Auditing researcher highly ranked worldwide

Nate Newton

For accounting researcher Nate Newton, the best fact-finding and analysis – the kind that makes a lasting impact – starts with a relevant question.

“Every question I research has to be something I think auditors would care about,” said Newton, the Homer Black Associate Professor of Business Administration at the Florida State University Herbert Wertheim College of Business.

That is why when Newton finds himself considering a potential research topic, he harks back to his perspective as an early-career CPA and auditor working at global accounting firm KPMG. He ponders what new knowledge would have made a difference to his auditing tasks and what impact accounting practices have on capital markets.

Since pursuing his Ph.D. and pivoting to an academic career, Newton has co-authored an abundance of studies that tackle relevant, real-world auditing topics.

Newton’s practical approach coupled with his high output draws worldwide acclaim and led to his ascent in global standing: No. 8 for the amount of archival audit research published over the past six years. His high rating is based on the latest annual assessment by BYU Accounting Rankings for Universities, which examines publications in premier and other quality journals. The rankings also noted Newton’s breadth of research topics.

“His success rate with his publications is remarkable,” said Allen Blay, EY Professor of Accounting and chair of FSU’s Department of Accounting. “Everything he does goes to A-rated, premier, Tier 1 journals.”

He credits Newton’s instincts in addition to his analytical skills.

“Nate has a remarkable ability to know an interesting research question and how to execute it,” Blay said.

RESEARCHING REAL-WORLD DATA
Newton focuses on archival audit research, meaning he uses real data from corporate financial filings and audit reports to research auditing practices. The FSU accounting faculty consistently earns high marks for its significant production of archival audit research, ranking No. 3 among the nation’s public universities — No. 5 worldwide — over the last 12 years and securing the No. 6 spot among the nation’s public universities for archival audit research published in top-tier journals over the last 35 years.

“This kind of research is important because auditors are the protectors of investors,” Blay said. “It’s one of the key areas of academic research that has implications for financial markets.”

Identifying possible audit industry improvement, Newton’s co-authored studies answer a range of questions, such as:

• How beneficial is allocating relatively more audit effort before the end of a fiscal year? Findings indicate this kind of proactive effort increases efficiency and improves quality, particularly when more senior auditors get involved. 
• How do employee workloads and staff continuity affect audits? Among the findings, audit quality starts to deteriorate once employees surpass 55 hours in a work week.
• Will plans by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) to do more random inspections of public company audits – instead of only focusing on those identified as high risk – affect audit results? Among the findings, the potential for inspection shapes auditor behavior, so a change in inspection approach will likely influence auditor attention among their clients.
• Do company boards use nonpublic audit adjustments in their oversight of management? Findings suggest that boards hold CFOs accountable for privately communicated audit adjustments, especially if those adjustments reduce firm income.

Newton keeps a detailed record on each of his research projects. A recent study of whether audit firm data breaches affect IPOs, published in The Accounting Review in September, for example, took three years and three months from idea to publication. One of his more time-intensive studies to date took more than five years. That undertaking involved gaining access to eight years of records from an international public accounting firm, then investigating how the firm’s personnel policies affected audit outcomes. The key findings, published in separate articles in Contemporary Accounting Research and Accounting, Organizations and Society, provided new information on the effects of work done by auditors outside of peak times and the heavy workloads they carry during their busy season.

Blay said he is convinced the study on workloads “will continue to be cited in audit research for many years and has significantly influenced both research and audit practices.”

Newton emphasizes that not every good question results in published research. “Sometimes practice and regulation change before research can be published, or sometimes the findings are less interesting than the question,” he said. Alongside his long list of publications is another list of research projects that were never published in journals.

But as long as there are questions to ask, Newton intends to seek new knowledge.

“I like to take broad, auditing-related ideas and examine them in a measurable way that can help the profession,” he said.

RESEARCHING WHAT’S RELEVANT 
The following studies co-authored by Newton are the most recent and/or the most cited by employers and researchers:

Alhusaini, B., Lamoreaux, P. T., & Newton, N. J. (2025). IPOs and auditor reputation: Evidence from audit firm data breaches. The Accounting Review, 100(5), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.2308/TAR-2023-0417
Lamoreaux, P. T., Liu, S. Z., Newton, N. J., & Zhang, M. (2025). Auditor-provided nonpublic signals of misreporting and CFO dismissal. Review of Accounting Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-025-09915-2
Christensen, B. E., N. J. Newton, and M. S. Wilkins. (2024). Costs and benefits of a risk-based PCAOB inspection regime. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 112: 101552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2024.101552
Christensen, B. E., Newton, N. J., & Wilkins, M. S. (2021). How do team workloads and team staffing affect the audit? Archival evidence from U.S. audits. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 92, Article 101225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2021.101225 
Christensen, B. E., Lundstrom, N. G., & Newton, N. J. (2021). Does the disclosure of PCAOB inspection findings increase audit firms’ litigation exposure? The Accounting Review, 96(3), 191–219. https://doi.org/10.2308/TAR-2018-0151
Christensen, B. E., Newton, N. J., & Wilkins, M. S. (2021). Archival evidence on the audit process: Determinants and consequences of interim effort. Contemporary Accounting Research, 38(2), 942–973. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12633
Albrecht, A., Mauldin, E. G., & Newton, N. J. (2018). Do auditors recognize the potential dark side of executives’ accounting competence? The Accounting Review, 93(6), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-52028