Who are the stars in rookie market?
Another flawed JF paper?
-
Even better. Just read Cam's memoir:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2191787
About this voice paper which we now know is complete hogwash, he writes:
"...the Journal published an ingenious paper whereby the authors used audio recordings of CEOs at quarterly conference calls and ran the audio through a computer program to assess the probability that they were telling the truth."
Ingenious? Rather than print a retraction he brags about this paper's publication??? He is either the biggest idiot in the profession or the most arrogant person in the profession.
-
Dudes, this excerpt from Cam is preceded by this:
"Consistent with my first point on making mistakes, it is better to take some risk on papers, knowing that some of them will be mistakes. To illustrate some risk taking..."
So his point is that he took some risks in publishing papers, and that this implies that he made some mistakes.
Learn to read between the lines.
-
I'll publish a one page JF piece claiming that 1+ 3 = 3.14159. That's taking some risk too!
Dudes, this excerpt from Cam is preceded by this:
"Consistent with my first point on making mistakes, it is better to take some risk on papers, knowing that some of them will be mistakes. To illustrate some risk taking..."
So his point is that he took some risks in publishing papers, and that this implies that he made some mistakes.
Learn to read between the lines. -
Basic agency model: consume private benefits and blame luck for poor performance. Come on..Previous editorial board at jF has been one of the most biased ever.whole profession knows it.
Dudes, this excerpt from Cam is preceded by this:
"Consistent with my first point on making mistakes, it is better to take some risk on papers, knowing that some of them will be mistakes. To illustrate some risk taking..."
So his point is that he took some risks in publishing papers, and that this implies that he made some mistakes.
Learn to read between the lines. -
But he called the paper INGENIOUS. Does that sound like admitting a mistake to you???
Dudes, this excerpt from Cam is preceded by this:
"Consistent with my first point on making mistakes, it is better to take some risk on papers, knowing that some of them will be mistakes. To illustrate some risk taking..."
So his point is that he took some risks in publishing papers, and that this implies that he made some mistakes.
Learn to read between the lines. -
^ The paper's idea is clever and novel, and if successful likely to generate a large follow-on literature. Exactly the kind of paper an editor might want to take a gamble on.
This is completely independent of whether the authors have screwed up the execution, which they might well have.
-
The difference is that he knew it was garbage BEFORE publishing it. Read the entire thread, including the part about the swede's paper. It's enlightening.
^ The paper's idea is clever and novel, and if successful likely to generate a large follow-on literature. Exactly the kind of paper an editor might want to take a gamble on.
This is completely independent of whether the authors have screwed up the execution, which they might well have. -
^ The paper's idea is clever and novel, and if successful likely to generate a large follow-on literature. Exactly the kind of paper an editor might want to take a gamble on.
This is completely independent of whether the authors have screwed up the execution, which they might well have.^Exactly. At the time the paper was accepted, the voice technology employed in the paper had already been shown to be rubbish. Lazy referee, lazy AE and lazy E, who didn't google enough.
-
Living in the world of garbage, who cares? everybody's paper is garbage to everybody else. why bother against these guys at Duke? you may argue that your lofty theory paper should be the crown jewel of all. bull s**t. man. garbage. all garbage anyway. let them have somem fun.