DENETİM KALİTESİ KONUSUNDA SSCI KAPSAMINDAKİ DERGİLERDE YAYIMLANMIŞ MAKALELER İLE TÜRKİYE’DE YAPILAN LİSANSÜSTÜ TEZLERİN BİBLİYOMETRİK AÇIDAN KARŞILAŞTIRMALI ANALİZİ

Öz

Dünyada yaşanan finansal skandallar ve krizler sonrasında denetim kalitesi konusunun önem kazandığı görülmektedir. Muhasebe ve denetim alanında yapılan çalışmalar geniş anlamda denetim kalitesine hizmet edebilmektedir. Bu çalışmada özellikle denetim kalitesi konulu çalışmalar araştırılmak istenmiştir. Bu amaçla önce Web of Science (WoS) veri tabanında yer alan Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) kapsamındaki dergiler taranmış ve 290 makale bibliyometrik açıdan analiz edilmiştir. Ardından, uluslararası alandaki bu çalışmaların Türkiye’ye nasıl yansıdığını görmek için YÖK Ulusal Tez Merkezi veri tabanında yer alan tezler taranmış ve denetim kalitesi konusunda yazıldığı tespit edilen erişime açık 73 lisansüstü tez de aynı düşünceyle analiz edilerek bazı karşılaştırmalar yapılmıştır. Söz konusu makaleler yıl, dergi, atıf ve anahtar kelime sıklığı değişkenine göre ele alınırken lisansüstü tezler ise konu, cinsiyet, yıl, üniversite/enstitü, yazar, danışman, dil, tür, kapsam, yöntem, sayfa sayısı, anahtar kelime sayısı ve sıklığı değişkenine göre incelenmiştir.
Araştırma sonucunda en fazla makalenin 2019 yılında, “Auditing-A Journal of Pratice & Theory” isimle dergide (yüzde 17) yayımlandığı ve denetim kalitesinin (189 kez) en çok tekrar eden anahtar kelime olduğu görülmüştür. Türkiye’deki lisansüstü tezlerin de aynı şekilde en fazla 2019 yılında yazıldığı ve “denetim kalitesi”nin (40 kez) en çok tekrar eden anahtar kelime olduğu görülmüştür. Tezlerin daha çok Marmara Üniversitesi’nde (yüzde 12,3) ve Profesör unvanlı danışmanların (yüzde 53,4) yönetiminde tamamlandığı; tezlerin yüzde 41,1’inin kapsamına denetçileri aldığı ve büyük çoğunluğunun (yüzde 75,3) “dış denetim” konusuna odaklandığı anlaşılmıştır. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Denetim Kalitesi
• Bibliyometrik Analiz
• WoS
• SSCI
• YÖKTEZ
• Lisansüstü Tez

A BIBLIOMETRIC COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF AUDIT QUALITY ARTICLES PUBLISHED IN JOURNALS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SSCI AND GRADUATE THESIS MADE IN TURKEY

Öz

It is seen that the issue of audit quality has gained importance after the financial scandals and crises in the world. Studies in the field of accounting and auditing serve the audit quality in a broad sense. In particular, in this study, it was desired to investigate studies on audit quality. For this purpose, first of all, articles in the journals within the scope of the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) in the Web of Science (WoS) database were scanned and 290 articles were analyzed bibliometrically. Then, in order to see how these international studies are reflected in Turkey, the theses available in the database of CoHE National Thesis Center were scanned and 73 graduate theses that were determined to be written on audit quality were analyzed with the same thought and some comparisons were made. While the articles in question are handled according to the variable of year, journal, citation and keyword frequency, graduate theses are based on the variable of subject, gender, year, university/institute, author, advisor, language, genre, scope, method, number of pages, number of keywords and frequency analyzed accordingly.
As a result of the research, it was seen that the most articles were published in the journal with the name "Auditing-A Journal of Practice & Theory" (17 percent) in 2019, and audit quality (189 times) was the most repeated keyword. It has been seen that the most graduate theses in Turkey were written in 2019 and "audit quality" (40 times) was the most repeated keyword. The theses were mostly completed at Marmara University (12.3 percent) and under the supervision of professors (53.4 percent); It was understood that 41.1 percent of the theses included auditors and the vast majority (75.3 percent) focused on "external audit".

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Audit Quality
• Bibliometric Analysis
• WoS
• SSCI
• CoHE
• Graduate Theses

Kaynakça

1. Aghaei, A. (2011). Review of studies on audit quality. International Conference on Humanities, Society and Culture, 20, 312–317.
2. Akçay, A. Ö., & Bilen, A. (2019). Denetim Kalitesinin Kar Yönetimi Üzerine Etkisi: Bist-100 Firmaları Üzerine Bir Uygulama. Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, 579646(83), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.25095/mufad.579646
3. Alhadab, M., & Clacher, I. (2018). The impact of audit quality on real and accrual earnings management around IPOs. The British Accounting Review, 50(4), 442–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BAR.2017.12.003
4. Alkan, G. (2014). Türkiye’de Muhasebe Alanında Yapılan Lisansüstü Tez Çalışmaları Üzerine Bir Araştırma (1984-2012). Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, (61), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.25095/mufad.396448
5. Antle, R., Gordon, E., Narayanamoorthy, G., & Zhou, L. (2006). The joint determination of audit fees, non-audit fees, and abnormal accruals. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 27(3), 235–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-006-9430-y
6. Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975.
7. Ashbaugh-Skaife, H., Collins, D. W., & LaFond, R. (2006). The effects of corporate governance on firms’ credit ratings. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 42(1–2), 203–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JACCECO.2006.02.003
8. Asthana, S. C., & Boone, J. P. (2012). Abnormal audit fee and audit quality. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 31(3), 1–22.

9. Baker, C. R., & Barbu, E. M. (2007). Trends in research on international accounting harmonization. The International Journal of Accounting, 42(3), 272–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INTACC.2007.06.003
10. Becker, C. L., Defond, M. L., Jiambalvo, J., & Subramanyam, K. R. (1998). The effect of audit quality on earnings management. Contemporary Accounting Research, 15(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1911-3846.1998.TB00547.X
11. Behrend, J., & Eulerich, M. (2019). The evolution of internal audit research: a bibliometric analysis of published documents (1926–2016). Accounting History Review, 29(1), 103–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/21552851.2019.1606721
12. Bircan, N. G. (2021). Mali Çözüm Dergisinde Yayınlanmış Muhasebe ve Denetim Makalelerin İçerik Analizi: 2010-2020. Mali Çözüm Dergisi, 31(165), 187–204.
13. Bonner, S. E., Hesford, J. W., Van der Stede, W. A., & Young, S. M. (2006). The most influential journals in academic accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(7), 663–685. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AOS.2005.06.003
14. Bulut, N., & Göksu, M. (2021). Muhasebe ve Denetime Bakış Dergisinde 2006-2020 Yılları Arasında Yayınlanan Bağımsız Denetim ile ilgili Makalelerin İçerik Analizi. Muhasebe ve Denetime Bakış, 21(63), 249–274.
15. Can, A. V., Küçüker, M., & Özkan, İ. (2020). 2016-2019 Yılları Arasında Düzenlenen Uluslararası Muhasebe ve Finans Araştırmaları Kongrelerinde Sunulan Bildirilerin Analizi. Muhasebe ve Finans İncelemeleri Dergisi, 3(1), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.32951/mufider.703665
16. Carey, P., & Simnett, R. (2006). Audit partner tenure and audit quality. The Accounting Review, 81(3), 653–676. Cengiz, S., & Gör, Y. (2016). Kurumsal Yönetim Uygulamaları ve Denetim Kalitesi Arasındaki İlişki: Borsa İstanbul Kurumsal Yönetim Endeksinde Bir Araşıtırma. Mali Çözüm Dergisi, 26, 59–82.
17. Choi, J.-H., Kim, J.-B., & Zang, Y. (2010). Do Abnormally High Audit Fees Impair Audit Quality? AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 29(2), 115–140. https://doi.org/10.2308/AUD.2010.29.2.115
18. Ciger, A. (2020). Audit Quality: A Bibliometric Analysis (1981-2020). Scientific Annals of Economics and Business, 67(4), 473–494.
19. Çil Koçyiğit, S., & Şenay, F. (2018). 1978-2018 Yılları Arasında Türkiye’de Sağlık Yönetimi Anabilim Dalı/Bilim Dalında Muhasebe ve Finansman Alanında Yazılan Lisansüstü Tezlerin Değerlendirilmesi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Meslek Yüksekokulu Dergisi, 21(2), 303–312. https://doi.org/10.29249/selcuksbmyd.467473
20. Cobo, M., López‐Herrera, A. G., Herrera‐Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology, 62(7), 1382–1402. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21525
21. Coyne, J., Summers, S. L., Williams, B., & Wood, D. A. (2010). Accounting program research rankings by topical area and methodology. Issues in Accounting Education, 25(4), 631–654.
22. Creswell, J. (2015). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative (5. baskı). Pearson. DeAngelo, L. E. (1981). Auditor size and audit quality. Journal of accounting and economics, 3(3), 183–199. Tarihinde adresinden erişildi https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0165410181900021
23. DeFond, M. L., Raghunandan, K., & Subramanyam, K. R. (2002). Do non-audit service fees impair auditor independence? Evidence from going concern audit opinions. Journal of Accounting Research, 40(4), 1247–1274. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.00088
24. Deis Jr, D. R., & Giroux, G. (1996). The effect of auditor changes on audit fees, audit hours, and audit quality. Accounting and Public policy, 15(1), 55–76.
25. Dinç, E., & Atabay, E. (2018). Türkiye’deki Denetim Literatürünün İçerik Analizi (2007–2016). Muhasebe ve Denetime Bakış, 0(53), 101–114.
26. Dönmez, G., Tosunoğlu, B., & Cengiz, D. D. S. (2020). A Bibliometrıc Research On National and International Journals On Audit Quality. The Journal of International Scientific Researches, 5(Ek), 78–86. https://doi.org/10.23834/isrjournal.839005
27. Donohue, J. C. (1972). A bibliometric analysis of certain information science literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 23(5), 313–317. https://doi.org/10.1002/ASI.4630230506
28. Durgut, M., & Pehlivan, A. (2018). Muhasebe (Finansal Raporlama) Standartlarına Yönelik Türkiye’de Hazırlanan Lisansüstü Tez Çalışmaları Üzerine Bir Araştırma: 1987-2017 Dönemi. Muhasebe ve Vergi Uygulamaları Dergisi, Özel(Nisan), 1–23.
29. Erdoğan, N., & Azgın, N. (2019). Denetçinin Mesleki Şüpheciliğinin Denetim Kalitesine Etkisi. Muhasebe Bilim Dünyası Dergisi, 21(1), 27–54. https://doi.org/10.31460/MBDD.453610
30. Erkens, M., Paugam, L., & Stolowy, H. (2015). Non-financial information: State of the art and research perspectives based on a bibliometric study. Comptabilite Controle Audit, 21(3), 15–92.
31. Francis, J. R., & Yu, M. D. (2009). Big 4 office size and audit quality. The accounting review, 84(5), 1521–1552.
32. Francis, Jere R. (2004). What do we know about audit quality? The British Accounting Review, 36(4), 345–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BAR.2004.09.003
33. Francis, Jere R. (2011). A Framework for Understanding and Researching Audit Quality, 30(2), 125–152. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-50006
34. Frankel, R. M., Marilyn F. Johnson, & Nelson, K. K. (2002). The relation between auditors’ fees for nonaudit services and earnings management. The accounting review, 77(1), 71–105.
35. FRC. (2018). Developments In Audit- Audit Quality. London. Tarihinde adresinden erişildi https://www.frc.org.uk/auditors/report-on-developments-in-audit
36. FRC. (2020). FRC principles for operational separation of audit practices. Tarihinde adresinden erişildi https://www.frc.org.uk/news/july-2020/frc-principles-for-operational-separation-of-a-(1)
37. Fu, H. Z., Ho, Y. S., Sui, Y. M., & Li, Z. S. (2010). A bibliometric analysis of solid waste research during the period 1993-2008. Waste Management, 30(12), 2410–2417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.06.008
38. Gaver, J. J., & Utke, S. (2019). Audit Quality and Specialist Tenure. The Accounting Review, 94(3), 113–147. https://doi.org/10.2308/ACCR-52206
39. Geçici, E., & Can, A. V. (2022). Muhasebe kalitesi konusu kapsamında Türkiye’de yazılan lisansüstü tezlerin bibliyometrik analizi. Muhasebe ve Vergi Uygulamaları Dergisi., 15(2), 213–245.
40. Goodwin, J., Wu, D., Akdo Gu, E., Alp, A., Aragon, G., Bayazıt, M., … Wei, S. (2016). What is the relationship between audit partner busyness and audit quality? Wiley Online Library, 33(1), 341–377. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12129
41. Gul, F. A., Kim, J. B., & Qiu, A. A. (2010). Ownership concentration, foreign shareholding, audit quality, and stock price synchronicity: Evidence from China. Journal of Financial Economics, 95(3), 425–442.
42. Güleç, Ö. F., & Öztürk, E. (2019). Muhasebe Alanında Türkiye’deki Tezlerle Uluslararası Alan Endekslerinde Taranan Dergilerde Yayınlanan Makalelerin Karşılaştırılması. Muhasebe ve Vergi Uygulamaları Dergisi, 12(2), 215–236. https://doi.org/10.29067/muvu.430404
43. Hohenfels, D., & Quick, R. (2020). Non-audit services and audit quality: evidence from Germany. Review of Managerial Science, 14(5), 959–1007. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11846-018-0306-Z
44. Hotamışlı, M., & Erem, I. (2014). Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi’nde Yayınlanan Makalelerin Bibliyometrik Analizi. Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, (63), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.25095/mufad.396474
45. Hribar, P., Kravet, T., & Wilson, R. (2014). A new measure of accounting quality. Review of Accounting Studies, 19(1), 506–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-013-9253-8
46. Huang, C. ., & Ho, Y. . (2011). Historical research on corporate governance: A bibliometric analysis. African Journal of Business Management, 5(2), 276–284.
47. IAASB. (2014). A Framework For Audit Quality- Key Elements That Create An Environment For Audit Quality. Tarihinde adresinden erişildi https://www.iaasb.org/publications/framework-audit-quality-key-elements-create-environment-audit-quality-3
48. ICAEW. (2021). Audit quality: how to raise the bar.
49. Kalyane, V. L., & Sen, B. K. (1995). Bibliometric study of the Journal of Oilseeds Research. Annals of Library Science and Documentation, 42(4), 121–141.
50. Kaya, H. P. (2019). Türkiye’de Denetim Alanında Yazılmış Olan Doktora Tezlerinin Değerlendirilmesi (1995-2018). Karabük Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 9(2), 556–576. Tarihinde adresinden erişildi https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/joiss/629439
51. Kent Baker, H., Pandey, N., Kumar, S., & Haldar, A. (2020). A bibliometric analysis of board diversity: Current status, development, and future research directions. Journal of Business Research, 108(November 2019), 232–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.025
52. Kıymetli Şen, İ., Hatunoğlu, Z., & Terzi, S. (2017). Muhasebe Araştırmalarında Muhasebe Eğitiminin Yeri ve Önemi: Muhasebe Dergileri Üzerinde Bibliyometrik Bir Araştırma. Muhasebe Bilim Dünyası Dergisi, 19(1), 247–291.
53. Knechel, W. R., Krishnan, G. V., Pevzner, M., Shefchik, L. B., & Velury, U. K. (2013). Audit quality: Insights from the academic literature. Auditing, 32(SUPPL.1), 385–421. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-50350
54. Kumar, S., Pandey, N., Burton, B., & Sureka, R. (2021). Research patterns and intellectual structure of Managerial Auditing Journal: a retrospective using bibliometric analysis during 1986-2019. Managerial Auditing Journal, 36(2), 280–313. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-12-2019-2517/FULL/HTML
55. Kurt, G., & Uçma, T. (2011). Türkiye’deki Muhasebe Araştırmaları Yazını. World of Accounting Science, 4, 69–95.
56. Lawrence, A., Minutti-Meza, M., & Zhang, P. (2011). Can Big 4 versus non-Big 4 differences in audit-quality proxies be attributed to client characteristics? The accounting review, 86(1), 259–286.
57. Lennox, C. S., Wu, X., & Zhang, T. (2014). Does Mandatory Rotation of Audit Partners Improve Audit Quality? The Accounting Review, 89(5), 1775–1803. https://doi.org/10.2308/ACCR-50800
58. Melin, G., & Persson, O. (1996). Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. akjournals.com, 36(3), 363–377.
59. Merigó, J. M., & Yang, J. B. (2017). Accounting Research: A Bibliometric Analysis. Australian Accounting Review, 27(1), 71–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/auar.12109
60. Moral Muñoz, J. M., Herrera Viedma, E., Santisteban Espejo, A., & Cobo, M. . (2020). Software tools for conducting bibliometric analysis in science: An up-to-date review. El profesional de la información, 29(1), 1699–2407.
61. Nalçın, K., & Can, A. V. (2016). Bilgi Felsefesi Temelinde Muhasebe Araştırmalarının Yönelimi: 2006-2012 Yılları Arasında Türkiye’de Yapılan Doktora Tezlerinin Analizi. Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(4), 2006–2012.
62. Ocak, M., & Can, G. (2019). Do government-experienced auditors reduce audit quality? Managerial Auditing Journal, 34(6), 722–748. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-12-2017-1756/FULL/HTML
63. Oler, D. K., Oler, M. J., & Skousen, C. J. (2010). Characterizing accounting research. Accounting Horizons, 24(4), 635–670.
64. Önce, S., & Başar, B. (2010). Türkiye’deki akademik araştırma dergilerinde muhasebe alanında yazılmış makalelerin analizi: 2000-2008. Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, 55–69.
65. Önder, Ş., & İrkörücü, İ. E. (2020). Bağımsız Denetim Kalitesi İle Finansal Performans Arasındaki İlişki: BIST 100 Endeksinde Yer Alan Şirketler Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, 710350(86), 183–194. https://doi.org/10.25095/mufad.710350
66. Öztürk, S., & Yılmaz, C. (2018). DENETİM VeAdli̇ MuhasebeAlanindaki̇ ÇalişmalarBi̇bli̇yometri̇kAnali̇Tekni̇ği̇İlİncelenmesi̇. Dergi Karadeniz, 39(39), 173–188. https://doi.org/10.17498/kdeniz.406270
67. Palmrose, Z.-V. (1988). 1987 competitive manuscript co-winner: an analysis of auditor litigation and audit service quality. Accounting review, 63(1), 55–73. Tarihinde adresinden erişildi https://www.jstor.org/stable/247679
68. PCAOB. (2015). PCAOB Concept Release On Audit Indicators. Tarihinde adresinden erişildi https://pcaobus.org//Rulemaking/Pages/Docket041.aspx
69. Pinto, M., Escalona-Fernández, M. I., & Pulgarin, A. (2013). Information literacy in social sciences and health sciences: a bibliometric study (1974–2011). Springer, 95(3), 1071–1094. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0899-y
70. Prather‐Kinsey, J. J., & Rueschhoff, N. G. (2004). An analysis of international accounting research in US‐and non‐US‐based academic accounting journals. Journal of International Accounting Research, 3(1), 63–81.
71. Pritchard, A. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. Journal of documentation, 4(25), 348–349.
72. Reichelt, K. J., & Wang, D. (2010). No TitleNational and office‐specific measures of auditor industry expertise and effects on audit quality. Journal of Accounting Research, 48(3), 647–686.
73. Saidu, M., & Law, H. A.-. (2020). Board characteristics and audit quality: The moderating role of gender diversity. International Journal of Business & Law Research, 8(1), 144–155.
74. Secinaro, S., Dal Mas, F., Brescia, V., & Calandra, D. (2021). Blockchain in the accounting, auditing and accountability fields: a bibliometric and coding analysis. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-10-2020-4987/FULL/HTML
75. Selimoğlu, S. K., & Uzay, Ş. (2007). Türkiye’de Son 10 Yılda Bağımsız Denetim Alanında Yapılan Araştırmalar: Literatür Taraması. Mali Çözüm Dergisi, 83(Eylül-Ekim), 39–52.
76. Selimoğlu, S. K., & Yeşilçelebi, G. (2014). Mesleki Aidiyetin Bağımsız Denetim Kalitesi Üzerine Etkisi: Bağımsız Denetçiler Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, (64), 27–52. https://doi.org/10.25095/mufad.396489
77. Shan, Y. G., Troshani, I., & Tarca, A. (2019). Managerial ownership, audit firm size, and audit fees: Australian evidence. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 35, 18–36.
78. Singh, A., Singh, H., & Sultana, N. (2019). Independent and joint effects of audit partner tenure and non-audit fees on audit quality. Contemporary Accounting & Economics, 15(2), 186–205.
79. Srinidhi, B. N., & Gul, F. A. (2007). The differential effects of auditors’ nonaudit and audit fees on accrual quality. Contemporary Accounting Research, 24(2), 595–629. https://doi.org/10.1506/ARJ4-20P3-201K-3752
80. Tendeloo, B. Van, & Vanstraelen, A. (2008). Earnings management and audit quality in Europe: Evidence from the private client segment market. European accounting review, 17(3), 447–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180802016684
81. Uysal, Ö. Ö. (2010). Business Ethics Research with an Accounting Focus: A Bibliometric Analysis from 1988 to 2007. Journal of Business Ethics, 93(1), 137–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10551-009-0187-9
82. Yeşil, T., & Akyüz, F. (2018). Muhasebe Alanındaki Ulusal Doktora Tezlerinin Bibliyometrik Analizi. Muhasebe Bilim Dünyası Dergisi, 20(Özel), 440–472.
83. YÖK. (2020). 2020 Yılında YÖK Ulusal Tez Merkezindeki Tez Sayısı 645 Bine Ulaştı. Tarihinde adresinden erişildi https://www.yok.gov.tr/Sayfalar/Haberler/2021/yok-un-tez-merkezinden-faydalanan-kullanici-sayisi-6-milyona-ulasti.aspx
84. Yüce, A., & Muğan, C. Ş. (1996). Dünyada ve Türkiye’de 1990 – 1995 Arası Yapılan Muhasebe Doktora Tezlerinin Analizi ve Öneriler. Içinde Türkiye XV. Muhasebe Eğitimi Sempozyumu.
85. Yücel, S., Öncü, M. A., & Kartal, O. (2015). Türkiye ’ de Muhasebe Ve Finansal Raporlama Standartları Konularında Yayınlanmış Akademik Çalışmalar ( 2007- 2014 Arası Literatür Taraması ). Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, (Ekim), 39–66.
86. Zeff, S. A., & Dyckman, T. R. (2020). Accounting and Business Research: the first 50 years, 1970–2019. Accounting and Business Research, 50(4), 360–395.
87. Zhong, S., Geng, Y., Liu, W., Gao, C., & Chen, W. (2016). A bibliometric review on natural resource accounting during 1995–2014. Journal of Cleaner Production, 139, 122–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.039
88. Zupic, I., & Čater, C. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational research methods, 18(3), 429–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629
89. Zyznarska-Dworczak, B. (2018). The development perspectives of sustainable management accounting in Central and Eastern European countries. Sustainability, 10(5), 1445. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051445