RETRACTED: A Field Experiment Comparing the Outcomes of Three Fraud Brainstorming Procedures: Nominal Group, Round Robin, and Open Discussion (Accounting Review 2010)

From ReplicationWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
How revelant do you consider a replication of this study? You may discuss on the discussion page.


Nobody voted on this yet

 You need to enable JavaScript to vote


Here you find a ranking of the studies that are regarded most relevant to be replicated.

Contents

Article

Authors Title Journal Year Edition Pages JEL Codes Keywords
James E. Hunton, Anna Gold RETRACTED: A Field Experiment Comparing the Outcomes of Three Fraud Brainstorming Procedures: Nominal Group, Round Robin, and Open Discussion Accounting Review 2010 3 911–35 - -

Article information

Program code Data Readme Method(s) & estimation Data type Data used Origin of data used Software used (Version)
- - - - - - - -

Replication of this study

Authors Title Journal Year Edition Pages JEL Codes Keywords Replication type Replication result [refer to replication type 1 and 2] Raw data Call into question Authors statement

References

DOI: 10.2308/accr.2010.85.3.911 IDEAS: - EconPapers: -


RETRACTION note: Retraction: A Field Experiment Comparing the Outcomes of Three Fraud Brainstorming Procedures: Nominal Group, Round Robin, and Open Discussion, James E. Hunton and Anna Gold, The Accounting Review, January 2013, Vol. 88, No. 1, 357. DOI: 10.2308/accr-10326

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox