Omnibus proposal of Professional Ethics Division interpretations and rulings; Exposure draft (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants), 1989, Jan. 12
1989
- 30Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage30
- Downloads23
- Abstract Views7
Book Description
The following revisions and interpretations are being proposed: 1. REVISION OF THE APPLICABILITY SECTION OF THE AICPA CODE OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT; 2. REVISION OF INTERPRETATION 101-2: Former Practitioners and Firm Independence; 3. INTERPRETATION UNDER RULE 101: Independence and Attest Engagements; 4. INTERPRETATION UNDER RULE 102: Conflicts of Interest; 5. INTERPRETATION UNDER RULE 301: Application of Exemptions 2 and 4 of Rule 301 to AICPA Members; 6. INTERPRETATION 501-5: Failure to Follow Requirements of Governmental Bodies, Commissions, or Other Regulatory Agencies in Performing Attest or Similar Services; 7. ETHICS RULING UNDER RULE 101: Use of Nonindependent CPA Firm on an Engagement; 8. REVISION OF ETHICS RULING NO. 31 UNDER RULE 101: Financial Interest in a Cooperative, Condominium Association, Planned Unit Development, Homeowners Association, Timeshare Development, or Other Common Interest Realty Association; 9. REVISION OF ETHICS RULING NO. 7 UNDER RULE 301: Revealing Names of Clients; 10. REVISION OF ETHICS RULING NO. 176 UNDER RULE 502: Newsletters and Publications Prepared by Others; 11. REVISION OF INTERPRETATION 502-2 UNDER RULE 502: False, Misleading, or Deceptive Acts in Advertising or Solicitation; 12. DELETION OF INTERPRETATION 502-1 UNDER RULE 502: Informational Advertising; 13. DELETION OF ETHICS RULING NO. 127 UNDER RULE 504: State Controller; 14. DELETION OF ETHICS RULING NO. 132 UNDER RULE 504: Tax Practice: Conflict of Interest; 15. DELETION OF ETHICS RULING NO. 86 UNDER RULE 502: Paid for by Others, Name in Client Ad; 16. DELETION OF ETHICS RULING NO. 4 UNDER RULE 301: Prior Client Relationship; 17. DELETION OF INTERPRETATION 301-1 UNDER RULE 301: Confidential Information and Technical Standards.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know