Another plagiarism case by Deqiu Chen and Yujing Ma.

10 months - 37 posts - Latest - RSS
Thread: 33 Goods vs 26 No Goods

Economics Job Market Rumors » Job Market » Finance Job Rumors

Another plagiarism case by Deqiu Chen and Yujing Ma.

Economist
6b3c

But this paper should not have been published in MS. Same message as the one in the SMJ paper. Its marginal contribution is quite low.
If another person writes a paper on non-compete agreement enforcement and capital structure, I doubt it would be published at all.
Also, I think in empirical corporate, people do know the work of Fleming, Marx etc, especially on issues related to labor mobility.

This is (1) a strategic omission or (2) an innocent omission. But not plagiarism.

But it is not the same thing. You can have an inevitable disclosure case with or without a noncompete

That said the contribution does not seem huge and it makes me think I should send more papers to management science finance department

10 months ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
d269

But this paper should not have been published in MS. Same message as the one in the SMJ paper. Its marginal contribution is quite low.
If another person writes a paper on non-compete agreement enforcement and capital structure, I doubt it would be published at all.
Also, I think in empirical corporate, people do know the work of Fleming, Marx etc, especially on issues related to labor mobility.

This is (1) a strategic omission or (2) an innocent omission. But not plagiarism.

But it is not the same thing. You can have an inevitable disclosure case with or without a noncompete
That said the contribution does not seem huge and it makes me think I should send more papers to management science finance department

It is not the same but a very similar type of regulation restricting employee mobility. Using the same type of regulation arriving at the same conclusion, it should be published in management science? To be it is something that should be published in C-tier journals if they are lucky.

10 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 1 Vlad !
Economist
cf2a

The same intuition is already tested in the SMJ paper. Using a different shock adds little additional contribution. To be fair, the paper should have been published in JBF/JCF but definitely not MS.

I’m sure Chen and Ma are closely monitoring this thread and trying to defend. These two opportunists are extremely good at appropriating ideas from existing work and repackaging them to publish in top journals.

10 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 1 Vlad !
Economist
cf2a

The same intuition is already tested in the SMJ paper. Using a different shock adds little additional contribution. To be fair, the paper should have been published in JBF/JCF but definitely not MS.
I’m sure Chen and Ma are closely monitoring this thread and trying to defend. These two opportunists are extremely good at appropriating ideas from existing work and repackaging them to publish in top journals.

And in the JFE paper case, it’s not repackaging but outright plagiarism.

10 months ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
0949

Crazy how often people on this board make palgiarism accusations without reading the introductions of both papers. Clearly OP has an axe to grind opening yet another thread for the same topic.

10 months ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
1714

Crazy how often people on this board make palgiarism accusations without reading the introductions of both papers. Clearly OP has an axe to grind opening yet another thread for the same topic.

Hi Deqiu and Yujing, then explain why your JFE paper used exactly the same shock to investigate exactly the same question and obtained the same results as the paper published early in the Chinese journal.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304405X21002956
http://www.jryj.org.cn/CN/abstract/abstract593.shtml

10 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
a7a1

Who cares... VLRM... dogs biting dogs again~~

10 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
2b81

Crazy how often people on this board make palgiarism accusations without reading the introductions of both papers. Clearly OP has an axe to grind opening yet another thread for the same topic.

Hi Deqiu and Yujing, then explain why your JFE paper used exactly the same shock to investigate exactly the same question and obtained the same results as the paper published early in the Chinese journal.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304405X21002956
http://www.jryj.org.cn/CN/abstract/abstract593.shtml

The authors of the paper in Chinese journal should send email to JFE editors

10 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
c652

I wonder how they got into MS. Mostly, the AE at MS tells me the contribution of my work is unlikely to stand scrutiny from three reviewers they reach out to :p
Wonder who were the three who looked the other way.

10 months ago # QUOTE 1 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
492c

corruption

10 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
492c

The same intuition is already tested in the SMJ paper. Using a different shock adds little additional contribution. To be fair, the paper should have been published in JBF/JCF but definitely not MS.
I’m sure Chen and Ma are closely monitoring this thread and trying to defend. These two opportunists are extremely good at appropriating ideas from existing work and repackaging them to publish in top journals.

And in the JFE paper case, it’s not repackaging but outright plagiarism.

10 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
6426

The same intuition is already tested in the SMJ paper. Using a different shock adds little additional contribution. To be fair, the paper should have been published in JBF/JCF but definitely not MS.
I’m sure Chen and Ma are closely monitoring this thread and trying to defend. These two opportunists are extremely good at appropriating ideas from existing work and repackaging them to publish in top journals.

And in the JFE paper case, it’s not repackaging but outright plagiarism.

10 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
356a

Why so much hatred for PolyU colleagues lately?

The same intuition is already tested in the SMJ paper. Using a different shock adds little additional contribution. To be fair, the paper should have been published in JBF/JCF but definitely not MS.
I’m sure Chen and Ma are closely monitoring this thread and trying to defend. These two opportunists are extremely good at appropriating ideas from existing work and repackaging them to publish in top journals.

And in the JFE paper case, it’s not repackaging but outright plagiarism.

9 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
492c

.

9 months ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
0b69

IDD is magic bullet. what other variable can we study?

3 days ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
e09f

I think people have looked at all major corp fin outcomes. But if you check the IDD adption/rejection cases across papers, they are not consistent at all. I think there should be a unique set of IDD cases across states and across time, but no one has pinned it done yet. It could be a good contribution if someone could do it. Probably some results will change.

IDD is magic bullet. what other variable can we study?

3 days ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !
Economist
40ce

I am sorry, but why are you upset at the authors? Shouldn't you be upset at the referee and editor who accepted a paper with no marginal contribution - if at anyone?

2 days ago # QUOTE 0 Volod 0 Vlad !

« Previous 12

Recently Announced

Upcoming

Economics

Job Market

Off Topic

Math

Job Market Wiki

Job Market Candidates

Updates

Another plagiarism case by Deqiu Chen and Yujing Ma.

Reply