Any update from JF? When to retract?
2022 JF Paper copies 1993 B journal paper
-
“footnote 26 of the 2022 paper, which says that the 1993 paper “provides evidence on investment timing responses to tax changes.”
“This would be like if I wrote a paper about how E=MC^2, and buried in the footnotes I were to write: “See Einstein (1905) for prior evidence on the relationship between mass and energy.”https://twitter.com/retractionwatch/status/1536121186660253697?s=21
-
“footnote 26 of the 2022 paper, which says that the 1993 paper “provides evidence on investment timing responses to tax changes.”
“This would be like if I wrote a paper about how E=MC^2, and buried in the footnotes I were to write: “See Einstein (1905) for prior evidence on the relationship between mass and energy.”https://twitter.com/retractionwatch/status/1536121186660253697?s=21
Strong
-
"The paper is still listed as forthcoming — meaning it is not yet accepted, nor is it rejected. It seems like it might be stuck in forthcoming limbo forever"
Forthcoming does in fact mean that the paper has been accepted. No wonder no one outside ejmr takes him seriously. Maybe it would be best first to learn how the publication system works.
-
"The paper is still listed as forthcoming — meaning it is not yet accepted, nor is it rejected. It seems like it might be stuck in forthcoming limbo forever"
Forthcoming does in fact mean that the paper has been accepted. No wonder no one outside ejmr takes him seriously. Maybe it would be best first to learn how the publication system works.I have had conversations with the AFA/JF where they assure me that Forthcoming DOES NOT MEAN accepted. They are emphatic about this.
-
"The paper is still listed as forthcoming — meaning it is not yet accepted, nor is it rejected. It seems like it might be stuck in forthcoming limbo forever"
Forthcoming does in fact mean that the paper has been accepted. No wonder no one outside ejmr takes him seriously. Maybe it would be best first to learn how the publication system works.I have had conversations with the AFA/JF where they assure me that Forthcoming DOES NOT MEAN accepted. They are emphatic about this.
Please, share emails.
-
"The paper is still listed as forthcoming — meaning it is not yet accepted, nor is it rejected. It seems like it might be stuck in forthcoming limbo forever"
Forthcoming does in fact mean that the paper has been accepted. No wonder no one outside ejmr takes him seriously. Maybe it would be best first to learn how the publication system works.I have had conversations with the AFA/JF where they assure me that Forthcoming DOES NOT MEAN accepted. They are emphatic about this.
Please, share emails.
Me:
Dear JF, AFA, & Yale teams,
On Monday (at the latest) I will be publishing an article titled: "Plagiarism at Yale School of Management: Journal of Finance Retracts Paper following Karlstack investigation" on my Substack, Karlstack. I am reaching out to give you all one last opportunity to comment before I publish, should you wish. Kelly & Paul -- perhaps you might want to take this opportunity to issue a public apology for your plagiarism.
In my article I argue that the actions taken by Dr. Goldsmith-Pinkham & Dr. Shue violate the stated code of conduct: https://afajof.org/wp-content/uploads/files/afa_code_of_professional_con.pdf , specifically item 6(a)(4): "Acknowledge prior and contemporaneous contributions of other researchers in publications, teaching, practice, and service settings based on their relevance." The paper was accepted after they directly violated 6(a)(4) by failing to acknowledge prior work. They then violated the spirit of 6(a)(4) by later inserting a cite to prior contributions as "contemporaneous". This disingenuous "contemporaneous" excuse violates 6(a)(6): "Take reasonable steps, if they discover significant errors in their publication or presentation of data, to correct any such errors in a correction, retraction, or erratum."
I find the actions taken so far, by all parties, to be highly unethical, disingenuous, unprofessional and disrespectful. It is clear that you are all trying to sweep this under the rug and "give me the run around." The AFA refuses to take action because "the paper is not listed as forthcoming on the Journal of Finance website," but it is still listed as "forthcoming" on Paul's personal website. I can only draw 2 possible conclusions from this 1) it was accepted by the JF, and then retracted, 2) Paul lied on his website. I am more inclined to believe option 1). I am open to a third possible explanation, but your collective credibility is shot after trying to initially sweep this plagiarism under the rug, so I am not sure I would believe it unless it were extremely persuasive.
JF:
Chris,
1. That there is a retraction is factually incorrect. It's not possible to retract this paper because only published papers can be retracted. The paper has not been published, neither in the journal, nor as early view online publication on the Journal's website.
2. The source of the confusion may be the meaning of "forthcoming". It is common practice that once a paper has cleared all substantial hurdles and only expositional changes, editors tell authors before formal final acceptance that they may refer to the paper as "forthcoming". Formally, however, at that point publication is not yet guaranteed as there are still conditions the authors must satisfy (e.g., provide replication code, address expositional issues, but also other things that may come up).
3. There is no "sweeping under the rug". We generally do not provide information to third parties about the status of not-yet-accepted papers and we do not make an exception in this case.
Me:
Your statement contradicts the AFA's last email, in which Jim Schallheim wrote " What authors upload to SSRN does not concern AFA business and hence does not con...See full post