Stars in a small world: social networks in auditing research

  • Andreas AndrikopoulosEmail author
  • Michael Bekiaris
  • Konstantinos Kostaris


This paper investigates the structure of scientific collaboration in auditing research and its impact on the production of published research. To this end, we model networks of authors who published auditing research papers in 12 peer-reviewed accounting and auditing journals from 1997 to 2016. The collaboration network of auditing researchers has a right-skewed degree distribution, according to which there is a small number of authors that each have many coauthors. Moreover, we find that the network of auditing researchers has small-world characteristics that imply a more integrated connectivity among researchers. The small-world phenomenon is shaped by the network stars, i.e., authors who act as intermediaries among their large number of coauthors. We also discover that the star structure affects individual research productivity. The small-world results are robust when our sample is expanded to incorporate accounting research over the same 20-year period.


Auditing research Scientometrics Social network analysis Research productivity 

JEL Classification

M42 M41 Z00 


  1. Andrikopoulos, A., Bekiaris, M., Vadasi, C., & Zounta, S. (2016). International collaboration in auditing research: A note. International Journal of Auditing,20(1), 66–71. Scholar
  2. Andrikopoulos, A., & Kostaris, K. (2017). Collaboration networks in accounting research. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation,28, 1–9. Scholar
  3. Barabási, A. L., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science,286(5439), 509–512. Scholar
  4. Bonner, S. H., Hesford, J. W., Van Der Stede, W. A., & Young, S. M. (2012). The social structure of communication in major accounting research journals. Contemporary Accounting Research,29(3), 869–899. Scholar
  5. Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (1990). Regression-based tests for overdispersion in the Poisson model. Journal of Econometrics,46(3), 347–364. Scholar
  6. Casanueva, C., & Larrinaga, C. (2013). The uncertain invisible college of Spanish accounting scholars. Critical Perspectives on Accounting,24(1), 19–31. Scholar
  7. Clauset, A., Shalizi, C. R., & Newman, M. E. (2009). Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Review,51(4), 661–703. Scholar
  8. de Solla Price, D. (1976). A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science,27(5), 292–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eckl, M., Ghanem, C., & Löwenstein, H. (2019). The evolution of social work from disconnected groups to a scientific community: A social network analysis. The British Journal of Social Work,49(2), 428–447. Scholar
  10. Erdos, P., & Rényi, A. (1960). On the evolution of random graphs. Publication of the Mathematical Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences,5(1), 17–60.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Goyal, S., van der Leij, M. J., & Moraga-Gonzαlez, J. L. (2006). Economics: An emerging small world. Journal of Political Economy,114(2), 403–412. Scholar
  12. Kolmogorov, A. (1933). Sulla determinazione empirica di una lgge di distribuzione. Giornale dell’Istituto Italiano degli Attuari,4, 83–91.Google Scholar
  13. Lohmann, C., & Eulerich, M. (2017). Publication trends and the network of publishing institutions in accounting: data on the accounting review, 1926–2014. Accounting History Review,27(1), 1–25. Scholar
  14. Mann, H. B., & Whitney, D. R. (1947). On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Annals of Mathematical Statistics,18(1), 50–60.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mintz, S. M., Dang, L., & Savage, A. (2013). Ethics of relationships between accounting academics and external sponsors. Issues in Accounting Education,28(3), 555–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Newman, M. E. (2005). Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf’s law. Contemporary Physics,46(5), 323–351. Scholar
  17. Newman, M. (2010). Networks: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Smirnov, N. V. (1939). Estimate of deviation between empirical distribution functions in two independent samples. Bulletin Moscow University,2(2), 3–16.Google Scholar
  19. Tunger, D., & Eulerich, M. (2018). Bibliometric analysis of corporate governance research in German-speaking countries: Applying bibliometrics to business research using a custom-made database. Scientometrics, 117(3), 2041–2059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tunger, D., & Wilhelm, J. (2013). The bibliometric community as reflected by its own methodology. Journal of Scientometric Research, 2(2), 92–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wakefield, R. (2008). Networks of accounting research: A citation-based structural and network analysis. British Accounting Review,40(3), 228–244. Scholar
  22. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications (Vol. 8). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business AdministrationUniversity of the AegeanChiosGreece
  2. 2.Quantitative Methods Laboratory, Department of Business AdministrationUniversity of the AegeanChiosGreece

Personalised recommendations