How to Start Your Accounting Career

You want to be an accountant. You love numbers, maths and money. So, how do you get started? Where do you go to get certified so that your services will be in demand? If you do not have any recognised qualifications, your clients will not be able to know if your standards meet their requirements. People hire Chartered Certified Accountants with a full practicing certificate because they know that they can trust in their expertise.

Any old accountancy certification will not do. You need an internationally recognised global qualification to compete in today's industry, and the ACCA qualification fits this demand perfectly. The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) is the world's largest international accountancy body, with over 300,000 members and students in more than 160 countries. Founded in 1904, ACCA has over 100 years of history as a leader in the development of the global accountancy profession. The United Nations has chosen the ACCA syllabus as the basis of its global accountancy curriculum and the ACCA qualification is well recognised in an ever-growing list of countries including the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, China, Singapore, Malaysia and Pakistan. Many ACCA graduates work in premier companies such as British Airways and Price Waterhouse Coopers.

The syllabus spans 16 topics each with its own examination to test your competency in that subject. It usually takes 2 years for a student to obtain the ACCA qualification. This is broken up into the "Fundamentals" stage that consists of 9 papers and the "Professional" stage that consists of 3 papers and a choice of 4 options. With so many examinations to pass, self-study can be difficult. The good news is that there are many professional accounting and finance schools such as FTMS Global that offer ACCA courses. The better ones have a cast of highly qualified and experienced lecturers who are ACCA-certified. These teachers know what the ACCA syllabus requires and can dramatically increase your chances of passing the examinations. Definitely, it is highly recommended to enlist the aid of a mentor who can show you the ropes.

After qualifying as a Chartered Certified Accountant by passing the examinations, to obtain the practising certificate you must have had sufficient experience in a practising accountant's office. On top of all that, you must continue to keep yourself updated by attending courses on a regular basis. The ACCA is the only accountancy body that provides a disciplinary system which offers remedy if any ACCA member breaches its high standards.

Once you obtain the ACCA certification, your clients know with certainty that they can depend on:

- Your integrity

- Your absolute respect for the confidentiality of your client's affairs

- Your knowledge and expertise

- The fact that there is a regulatory body who will ensure that standards are maintained

- The fact that you must operate within a strict framework of rules and ethics

The entry requirements of the ACCA qualification are 2 A-Level passes or a bachelor's degree from a recognised university. If you do not meet this requirement, you may opt to go for the open-entry route by taking the Certified Accounting Technician (CAT) qualification first. Upon completion of the CAT course, you may progress to take the ACCA qualification.

BioNames: yet another taxonomic database

Yet another taxonomic database, this time I can't blame anyone else because I'm the one building it (with some help, as I'll explain below).

BioNames was my entry in EOL's Computable Data Challenge (you can see the proposal here: http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.92091). In that proposal I outlined my goal:

BioNames aims to create a biodiversity “dashboard” where at a glance we can see a summary of the taxonomic and phylogenetic information we have for a given taxon, and that information is seamlessly linked together in one place. It combines classifications from EOL with animal taxonomic names from ION, and bibliographic data from multiple sources including BHL, CrossRef, and Mendeley. The goal is to create a database where the user can drill down from a taxonomic name to see the original description, track the fate of that name through successive revisions, and see other related literature. Publications that are freely available will displayed in situ. If the taxon has been sequenced, the user can see one or more phylogenetic trees for those sequences, where each sequence is in turn linked to the publication that made those sequences available. For a biologist the site provides a quick answer to the basic question “what is this taxon?”, coupled with with graphical displays of the relevant bibliographic and genomic information.

The bulk of the funding from EOL is going into interface work by Ryan Schenk (@ryanschenk), author of synynyms among other cool things. EOL's Chief Scientist Cyndy Parr (@cydparr) is providing adult supervision ("Chief Scientist", why can't I have a title like that?).

Development of BioNames is taking place in the open as much as we can, so there are some places you can see things unfold:

• Key features and milestones are on Trello
• Design details are on GitHub
• Database is hosted by Cloudant
• There is a (currently private) design document in Google Docs. I've posted a snapshot on FigShare (http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.652203

I've lots of terrible code scattered around which I am in the process of organising into something usable, which I'll then post on GitHub. Working with Ryan is forcing me to be a lot more thoughtful about coding this project, which is a good thing. Currently I'm focussing on building an API that will support the kinds of things we want to do. I'm hoping to make this public shortly.

The original proposal was a tad ambitious (no, really). Most of what I hope to do exists in one form or another, but making it robust and usable is a whole other matter.

As the project takes shape I hope to post updates here. If you have any suggestions feel free to make them. The current target is to have this "out the door" by the end of May.

In defence of OpenURL: making bibliographic metadata hackable

This is not a post I'd thought I'd write, because OpenURL is an awful spec. But last week I ended up in vigorous debate on Twitter after I posted what I thought was a casual remark:

If you publish bibliographic data and don't use COinS ocoins.info you are doing it wrong (I'm looking at you @europepmc_news)

— Roderic Page (@rdmpage) March 8, 2013

This ended up being a marathon thread about OpenURL, accessibility, bibliographic metadata, and more. It spilled over onto a previous blog post (Tight versus loose coupling) where Ed Summers and I debated the merits of Context Object in Span (COinS).

This debate still nags at me because I think there's an underlying assumption that people making bibliographic web sites know what's best for their users.

Ed wrote:

I prefer to encourage publishers to use HTML's metadata facilities using the <meta> tag and microdata/RDFa, and build actually useful tools that do something useful with it, like Zotero or Mendeley have done.

That's fine, I like embedded metadata, both as a consumer and as a provider (I provide Google Scholar-compatible metadata in BioStor). What I object to is the idea that this is all we need to do. Embedded metadata is great if you want to make individual articles visible to search engines:

Tools like Google (or bibliographic managers like Mendeley and Zotero) can "read" the web page, extract structured data, and do something with that. Nice for search engines, nice for repositories (metadata becomes part of their search engine optimisation strategy).

But this isn't the only thing a user might want to do. I often find myself confronted with a list of articles on a web site (e.g., a bibliography on a topic, a list of references cited in a paper, the results of a bibliographic search) and those references have no links. Often those links may not have existed when original web page was published, but may exist now. I'd like a tool that helped me find those links.

If a web site doesn't provide the functionality you need then, luckily, you are not entirely at the mercy of the people who made the decisions about what you can and can't do. Tools like Greasemonkey pioneered the idea that we can hack a web page to make it more useful. I see COinS as an example of this approach. If the web page doesn't provide links, but has embedded COinS then I can use those to create OpenURL links to try and locate those references. I am no longer bound by the limitations of the web page itself.


This strikes me as very powerful, and I use COinS a lot where they are available. For example, CrossRef's excellent search engine supports COinS, which means I can find a reference using that tool, then use the embedded COinS to see whether there is a version of that article digitised by the Biodiversity Heritage Library. This enables me to do stuff that CrossRef itself hasn't anticipated, and that makes their search engine much more valuable to me. In a way this is ironic because CrossRef is predicated on the idea that there is one definitive link to a reference, the DOI.

So, what I found frustrating about the conversation with Ed was that it seemed to me that his insistence on following certain standards was at the expense of functionality that I found useful. If the client is the search engine, or the repository, then COinS do indeed seem to offer little apart from God-awful HTML messing up the page. But if you include the user and accept that users may want to do stuff that you don't (indeed can't) anticipate then COinS are useful. This is the "genius of and", why not support both approaches?

Now, COinS are not the only way to implement what I want to do, we could imagine other ways to do this. But to support the functionality that they offer we need a way to encode metadata in a web page, a way to extract that metadata and form a query URL, and a set of services that know what to do with that URL. OpenURL and COinS provide all of this right now and work. I'd be all for alternative tools that did this more simply than the Byzantine syntax of OpenURL, but in the absence of such tools I stick by my original tweet:

If you publish bibliographic data and don't use COinS you are doing it wrong