在學術界中，大多數期刊的論文之論文作者與編輯間可能具有某種程度關係，這樣的關係對審稿過程是否公正，進而影響被接受論文的品質，常為學者質疑。然而，近年來有學者發現因為期刊主編及論文作者中存在資訊不對稱，使得主編面臨逆選擇問題，因此會傾向接受以往的共同作者或同事等有網路關係(network)友人的論文，進而降低資訊不對稱帶來其接受品質不佳論文的風險（Laband and Piette, 1994, Brogaard, Engelberg and Parsons, 2014）。然而文獻中相關研究受限於大多數頂尖學術期刊均有多位主編，而期刊多未公告負責審稿主編的姓名，因此在確認主編的網絡關係上可能會有偏誤，不同於其他期刊未揭露實際負責主編的姓名，美國四大頂尖會計期刊(The Accounting Review, Journal of Accounting and Economics and Journal of Accounting Research, Contemporary Accounting Research)有部分期刊在近年來揭露該項資訊，本研究希望檢視這項資訊的揭露以後，主編是否會在資訊揭露的壓力下，降低通過朋友與同事論文之情形，進而影響期刊論文的品質。
本論文實證結果有三部份，第一部份檢視四大會計期刊資訊揭露是否對論文品質有影響，研究結果發現，當考慮通過論文編輯、論文審閱期間與時間因子後，期刊揭露通過論文編輯會使整體期刊之品質提升。第二部份針對各自期刊揭露通過論文編輯前後論文品質是否有顯著提升進行研究後，發現CAR 與JAR 在通過論文編輯後，論文引用次數有提升。第三部份探討明星論文與低引用次數論文兩者間是否存在資訊揭露之差異，研究結果發現在明星論文樣本中，資訊揭露對論文品質而言不是主要影響因子，可能由於期刊編輯及論文作者之間的關係網絡帶來的資訊優勢高於期刊編輯於外部搜尋高品質論文的成本；相反地，低引用次數論文揭露通過論文編輯確實能夠提升論文品質，顯示透過資訊揭露，會促使期刊編輯更審慎的選擇論文，而非通過有關係網絡之作者的論文。

In the academic community, authors and editors may have some personal and institutional connections. Can these connections affect the fairness of review process and the quality of papers accepted by journals？ One recent strand of literature found that journal editors tend to take advantage of their professional connections to spot high impact papers for their journals in order to help mitigating quality uncertainty of submitted papers. Due to the fact that most of the top academic journals have several editors and most journals do not reveal the name of specific editor in charge of each paper, the identification of editorial connections may be inadequate in previous literature. This research try to fill this gap using data collected from the top 4 accounting Journals. We take advantage of the specific editorial information disclosure of accounting journals to analyze whether editors, under the pressure information disclosure, tend not to accept low-quality papers from friends and colleagues and whether this practice improve the quality of papers accepted by these journals.
First, we find that editorial information disclosure improve the quality of paper in general. Second, we show that the quality of papers published in Contemporary
Accounting Research and Journal of Accounting Research improves after the disclosure of editor’s name. Third, we show that editorial information disclosure do not affect the quality of highly cited super-star papers. One possible explanations is the benefits of editorial connections between editors and authors outweigh the costs of searching for high-quality papers. On the contrary, the results of low citation papers revealed that editorial information disclosure indeed improve the quality of the papers, which indicates that information disclosure gives editors pressure to select papers more cautiously, rather than accepting papers submitted by authors with relationship network.

Badolato, P. G., Donelson, D. C., & Ege, M. (2014). Audit committee financial expertise and earnings management: The role of status. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 58(2-3), 208-230.
Barnett, G. A., & Fink, E. L. (2008). Impact of the internet and scholar age distribution on academic citation age. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 59(4), 526-534.
Biscaro, C., & Giupponi, C. (2014). Co-authorship and bibliographic coupling network effects on citations. PloS one, 9(6), e99502.
Bornmann L, Schier H, Marx W, Daniel H.D. (2012). What factors determine citation counts of publications in chemistry besides their quality? Journal of Informetrics, 6(1), 11-18.
Bornmann, L., & Williams, R. (2013). How to calculate the practical significance of citation impact differences? An empirical example from evaluative institutional bibliometrics using adjusted predictions and marginal effects. Journal of Informetrics, 7(2), 562-574.
Brogaard J, Engelberg J, Parsons C.A. (2014). Networks and productivity: Causal evidence from editor rotations. Journal of Financial Economics, 111(1), 251-270.
Brown S., Hillegeist S.A. (2007). How disclosure quality affects the level of information asymmetry. Review of Accounting Studies, 12(2-3), 443-477.
Chan K.C., Chang C.H., Chang Y (2015). The network effects of publishing in finance. North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 33, 305-316.
Collins, J. H., & Plumlee, R. D. (1991). The taxpayer's labor and reporting decision: The effect of audit schemes. Accounting Review, 559-576.
Colussi T (2017). Social ties in Academia: A friend is a treasure. Review of Economics and Statistics. 100(1), 45-50.
Endenich, C., & Trapp, R. (2016). Cooperation for publication? An analysis of co-authorship patterns in leading accounting journals. European Accounting Review, 25(3), 613-633.
Folster M.B. (1995). Information seeking patterns: Social sciences. The reference librarian 23(49-50), 83-93.
Gans J.S., Shepherd G.B. (1994). How are the mighty fallen: Rejected classic articles by leading economists. Journal of Economic Perspectives 8(1), 165-179.
Hamermesh D.S. (2018). Citations in economics: measurement, uses, and impacts. Journal of Economic Literature, 56(1), 115-156.
Innes R (2008). Editorial Favoritism. 1-47.
Laband D.N., Piette M.J. (1994). The relative impacts of economics journals: 1970-1990. Journal of economic Literature, 32(2), 640-666.
Lindsey D (1989). Using citation counts as a measure of quality in science measuring what's measurable rather than what's valid. Scientometrics, 15(3-4), 189-203.
Marquardt C, Wiedman C.I. (1998). Voluntary disclosure, information asymmetry, and insider selling through secondary equity offerings. Contemporary Accounting Research, 15(4), 505-537.
Medoff Marshall H. (2003). Editorial favoritism in economics? Southern Economic Journal, 70(2), 425-434.
Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2105-2125.
Schoonbaert D, Roelants G (1996). Citation analysis for measuring the value of scientific publications: quality assessment tool or comedy of errors? Tropical Medicine & International Health, 1(6), 739-752.
Stigler G.J., Friedland C (1975). The citation practices of doctorates in economics. Journal of Political Economy, 83(3), 477-507.