Sparked Intuition Power: An Audit Risk Activity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A scientific article should meet specific requirements. It seems that these requirements are not met in the reviewed article. There is a lack of clearly defined research gaps and research problems. It is not known precisely what contribution this research makes to the development of science. To what extent do they confirm previous research, and to what extent do they not confirm it? What is innovative about this research? It isn't easy to find answers to these questions.

Author Response

Thank you for your observations regarding our case.  We have attached a cover letter that includes a response to your comment, along with a comprehensive list of revisions to the manuscript and supplementary materials.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I started off very confused because the abstract indicates that the case relates to a client acceptance issue; however, the case description (The Case) indicates that they have already accepted the SIP as a client. I loved the idea of a client acceptance issue but still find value in the risk assessment process even though I do not believe this is as original of an idea.

Students may not know much about 8K’s. Address how common this type of explanation is even if there is more to the story; that is, are there instances where the 8K actually describes in more detail why there has been an auditor change (or are they always fairly generic)? Regardless, I’d like to see more background about an 8K, including that an auditor change requires an 8K from both client and former firm. In my opinion, this adds value beyond the risk assessment (for which cases do exist).

The teaching materials make it sound like this is a simple activity for the professor but I am not sure that is the case. How do you ensure that students actually work on the case by themselves (since you argue that this is more effective than a group activity)? A group activity would require interaction and involvement, but it is not clear that your approach will actually require students to complete the activities (as opposed to just listening to others). I know you have tested the case but I think it would be beneficial to provide more in the way of instructions so that the professor does not have to figure things out on his/her own. In my mind, an in-class group activity would be more straightforward.

You indicate that this can be done in a virtual setting but I’m not clear on how that would work since one of the activities needs to be completed before additional material is distributed. A case that can be completed virtually would be great but I would not know how to do this by simply reading the case. You say this case is "straightforward" but I would test it a few more times and get feedback from the instructor (who needs to start from scratch in order to give effective feedback).

If more than one class period is required, could you provide instructions that document DAY 1, DAY 2, etc? You want to make use of the case as seamless as possible for the instructor. You might also consider somewhat different instructions for in class vs. virtual.

 

Author Response

Thank you for your observations regarding our case.  We have attached a cover letter that includes responses to your comments, along with a comprehensive list of revisions to the manuscript and supplementary materials.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: Sparked Intuition Power: An Audit Risk Activity

 

While exploring teaching cases where examples of professional auditing activities are brought into the classroom, is an interesting topic and can, in fact, contribute to effectively covering auditing theory and concepts while exposing students to practical applications of auditing, and thus developing their practical knowledge, the paper suffers from significant limitations outlined below. The key concerns are:

 

·       What is the real objective of the authors with this paper? The answer to this question will define the adequate structure of the paper.

 

What I meant is that:

1.     if the authors’ objective is merely present a “new” teaching case on auditing, then, similar to prior studies, they just need to present a synthetic discussion of the topic explored and the main objective in the Introduction and then describe the Case in detail (in this case, in my view Section 3.3.  is not necessary);

 

2.     however, reading the paper, it seems to me that the authors want to go beyond just presenting a new teaching case on auditing, by, similar to Chiang et al. (2023), exploring how the “new case” encourages active learning and practical knowledge in auditing education – this came to me when I read Section 3.3. Evidence of Efficacy and Student Feedback. I must say that I find this route much more interesting for the paper than merely presenting one more teaching case on auditing.

If this is the case, the authors need to [see, e.g., Chiang et al. (2023)]:

 

§  further develop the discussion of the topic in the Introduction of the paper, clearly present the main research objective, a synthesis of the main results and the contributes of the paper (which are missing);

§  include and develop a comprehensive background section, where prior studies and the theoretical framework are presented;

§  develop to a more detailed level the research findings and include a discussion section, where the main findings are articulated with previous research;

§  add a section with the Conclusion.

Having said that, if the authors choose to follow the format described in 1., it is my opinion that the authors must change the current structure of the paper.

An important issue is that the authors make very strong statements in the Introduction that, not being adequately supported by the literature, should be avoided, e.g., "[T]he profession focuses primarily on procedural activities. On the other hand, audit education focuses on theory and concepts”.

References:

Chiang, Christina, Paul K. Wells, and Gina Xu. 2021. How Does Experiential Learning Encourage Active Learning in Auditing Edu-330 cation? Journal of Accounting Education 54: 100713.

Author Response

Thank you for your observations regarding our case.  We have attached a cover letter that includes responses to your comments, along with a comprehensive list of revisions to the manuscript and supplementary materials.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciated the efforts made by the authors to incorporate my suggestions from the 1st round of review.

I accept the article in its current form.