We can argue that only a few of the most prolific authors might be considered as 'full time' historians, while the overwhelming majority of IAHL academic authors were primarily engaged in other accounting research fields.
Table 3 is a summary of the distribution of IAHL academic/ non academic authorship over time.
In the first fifty years, the non-academics authors dominate IAHL with a very high percentage of authorships, decreasing from 100% (1869-1879) to 63% (1910-1919).
The implications of the role played by the non-academicians in the IAHL authorship are threefold.
Publication forms of IAHL are various: books, book chapters, journal articles (Table 5.
Table 7 presents the results of classifying IAHL using the framework provided by Carnegie and Napier .
On the one side, IAHL published till 2008 did not show any interest in the examination of the main aspect of accounting in different countries as suggested by Carnegie and Napier [2002, pp.
The role of professionals in writing accounting history: A history of academic thinkers, settings, beliefs, rules, could not explain the whole IAHL development over time.
An institutional rule helps us to explain why in IAHL co-authorship is so recent.
Thus, the strong tradition of accounting theory was perhaps the most important factor in explaining IAHL issues and approaches.
Zan  seminal work focussed on about the 10% of the whole IAHL publications while in our paper all accounting historians' contributions are reviewed.