User:Eustress has said that the ranking addition does not below because of WP:COI and WP:RS. I address both of those below and believe the edits should remain. In full disclosure, I am one of the authors on the research that is published in relation to this topic.
WP:COI - Per Wikipedia guidelines: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies." The post is entirely within reason unless you can show that this is not notable and does not conform to the content policies. You argue WP:RS below but I debunk that. As for notability, other experts have referred to this work (see here and here, both blogs satisfy Wikipedia guidelines) and the work is published in peer reviewed journals (which according to Wikipedia guidelines suggests notability).
You will note in my edits that I did not create a page to highlight myself, or add myself as faculty at BYU. I am not promoting a commercial interest as BYU is a non-for-profit and the website doesn't sell anything. The edits did not violate Wikipedia terms and therefore should stand.
WP:RS - "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources," If you look at the sources I cited, they are highly respected accounting journals that peer review the articles according to high scientific standards (Issues in Accounting Education, Accounting Horizons). Per the wikipedia guidelines "Material such as an article or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars." Furthermore, there are other experts referring to this work (see here and here, both blogs satisfy Wikipedia guidelines) Therefore your claim that these are not credible sources is not valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daw44 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your elaboration and COI disclosure. SSRN is not a reliable source, as anyone can upload a document there. There was an entire section that was only supported by SSRN and a self-published BYU page, so that information should be removed until reliable sources are available. Second, please keep in mind that while you may not be promoting a commercial interest, you are definitely promoting a private interest, so including your name in the body of the article (as opposed to the references section) and providing a link to a page of author biographical information is inappropriate.
I appreciate your contribution and hope you will help improve the other sections, aiming to get it to GA status! —Eustresstalk 02:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I have updated the listing. To do this, I have added a citation that shows the paper was presented at a peer reviewed conference of the American Accounting Association. Also, please note that on SSRN, the papers are forthcoming and one of the papers has been cited by other research (see here). I've added link to other third parties. The information on the page is now based on reliable sources. The content is now in conformity with Wikipedia policies and I have addressed all the concerns by User:Eustress. Daw44 (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)