• Richard E Lillie
    12 Tech Innovators -- Who are Transforming Campuses6
    blog entry posted July 26, 2012 by Richard E Lillie, tagged research, teaching, technology, technology tools in Teaching with Technology > TwT public

    The Chronicle of Higher Education has published its first e-book titled Rebooting the Academy:  12 Tech Innovators Who Are Transforming Campuses.  The book is available through in Kindle format.

    Bob Jensen commented about the book in an AECM posting this morning.  Rather than purchasing the e-book at this point, I decided to learn something about the work of each innovator.  I discovered that the name of each innovator on the Chronicle web page is an active hyperlink to a support web page describing the innovator and his(her) work.

    Click the image below to access the "Technology" page (Thursday, July 26, 2012) in the Chronicle of Higher Education.  Click the name of an innovator to find out about the person's work.  Also, peruse the feedback comments at the bottom of the Chronicle web page.  The comments are quite good.

    If an innovator's stories tweaks your interest, you may want to search deeper for articles about the innovator's work. Alternatively, you may decide it's time to purchase the Kindle e-book.


    Rick Lillie (Cal State, San Bernardino)



    Recent Comments (3 of 6)

  • Gia M Chevis
    2014 JIAR Best Paper Award
    blog entry posted July 11, 2014 by Gia M Chevis, tagged international, research in The Forum--The Blog of the International Section public

    For their work in “Classification Shifting in an International Setting: Investor Protection and Financial Analysts Monitoring,” the authors received the 2014 Journal of International Accounting Research Best Paper Award.  Bruce K. Behn is a Professor at The University of Tennessee, Giorgio Gotti is an Assistant Professor at The University of Texas at El Paso, and Don Herrmann and Tony Kang are both Associate Professors at Oklahoma State University.  Don Herrmann (center) and Giorgio Gotti (right) are pictured above receiving their awards from Chris Skousen (left), Chair of the section’s Publications Committee.  The paper is available in Volume 12, Issue 2.

    Abstract:  Prior research on publicly traded U.S. firms provides evidence that managers engage in classification shifting to opportunistically manage “core” earnings.  We extend this line of research in a broader international setting, by examining (1) whether the level of investor protection affects managers’ decisions to engage in classification shifting behavior and (2) whether coverage by financial analysts mitigates this behavior.  Based on an international sample of firms from 40 countries, we observe evidence consistent with classification shifting in both strong and weak investor protection countries using four separate measures of investor protection.  We then explore the potential monitoring role of financial analysts in mitigating classification shifting.  We provide evidence that higher financial analyst following mitigates classification shifting, primarily in weak investor protection countries.  Overall, our results provide evidence of classification shifting in a broad international setting and evidence of financial analysts’ influence in reducing this form of earnings management.

  • AAA HQ
    2015 Inaugural Event2
    announcement posted September 14, 2015 by AAA HQ, tagged AiBD, practice, public interest, research, teaching in Accounting IS Big Data (AiBD) > AiBD Conference 2015 public

    The AAA's Centers for Advancing Accounting hosted their inaugural event: the Accounting IS Big Data Conference, on September 3-4, 2015 in New York City at the New York Marriott Marquis located in the heart of Times Square. 

    The meeting was amazing.  If you did not attend, you will still be able to participate! The sessions were all video taped and will be made available to AAA members shortly. Case materials used during the conference will also be made available to AAA academic members soon. (Click on the Conference "Members Only" button above.)

    Recent Comments (2 of 2)

  • Richard E Lillie
    2015 Survey of Faculty Attitudes on Technology
    blog entry posted October 14, 2015 by Richard E Lillie, tagged research, teaching, technology in Teaching with Technology > TwT public

    The Inside Higher Education Daily News Update (10/14/2015) includes a link to its 2015 Survey of Faculty Attitudes on Technology.  Below is IHE's description of the survey conducted by IHE and Gallup.

    Inside Higher Ed survey explores how faculty members and administrators feel about the quality of online education, the integrity of plagiarism-detection software, the expansion of MOOC-to-degree programs, the growth in the cost of course materials and more. In many cases, instructors are skeptical.

    Click here to download a free copy of the survey study.

    Have a great day,


  • Roger S Debreceny
    360-Degree Post Decision Reviews
    blog entry posted February 25, 2014 by Roger S Debreceny, tagged research in JIS Senior Editors' Blog public

    360-Degree Post Decision Reviews

    An important part of the role of the senior editors is to measure performance of the Journal of Information Systems. There are many different ways that we can understand how well JIS is fulfilling its mission. One of the very important dimensions is to quantity the quality of the author feedback process. Our ambition is to provide a welcoming, productive, and responsive review process. This process involves senior editors, editors and reviewers as well as authors. We now have 360-degree feedback on the manuscript review process.

    The concept of 360-degree feedback is widely used in human resource management. Supervisors review subordinates. Subordinates and stakeholders (internal customers) review supervisors. Recently, the US Department of Defense has rolled out 360-degree feedback across the military. The Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Ray Odierno says “I believe that multi-dimensional feedback is an important component to holistic leader development. By encouraging input from peers, subordinates and superiors alike, leaders can better see themselves and increase self-awareness. ... The ability to receive honest and candid feedback, in an anonymous manner, is a great opportunity to facilitate positive leadership growth.”

    At JIS, 360-degree feedback commences shortly after the review process ends, whether the paper is accepted or rejected. Each of the authors and reviewers and the designated editor receive targeted emails that point to a survey on Authors answer questions on the submission process, the nature and quality of the reviews received, and support from the editor and senior editors, where appropriate. For example, authors answer questions, using a Likert scale response, such as “the feedback provided by the review team was constructive” and “the feedback provided by the review team helped me improve the manuscript.” Reviewers also answer questions that are specific to their role in the process. At the conclusion of the survey we ask a set of questions for both authors and reviewers including “How likely is it that you will accept future reviewing requests at JIS?” and “How likely is it that you will recommend to colleagues to submit their research to JIS?”

    We will maintain strict confidentially on review responses. As the introduction to the survey notes, “All your responses will be read only by ourselves as Senior Editors and confidentiality will be maintained. Your responses will be aggregated with other responses, to generate high-level performance metrics for the JIS community.”

    Data from the 360-degree feedback will assist us in a variety of ways. First, it will help us to understand how well we are managing the review process. How well do authors feel that we are supporting them in the review process? Is the process timely and efficient? Are the views of authors and reviewers aligned? Are we providing appropriate guidance to editors and reviewers? Second, the surveys will provide the foundation for identifying “Outstanding Reviewers” and “Outstanding Editor,” presented at the Annual Meeting of the AAA.

    Each year, as senior editors, we will produce a report for the AIS Section Research and Publications Committee as well as for the broader JIS community. We will report aggregated information from the surveys. We will then track our performance on these metrics in succeeding years.

    The review process should add value on two key dimensions. First, it assists authors improve the quality and enhance the fit of their papers to the JIS mission. Second, it provides a quality assurance screen that ensures that JIS publishes high quality and relevant papers. We hope that this 360-degree feedback will enhance this value adding. 


    Roger Debreceny
    Senior Editor

  • Roger S Debreceny
    A new paper in JIS - Reporting Frequency and Presentation...
    blog entry posted February 16, 2016 by Roger S Debreceny, tagged research in JIS Senior Editors' Blog public

    This blog provides background on a new paper in JIS Reporting Frequency and Presentation Format. doi:

    A recent accepted paper in JIS is Reporting Frequency and Presentation Format: Detecting Real Activities Manipulation by Fengchun Tang, Christopher Kevin Eller and Benson Wier. The paper will be forthcoming in an issue of JIS.

    Benson Wier has provided this overview of the paper: 

    Managers increasingly rely on real activities manipulation (RAM) to manage earnings. Compared to accrual-based earnings management, RAM is more difficult to detect and thus poses particular challenges to financial information users. RAM can also be quite harmful to a company’s financial condition, as RAM often involves aiming for short-term earnings targets at the detriment of long-term firm value. This study investigates whether providing users with more frequent financial information improves their ability to detect sales-related RAM. We also investigate whether such effect is moderated by presentation format. We conducted an experiment with 77 financial analysts, manipulating information frequency (weekly versus quarterly financial reporting) and presentation format (tabular representation only versus tabular representation with graphical support). Results indicate that the combination of more frequent financial reporting and graphical support assists financial analysts in detecting RAM. Specifically, when financial information was presented in table format only, the likelihood of sales-related RAM reported by the participants does not differ between the more and less frequent reporting conditions. In contrast, when financial information was presented in tabular format with graphical support, participants in the more frequent reporting (weekly reporting) condition reported a significantly higher likelihood of sales-related RAM than participants in the less frequent reporting (quarterly reporting) condition. Overall, results suggest that more frequent reporting can improve RAM detection when users are aided with graphical support.


  • Roger S Debreceny
    Aggravated Cybersecurity Risks Implications for Accounting...1
    blog entry posted April 22, 2014 by Roger S Debreceny, tagged research, teaching in JIS Senior Editors' Blog public

    There have been a number of important cybersecurity breaches in recent months. This blog posting reviews some of these cybersecurity breaches and points to some of the guidance and standards that assist organizations in building reliable and repeatable security infrastructure. The blog analyzes recent guidance on cybersecurity risks from the Center for Audit Quality, which I see as a taking an overly conservative view of the implications of the risk environment for internal control over financial reporting. Finally, I canvass the implications for the academic research community.

    Aggravated Cybersecurity Risks
    Implications for Accounting and Auditing Research and Practice

    A Heightened Threat Environment

    Over the last several months we have seen some important cybersecurity challenges faced by several organizations. Probably the most important of these challenges was the breach of credit card and customer data faced by Target Corporation. The attack on Target Corporation, Nieman Marcus and many other organizations are all indicative of a heightened threat environment. In this blog posting, I review some of these cybersecurity breaches and point to some of the guidance and standards that assist organizations in building reliable and repeatable security infrastructure. In my view, there are clear implications of the heightened cybersecurity risks for the conduct of IT audit, which is a core concern for the accounting information systems community that is served by the Journal of Information Systems. I analyze recent guidance on cybersecurity risks from the Center for Audit Quality, which I see as a taking an overly conservative view of the implications of the risk environment for internal control over financial reporting. Finally, I canvass the implications for the academic research community.

    Target and Nieman Marcus breaches

    In December 2013, Target Corporation confirmed that information on more than 40m credit and debit card were exfiltrated from their networks. In January, Target disclosed that, in addition to the loss of card information, that information on “guests” was stolen, including “names, mailing addresses, phone numbers or email addresses for up to 70 million individuals” (  In a world where loss of personal data seems a daily occurrence, these are truly startling numbers. There are clearly severe implications of the breach for Target in direct costs, an array of class action legal suits, suits against Target from attorneys-general in states and territories and enforcement actions by regulators, notably the Federal Trade Commission. Target is also likely to face action from credit card issuers through Payment Card Industry Security Standards Council (PCI). Indeed, just in September 2013 Target had been certified as compliant with PCI-DSS.

    The Congress has not been silent in the matter, with hearings from the Commerce and Judiciary committees. While working on my teaching, I watched the Commerce Committee hearing with Target, Niemann Marcus, the University of Maryland and representatives of the FTC and VISA (the hearings are archived at The hearings were enlightening, and are highly recommended if you have a spare four hours available. Appearing in front of the Committee, amongst others, were John J. Mulligan, CFO of Target Corporation and Dr. Wallace Loh, President of the University of Maryland. The university suffered a breach of identifying information of more than 300,000 students and alumni.

    Concomitantly with the hearings, the Commerce Commission published an analysis of the Target breach in a delightfully titled majority staff report “A “Kill Chain” Analysis of the 2013 Target Data Breach” ( The report provides an excellent overview of the timelines in the breach, the technologies involved and the various breakdowns in Target’s monitoring and controls. The Executive Summary of the report notes that:

    Key points at which Target apparently failed to detect and stop the attack include, but are not limited

    to, the following:

    • Target gave network access to a third-party vendor, a small Pennsylvania HVAC company, which did not appear to follow broadly accepted information security practices. The vendor’s weak security allowed the attackers to gain a foothold in Target’s network.
    • Target appears to have failed to respond to multiple automated warnings from the company’s anti-intrusion software that the attackers were installing malware on Target’s system.
    • Attackers who infiltrated Target’s network with a vendor credential appear to have successfully moved from less sensitive areas of Target’s network to areas storing consumer data, suggesting that Target failed to properly isolate its most sensitive network assets.  Target appears to have failed to respond to multiple warnings from the company’s anti-intrusion software regarding the escape routes the attackers planned to use to exfiltrate data from Target’s network (p. i)


    Using publicly available information on the breach, the Commerce Committee report shows how the bad actors were able to leverage compromised e-business partner credentials to gain access to Target’s networks. Unsurprisingly, the credentials from the e-business partner were obtained following spear phishing attacks. The report shows how multiple urgent alerts from behavioral network monitoring software were ignored by Target’s security personnel. Figure 5 of the report shows the points in the kill chain where Target missed opportunities to prevent the exfiltration of information. Unfortunately, the report does not provide details on how the bad actors were able to gain access to the “guest” data, which is of significantly greater value to those actors than credit or debit cards.

    Figure 6 of the report gives a timeline of the breach, showing the length and complexity of the kill chain:

    The Commerce Committee has been active in promotion of national legislation but without much success thus far. There is draft legislation (“The Data Security and Breach Notification Act”) before the Commerce Committee but other similar bills from the House and Senate have withered away and this bill will probably suffer the same fate.

    Recent developments in guidance

    Over the years, the security standards landscape has been heavily populated. ISO/IEC17799, now renumbered as ISO/IEC27002 provides a useful framework for security management. The COBIT IT governance framework has always had security as a core component.  COBIT 5 for Information Security presents an IT security centric view of COBIT. The NIST 800 series from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) provide guidance for federally regulated organizations such as financial institutions. At the national level, in February NIST published its “Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity” ( This framework was a response to an executive order from President Obama in 2013. To readers of the other guidance listed above, the framework will be familiar. The framework describes four tiers that “describe an increasing degree of rigor and sophistication in cybersecurity risk management practices and the extent to which cybersecurity risk management  is informed by business needs and is integrated into an organization’s overall risk management practices.” The tiers are closely aligned to the levels of process maturity in CMM and CMMI. Importantly, the framework does not see the world ab initio. Rather, it is tightly coupled with COBIT 5, ISO and NIST 800. What is important about the Framework is that it represents a national and integrated perspective on hardening information security defenses for a wide range of organizations.

    Reaction by regulators in the securities and audit domain

    The issue of information security has also been of heightened interest to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The Commission held an all-day Cybersecurity Forum in March archived at There were four panels on the “cybersecurity landscape,” “public company disclosure,” “market systems,” and “broker-dealers, investment advisers, and transfer agents.” Panelists included Mary E. Galligan, Director, Cyber Risk Services, Deloitte & Touche; Adam Sedgewick, Senior Information Technology Policy Advisor, National Institute of Standards and Technology The quality of the archived webcast reminds me of video on the Internet in the last millenium, but is well worth while listening to.

    The response to the increased threat environment by other regulators and professional organizations closer to the accounting and AIS community has been mixed. A search for “cybersecurity” on the PCAOB website turned up only the following November 2013 statement from PCAOB Board Member Harris in the context of the Board’s strategic direction (see  

    The Board will also continue to monitor current events and emerging trends that may lead to increased audit risk. For example, cybersecurity risk recently has become a topic of concern for the Securities and Exchange Commission and other financial regulators.  Such risk pose significant issues for companies such as: increased security costs; loss of material intellectual property; claims by customers; and litigation. Therefore, I believe that auditors must examine the internal controls companies have in place to address such risks. I think it important that the Board will consider forming an internal task force and preparing a practice alert related to cybersecurity and its impact on audits. I support the formation of such a task force and the issuance of an audit alert, if the Board deems such an alert appropriate.

     There were also a comment by one of the participants in the most recent meeting of the Board’s Strategic Advisory Group (SAG) pointing to the significantly elevated importance of cybersecurity in the mindshare of corporate board and audit committee members. There seems, however, to be no concrete action by the PCAOB on security at any point in its history. Similarly, a search of the Auditing Standards Board did not reveal any targeted (so to speak) action on security.

    Prior to the aforementioned SEC roundtable, the Center for Audit Quality (CAQ) issued a practice alert on “Cybersecurity and the External Audit” (available at In absence of detailed guidance from the PCAOB or ASB, the practice alert presents the best guide to thinking in the auditing community on the implications of cybersecurity for the external audit. I encourage all in the AIS community to read the practice alert. I am, however, concerned that the practice alert downplays the risks to internal control and ultimately to the integrity of financial reporting that comes from information security threats. The alert states:

    The responsibility of the independent auditor relates to the audit of the  financial statements and, when applicable, the audit of internal control over financial reporting (ICFR). The financial reporting-related information technology (IT) systems and data that may be in scope for the external audit usually are a subset of the aggregate systems and data used by companies to support their overall business operations and may be separately managed or controlled. Accordingly, the financial statement and ICFR audit responsibilities do not encompass an evaluation of cybersecurity risks across a company’s entire IT platform.

    It is difficult to quibble with this statement. Many corporations will have production systems running on different local area networks quite distinct from those systems such as sales systems that feed the core accounting applications or the core accounting applications themselves. The “entire IT platform” is not in scope. The alert goes on to state, however, that:

    Systems and data in scope for most audits usually are a subset of the totality of systems and data used by companies to support their overall business operations, and the audit’s focus is on access and changes to systems and data that could impact the financial statements and the effectiveness of ICFR. In contrast, a company’s overall IT platform includes systems (and related data) that address the operational, compliance and financial reporting needs of the entire organization.

    From an operational risk or privacy perspective, companies implement processes and controls to restrict access to their systems, applications and data, including third party records and other sensitive information. Accordingly, given the focus on a narrower slice of a company’s overall IT platform, the execution of an audit of the financial statements and ICFR in accordance with professional standards likely would not include areas that would address such a cybersecurity breach. However, if information about a material breach is identified, the auditor would need to consider the impact on financial reporting, including disclosures, and the impact on ICFR. (Emphasis added).

    This seems almost dangerously naïve. The practice alert argues, essentially, that application systems that are within the scope of ICFR are typically corralled from other operational systems. Therefore the external auditor need not concern herself with broader questions of information security and cybersecurity risks and controls. If recent events such as the Target Corporation and Neiman Marcus breaches teach us anything, they teach us that cybercriminals are capable of burying deep within corporate networks and attacking a wide variety of application systems. As the Commerce Committee staff report on Target notes, “it appears that the attackers succeeded in  moving through various key Target systems.” Just because an ERP or General Ledger system is on a different local area network than a production management or logistics systems does not, in my view, reduce the risk of external attack. Given the centrality of accounting information systems to the functioning of corporations; the wealth of data that resides on those systems that is likely to be of great interest to cybercriminals, surely the external auditor should consider the potential risks that come from cybersecurity threats. Perhaps the CAQ had a typographical mishap and the word “not,” highlighted above, was not meant to be in the alert?

    Information Security and the Accounting Information Systems Research Community

    And now we turn to the role played by our accounting, auditing and AIS research community in general and the Journal of Information Systems in particular. How well has the accounting and auditing research community faced the challenge faced by enterprises, governments and not-for-profits? Not well. As a quick metric, I searched the last five years of abstracts of papers published in all AAA journals, using the keywords “security,” “cybersecurity challenges,” and “information security.” The search revealed only six references, interestingly all published in the Journal of Information Systems. This compares with 64 papers on “earnings management” and 72 papers on “audit fees” and “audit pricing.”

    In the broader academic community, there are a limited number of initiatives from the AIS community that involved information security. For the last many years, Efrim Boritz at the University of Waterloo has organized a biennial symposium on information assurance, which touches lightly on information security. Accounting at the Robert H Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland, is organized into the  Accounting and Information Assurance (AIA) Department with Larry Gordon and Marty Loeb conducting vital research on information security. At Akron University, Akhilesh Chandra and Thomas Calderon along with other colleagues organize an annual symposium on information security, hosted by the Center for Research and Training in Information Security and Assurance (CReTISA). While individually important, these initiatives are hardly indicative of a robust teaching and research attack on information security in our community.


    As senior editors of the Journal of Information Systems, Mary Curtis and I are very much interested in publishing leading edge research in information security. As might be imagined, we are particularly interested in papers that have a strong connection with our accounting and auditing community. The first theme issue we initiated was on Information Security. The theme issue is edited by Dr Akhilesh Chandra, Professor of Accounting and Director of the Institute for Global Business, The University of Akron and Carlin Dowling, Associate Professor at The University of Melbourne. Papers close on October 15 and the call for papers is at 

    Roger Debreceny
    Senior Editor
    Journal of Information Systems

    April 2014

    Recent Comments (1 of 1)

  • Gia M Chevis
    Call for papers: A New World of Information Technology...
    blog entry posted December 17, 2013 by Gia M Chevis, tagged international, research in The Forum--The Blog of the International Section public

    Call for Research Proposals and Papers
    JISC2015-1st Journal of Information Systems

    Research Conference
    A New World of Information Technology Auditing
    New York City, NY-March 2015
    Sponsored by the AICPA and CaseWare-IDEA


    The Journal of Information Systems (JIS) will hold the 1st JIS Research Conference (JISC2015) at the offices of the AICPA in New York City, NY on March 26 & 27, 2015. JIS is the research journal of the Accounting Information Systems (AIS) section of the American Accounting Association.


    Sponsors of JISC2015 are the AICPA and CaseWare-IDEA Inc.

    Conference Design and Theme

    The design of JISC2015 is to provide an opportunity for intense discussion between academics and professionals on research in a targeted area of concern to the broad AIS community. The conference will involve research presentations, round-table discussions, and a keynote presentation; attendance at the conference will be limited to those on the program. Each research paper presentation will have an academic and a professional commentator. Papers presented at JISC2015 will appear in a theme issue of JIS, edited by Dr. Diane Janvrin of Iowa State University and Dr. David Wood of Brigham Young University.

    The focus of JISC2015 is on Information Technology auditing. Given the increasing importance of technology in all aspects of business and government, IT auditing has become a vital part of internal and external audit. Papers on all aspects of Information Technology auditing are welcome. All research methodologies are welcome, including experimental, qualitative, field study, analytical, behavioral, archival, design science, and empirical.

    Paper submission

    Final papers should follow the JIS editorial policy and be submitted to JIS using the AAA’s manuscript management system. Full details are available at Papers accepted to JISC2015 also receive a conditional acceptance to JIS. Research teams are expected to improve their papers following the guidance from the academic and professional reviewers and from interaction at the conference. Papers not accepted for the conference may continue to receive editorial review by JIS.

    Financial Support

    One author from each accepted paper will receive funding to help defray travel costs to attend the conference (e.g., plane tickets, hotel, etc.). Authors from the USA, Mexico, and Canada will receive $1,000. Authors from other countries will receive $1,500.


    The deadlines for JISC15 are:

    ●        December 15, 2014: Research papers due.

    ●        March 26 & 27, 2015: JISC2015

    Additional information

    The full call for papers is at Queries can be addressed to

    Follow JIS @jiseditors on Twitter on Facebook

  • Gia M Chevis
    Call for Papers: BALAS 2015
    blog entry posted June 26, 2014 by Gia M Chevis, tagged international, research in The Forum--The Blog of the International Section public
    Entrepreneurship in a Diverse World of “Glocal” Initiatives
    March 25 - 27, 2015
    San Juan, Puerto Rico
    Hosted by the Faculty of Business Administration,
    University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras Campus

    Paper Submission Due Date: November 1, 2014

    BALAS 2014 conference introduced the theme of “local responses to global challenges” exploring various angles of the challenges and potential benefits present to the LATAM and Caribbean Region. BALAS 2015 will pursue the discovery of other dimensions of “Glocalization” that may represent the key to economic prosperity in the region.   

    It is argued that “glocalization” often involves a process of trial and error in which global companies assess the power and influence of their products on local consumers worldwide. The bids are high on connecting “glocalization’ and culture, in involving local people in playing key roles in supporting global business. Could it be that local actions actually dictate global policies?  Should that assumption be true, cities and local authorities would exercise increased global influence, with the potential of benefiting the local economy.   BALAS 2015 Call for Papers will focus on the theme of “glocalization” in the context of the following aspects:

    a)      Can entrepreneurial efforts dedicated to non-traditional businesses such as the arts, and sports revitalize local economies and exercise global influence?

    b)      If local people can actually play key roles in supporting global business do they need special communication skills to survive and thrive in the “glocal” environment? Can “glocal” social networks foster the integration of local to global?

    c)       How can the historical, cultural, spiritual, political, and economic aspects of the local communities set the stage for the transformation of “glocal” initiatives?

    d)      What are the key elements that define the readiness of the LATAM and Caribbean region to embark in successful global entrepreneurial initiatives?

    BALAS 2015 is honored to have as keynote speaker, Professor Saskia Sassen, the Robert S. Lynd Professor of Sociology of Columbia University, and Co-Chair Committee on Global Thought and Columbia University. She has made compelling and controversial propositions on the impact of foreign investment in emigration, with the shocking and unexpected conclusion that foreign investment can actually aggravate emigration. She has proposed that globalization, far from being a phenomenon that is free from boundary demarcations, is actually nurtured by very specific territorial limits.  We specially hope that academics that have explored the sociology of “glocalization” within the dimensions of emigration and foreign investment will take the challenge to respond to Dr. Sassen’s assertions, to make an intellectual contribution and leave their mark in this BALAS 2015 edition. It will be a unique opportunity for academics interested in this theme to debate, refute, assert their positions with the author of such provocative ideas.

    Submission of papers in all of the following areas of business and economics are encouraged as part of BALAS 2015:

    2015 THEME TRACKS:

    ·         “Glocal” initiatives: a study in clashing forces for economic prosperity
    ·         Mutual funds: bringing together the money from “glocal” initiatives


    ·         Accounting, Taxation and Management Information and Control Systems
    ·         Consumer Behavior
    ·         Corporate Finance
    ·         Culture, Social and Ethical Issues
    ·         Economic Environment and Regional Integration
    ·         Entrepreneurship and Family Business
    ·         Financial Markets, Investment and Risk Management
    ·         Human Resource Management
    ·         Information Technology Management
    ·         Marketing Management
    ·         Management Education and Teaching Cases
    ·         Strategies for Global Competitiveness
    ·         Supply-Chain and Operations Management


  • Gia M Chevis
    Call for papers: Special Issue on Information Security
    blog entry posted December 17, 2013 by Gia M Chevis, tagged research in The Forum--The Blog of the International Section public

    Call for Papers

    Theme Issue of the Journal of Information Systems

    Information Security: Implications for Accounting Information Producers, Assurers and Users


    In Fall 2015, the Journal of Information Systems (JIS), the journal of the Accounting Information Systems Section of the American Accounting Association, will publish a theme issue entitled: “Information Security: Implications for Accounting Information Producers, Assurers and Users.” This theme issue of JIS seeks high quality, theory based original research to examine security issues as they relate to accounting and AIS. Submissions are encouraged from a broad range of topics, including, but not limited to:


    ·         Access Control, Authentication and Authorization

    ·         Audit and IS Security

    ·         Best Practice, Models and Frameworks

    ·         Data and System Integrity

    ·         Disclosure of Information Security Exposures

    ·         Financial Consequences of Information Security

    ·         IT/IS Governance

    ·         Information Privacy

    ·         Internal Control Design, Assurance and Monitoring

    ·         Metrics for Assessing Information Security

    ·         Risk Evaluation and Security Certification

    ·         Security for Mobile and Cloud Computing

    ·         Strategy and Information Security


    All research methods are welcome, including behavioral, case study, design science, experimental, empirical and archival. Submissions should conform to the guidelines for regular submissions at Submissions are due by October 15, 2014. Earlier submission is encouraged, and we will require that you conform to a fairly tight time frame in resubmissions. Please clearly state that your submission is for consideration for publication in the theme issue to be published in Fall 2015. If you have any questions, please contact the co-editors of the theme issue: Akhilesh Chandra, Professor of Accounting and Director of the Institute for Global Business, The University of Akron (email: and Carlin Dowling, Associate Professor, The University of Melbourne (email: or to the JIS editorial office at


    Follow JIS @jiseditors on Twitter on Facebook