to ANCOVA or to moderation analysis with the PROCESS macro of Hayes.
Some background information: My main research question is: To what extent can subgroup membership predict changes in X scores six months after participation in an intervention, and is this effect moderated by Y(controlled for Z.
I am not sure if I should work with a repeated measures design, or work with a change score of AUDIT (by calculating T1-T0). What I have read about this is that the difference scores ANOVA (1) tests whether the change or difference from T0 to T1 is equal acorss all groups, whereas ANCOVA (2) tests whether the T1 scores are equal across groups while controlling for their scores on T0. I've read that this is a small however potentially impactful distinction which got famous through Lord's paradox (https://m-clark.github.io/docs/lord/index.html / ANCOVA Versus CHANGE From Baseline in Nonrandomized Studies: The Difference: Multivariate Behavioral Research: Vol 48, No 6 (tandfonline.com)). It's been stated that if your groups are randomly assigned experimental groups, both methods are equivalent and you can choose whichever you prefer. If they are naturally occuring groups the literature indeed suggests using the difference scores method.
Since the subgroups I'm working with are latent classes that indeed 'naturally' occur, I am wondering if I should indeed go with change scores (despite its downfalls that has been written about in the literature, e.g. addition of measurement errors etc).
What is important to keep in mind is that my data (in both options, so taking AUDIT change or AUDIT_T1 as DV) has been violating assumptions of normality ánd homogeneity throughout, and I am not sure how to best deal with that in my current situation. The macro's of Hayes moderation PROCESS tool seemed like a good solution, but it depends on question 1 whether I can use that (because i need to use de AUDIT change score for that).
All in all, I am unsure how to proceed. Thank you in advance for thinking along.
Greeting Respected RG Scientist and Researcher
I submitted a minor revision for my paper based on the comments by the editor and Reviewers 1 and 2. in Hindawi publisher. It has been over two months, but the status is still displayed as ‘Pending Approval.’ How much more time should I wait for a response?
In my opinion, the value of the audit is broader and more comprehensive, and the quality of the audit is one of the indicators that are used to achieve the value of the audit
In the nature of the matter, the value of the audit is more important than the quality of the audit, and the quality of the audit is one of the basic indicators of the value and importance of the audit.
In another consideration, audit quality and audit value are two separate terms, but at the same time they are interrelated together, as audit quality is part of the audit value. Therefore, the higher the audit quality percentage, the higher the audit value percentage, and vice versa. The audit quality percentage also decreases, so the audit value decreases. One of the main reasons for the high or low value of auditing is the quality of auditing
As part of my current research, I would like to have your valuable opinion on the Factors affecting objectivity and effectiveness of Information Security/IT Audit.
Papers and references are welcomed.
22 i need articles that study the impact of the application of ISA in the external audit on company's financial performance!!
I Submitted the revision of my manuscript and the academic editor made his recommendation in hindawi for more than month until now in quality check Pending approval
Modern quality control of audit services is very strict. Copies of the company's documents that confirm the results of the activity are not enough. Should the auditor have his evidence for all items of the balance sheet and how many working documents should be developed?
I am studying the replication of a management process in the big four audit companies (EY, PwC, KPMG, and Deloitte). This process is relatively similar across these companies. So, is it a single case of replicating the process in the big four? or is it a multiple case study?
Note: I am not looking for variances between cases as there aren't any, I am looking into how the process is replicated in these firms and i am considering them as a one unit.
Dear Author, We received one revision and trying to find second reviewer. To this day we send request for 9 experts in this field (Including authors suggestions). They declined or ignored our invitations. We must search until someone agreed to take on this assignment. If you want to suggest someone else, you have to do it according to the following guidelines: Authors can suggest reviewers but they cannot be from the same institution as the authors, and at least one cannot be from the same country. With best regards,
What is the average time duration between revision submision and final decision for the Journal of biomolecular structure and dynamics?
After submission of revision before 18 days ago the final decision has not come yet. What is the chance of acceptance?
Generally speaking, a revision request means that the editor/reviewers see a merit in publishing your article, but some major/minor changes are required. A reject after revision is uncommon but it happens, what were the main reasons from the author’s side as well as the editor/ reviewers side of the story? Hopefully the answers will help others avoid these pitfalls in their responses to the reviewers!
Dear professors and researchers, I am looking for a suitable title for my thesis. I searched a lot but couldn't find a new topic. I am researching in the field of internal audit and external audit. Thanks for your cooperation
So, I'm using secondary data to evaluate the following hypotheses:
H1: AUDIT score increase, then BIS scores increase and BAS decreases [This is tested for age groups 18- 40 and 40yrs and above] and for [Males and Females]
H2: Is there a relationship between TriPM scores and AUDIT scores?[This is tested for age groups 18- 40 and 40yrs and above] and for [Males and Females]
H3: Correlation between (BIS and BAS scores) and AUDIT scores?[This is tested for age groups 18- 40 and 40yrs and above] and for [Males and Females]
I would appreciate if anyone could advise which methods are appropriate?
I was think regression or MANOVA but unsure as the demographics I need to need to be dichotomised. Any help is appreciated! I only have the descriptives I have done attached here.
All variables are from self-report questionnaires.
I mean by laws and reglementations which are related to the work of external auditor.
I need some articles which describes or explains the impact between the two concepts.
Many U.S universities offer short-term opportunities doctoral degree holders to pursue further research. They may also allow visiting fellows to audit graduate-level courses and to have access to academic facilities for personal research. To explore these opportunities, how should we contact university faculty or academic departments directly for exchange programs or access laboratory facilities in offline mode. I know someone will be travelling to the USA on their own and would like to access the laboratory to get some certifications or knowledge for the 10 days or 15 days time duration. Is it possible to identify which universities and programs can support a researcher so that he can earn a few credit points and also learn during the time period.
If you know kindly suggest as travel expenses may be covered by the researcher during the visit.
I had a major revision paper in Q2 journal and it was holding with the editor. Please, how can I resolve this issue?
I tried to send to them several emails without any reply. Please, how can I resolve the issue raise by them?
I wonder if I should wait for acknowledgement from the journal and comment from the reviewer or editor or just resend my revision?
Hello I have a manuscript revision with one of the reviewers is concerning about the power of study
Its a case control study with case group having 34 and control group having 71 patients
The primary outcome variable is a continuous variable with a mean 41 and standard deviation of 26 , and not -normally distributed, and our cohort is the largest cohort ever will be published
But there is no prior report on this issue, so how can i do a power analysis
Thanks for helping
I've been looking for recent regulations and matters that are linked to auditing to discuss for my research thesis. I could really use any suggestion regarding auditing, audit market, audit trends...
I would like to include a control variable whether a company is audited by the big four or not? However, in which database the information would be available in yes or no format. I checked Eikon but didn't get the data. Would be glad if you kindly guide me in this regard. Thank you.
i. Although the suggested correction was very less raised by the 2 reviewers in their 2nd revision, why does the editor asked for major revision?
ii. Why does the editor has given me clues to solve each of the raised questions? Does it mean the learned editor is going to accepting my paper after updating the manuscript based on given suggestions by the reviewers?
One of the main differences between Financial Audit and Forensic Audit is that the Financial Audit gives the guarantee that the financial statements that have been checked are true and fair and are reasonable whereas, Forensic Audit helps to analyze and investigate a certain set of transaction, if any fraud has been occurred.
The goal of this project is to set the record straight as much focus have been on the Financial Audit as the Fraud Detector.
The questions are: 1. Who then is the Fraud Detector, a Financial Auditor or a Forensic Auditor?
2. Why are Financial Auditors liable if failed in their audit duty to detect fraud within an organization?
I would like to focus my master thesis on digitalization and audit and I am struggling to find a good research gap. My research topic will be digitalization and its effect on audit innovation. Moreover, the whole topic is still rather vague and I am searching for an interesting currently under-researched field.
Any suggestions? Would much appreciate it!
We had submitted a manuscript on 25 Apr 2020 (please see the attachment 1) titled “Assessing the impact of Pakistani females' religious beliefs on sports by using Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire” to the Journal of Religion & Health for possible publication. Within time spend of 2 years we got not less than 7 revisions (please see the attachment 1) on different time and almost different comments every time. After almost 2nd revision we used MDPI service and spent 1600 CHF (please see attachment 5) for language correction. The latest comments sent by the editor were some statistical changings and recommendation of grammatical review (please see attachments 2 and 3). We used their recommended service and spent almost US$345 (please see attachment 4).
We submitted our last revision on Jan-2022 and waiting for the possibly acceptance email for 3 months (because last revision was just about the language and some minor changings in statistical analysis). And today we just got the rejection (please see the attachment 1) email from the Editor-in-Chief Journal of Religion and Health.
Though the outcome of the process is very disappointing because we used a lot of time, energy and money on the demand of journal, I would like to know from you scholars if there is any academic way to response such kind of journals? It’s not about only our paper, but this effort can also save the time and energy (may be money) of other scholars like you.
I really appreciate your understanding and suggestions.
Hubei Normal University, China.
I’ve been asked to revise a chapter in a textbook. The chapter was written by another author. In revision, is it acceptable to retain any of the original author‘s exact work, or does it need to be completely rewritten in original language? I’ve only revised my own chapters before, and no one seems to know how this is properly handled.
Carbon emissions are usually reflected in social responsibility reports. Do they need to be put into value? Do they need an auditor? What kind of theories could be explained this?
African journal of gastroenterology and hepatology is free (no any article publication charges), the submitted material is subjected to revision via a software program for plagiarism, an open access journal, an eminent group of editorial board members, a strong peer review process with at least 3 peer reviewers per article.
- Reviewer1 Review Report(round1) (Reconsider after major revision(control missing in some experiments)
- Reviewer2 Review Report(round1) (Reconsider after major revision(control missing in some experiments)
- Reviewer3 Review Report(round1) (Reconsider after major revision(control missing in some experiments)
- Reviewer4 Review Report(round1) (Reconsider after major revision(control missing in some experiments)
- Reviewer6 Review Report(round1) (Reconsider after major revision(control missing in some experiments)------------------The above is the conclusion of the preliminary review of an article. The same six reviewers are judging the fate of a PhD. I don't know how he is feeling?
I have a paper that recommended minor revision, and the reviewers ask me to provide the control variable for my model. But I don’t have the model's data anymore, so I cant add control variables to my result. What can I respond to this issues reviewers comments? Any idea? Any good logical response?
University institutions create a scenario where teaching is not committed with social transformation, but mainly with an aspiration towards elitism and the students´ contentment (students understood as “clientele”); research, on its turn, no longer seeks to meet the demands of our society (Sparkes, 2013). On the contrary, it follows the priorities set by foreign multinational companies (Berbegal-Mirabent & Ribeiro-Soriano, 2015). The quality and scientific value of the work is therefore defined by those companies that then lead an “impact culture” difficult to escape from.
Hence the challenges and difficulties that the Spanish university runs into whilst meeting the dynamic and interests of the markets (Berbegal-Mirabent & Ribeiro-Soriano, 2015), especially after its adaptation to the European Higher Education Area.
So, the question could be: Quality assessment systems for university teaching staff: a tool for improving the quality of the system, or an instrument for precariousness?
Currently we are preparing for the ISO audit and I'm in need of a combined audit checklist for health and safety and environment. Can anybody share their audit checklist. Thanks.
In major revision for publication of my paper, one of the points is " Identify the factors that make the accuracy reach 100% for both datasets. How to explain these points in the discussion. Kindly guide me.
I sent a paper to Journal of Cleaner Production and finally got minor revision after 6months. there were two reviewers, reviewer#1 said `The authors have made all the modifications indicated. Therefore, I believe that the article can be accepted.` while reviewer#2 `The authors considered the Reviewer comments very good, ending in a good submission which is very helpful for other authors.` Also got several minor comments and resubmitted the paper anticipating the acceptance. after a month i got major revision (I was surprised). The reason is that reviewer#2 refers back to the same old comments that he gave at the major revision stage (He just copied and pasted alll the comments mentioned in the major revision stage) saying `I do not see that you considered my comments, please review them and finalize the document` . As I believe that there is a confusion regarding the decision and comments from reviewer#2, we have contacted the journal and waiting for a reply (it is almost a week as of 12th October 2021). any Ideas on this matter, what should i do next if a reply doesn't show up? It would be extremely helpful if you could share your experience, if avail.
After a new taxonomy revision or new classification has been peer-reviewed and published in a scientific journal, is it necessary for the taxonomic status of the species recognized in the article to be re-evaluated by the IUCN? Is the scope of the IUCN to review and assess taxonomy of species?
There are several university ranking agencies that are gaining popularity among students, parents, universities, private organizations, and even governments.
The criteria used by these agencies are so different that, being in a top 100 in one ranking might put you in the top 300 in the other. Should these rankings be taken seriously? Should they be used as a measure of the students' quality for postgraduate study, or job entry application?
I am a Masters student in Advanced Nursing, currently undertaking a research module.
Currently trying to write my research proposal.
I am planning to introduce debriefing post ‘critical event’.
Staff are asked ‘what went well’ & ‘what could have gone better’, comments are documented on a ‘debriefing form/tool’.
I am unsure how I would classify this data. Is it an audit? Questionnaire? Qualitative data?
How would you suggest is the best way to analyse such data?
I would appreciate any helpful comments or tips. Thanks
How machine learning performs better for internal audit department in the banking industry than usual audit practices. What objectives could be achieved from branch audit, IT audit, Management audit, Thematic audit, and International audit through Machine Learning?
My paper revision is in progress. However, now I know that another author as the corresponding author must be added to the manuscript. But I can,t know how I can add another new author as correspond at this phase of paper preparation. Can anyone help me with this issue?
how to measure the actual practice of audit quality? Is that possible use the data obtained through questionnaire for determinants of audit quality, for actual audit practice?
Is that possible to use the audit quality measurement for tax audit quality?
What to do if after a two years waiting time in the reviewing process and two rounds of revision you discover that the same journal published a paper with the same aim data and contribution as one part of your previously submitted paper.
Knowing that the published paper was submitted six months after yours and that the second round new reviewer of your paper asks you about your contribution since a same work has been published. How to respond? Is there any legal action? Is this ethical?
Esta parece ser una pregunta sencilla que debería tener una respuesta única y categórica. En teoría, los datos moleculares disponibilizados por otros autores en el GenBank son de LIBRE acceso y de acuerdo a esto, pueden ser utilizados por otros investigadores en nuevos estudios. Algo parecido ocurre con el material biológico (partes de individuos o individuos completos) que es colectado y depositado por un investigador y que posteriormente es utilizado por otros investigadores en nuevos estudios. Este podría ser el raciocinio lógico para cualquier editor que recibe un documento que incluye un análisis filogenético realizado con datos del GenBank. Sin embargo, parece ser que no siempre los editores están de acuerdo con el libre uso de datos moleculares depositados en GenBank. Expongo el siguiente caso:
En primera instancia sometimos para revisión uno de mis artículos a una conocida revista de Biodiversidad Marina. Este trabajo fue el fruto de un extenso proceso de colaboración científica entre colegas del área de la carcinología de varios países que se extendió por más de 4 años, y que incluyó extensos viajes de colecta por toda la costa del Atlántico Sur Occidental junto con la revisión de vastos lotes de organismos depositados en museos dentro y fuera de Brasil.
En sí, en el trabajo propusimos la separación de las poblaciones de un camarón de la costa de Brasil de la gran población de esta misma especie del Atlántico Occidental con la propuesta de una nueva especie para la ciencia más otros detalles taxonómicos. Para darle un fortalecimiento a nuestos datos morfológicos, reanalizamos la información molecular depositada en GenBank por otros autores. Luego de algunos días, un conocido investigador experto en 'squat lobsters' que actuó como editor invitado, nos escribió rechazando el artículo con el argumento de que habíamos cometido una falta ética al utilizar los datos moleculares disponibilizados en GenBank por otro grupo de investigación. Al pedir explicaciones al editor, este defendió la postura del revisor anónimo diciendo que era un problema que nosotros debíamos resolver.
En un segundo intento, el editor de otra revista dentro de Brasil señaló que el análisis molecular era similar al de otro autor y que por lo tanto, el trabajo era rechazado editorialmente. Este editor no se identificó y no permitió ninguna respuesta. Tampoco consideró que la parte molecular de nuestro trabajo apenas representaba el 10% de un trabajo que consideró lotes provenientes de un amplió rango geográfico.
Este relato representa un caso en el que los editores de dos diferentes revistas tienen una idea completamente diferente de lo que debería ser el libre uso de datos moleculares disponibles en GenBank. A todas luces, este parece ser un buen ejemplo de como dos diferentes editores hacen una defensa corporativa del trabajo realizado por investigadores con los cuales mantienen un nexo de amistad. Es decir, en este caso, si los autores de los datos moleculares no fueron capaces de encontrar las diferencias morfológicas que respaldasen sus datos moleculares, nadie más que no sea de su círculo cercano puede publicar el hallazgo de esta nueva especie. La camorra italiana tiene buenos ejemplos dentro de nuestra querida ciencia......