Interesting. So they literally estimate the effect of "the canal closure that didn't happen."
According to their Figure 5, the estimated effect is actually the smallest two decades after 1826, which is the correct timing of canal closure.
Cond. Accepted AER article distorts history to get DID right
-
These types of posts are precisely why EJMR is useful. With little sanctions offered by the profession's higher-ups, this site is the only thing preventing the profession from slipping into a cheating/p-hacking equilibrium for empirical papers.
Though it was a Twitter post that sparked the discussion. Of course, none of the Econtwitterers takes it up...
-
The author’s account was mentioned in the thread, but there has been no response.
Typical case where p-hacking Econ historians get destroyed by real historians.Is there any response by authors?
The author mentioned in the thread is a JMC currently on the market. We can -and should - ask questions about the validity of empirical result, but forcing people into public twitter discussions while they are on the market is not cool IMO. I applaud Taisu Zhang for posting this on twitter, but he should also write an email to the AER editor and the authors of the paper. Then it's up to the authors to write a rebuttal and possibly to withdraw the paper.
-
The author’s account was mentioned in the thread, but there has been no response.
Typical case where p-hacking Econ historians get destroyed by real historians.Is there any response by authors?
The author mentioned in the thread is a JMC currently on the market. We can -and should - ask questions about the validity of empirical result, but forcing people into public twitter discussions while they are on the market is not cool IMO. I applaud Taisu Zhang for posting this on twitter, but he should also write an email to the AER editor and the authors of the paper. Then it's up to the authors to write a rebuttal and possibly to withdraw the paper.
I don't see why it is not cool to discuss it publicly. If the discussion is kept privately, the authors could just ignore it. And we have seen that there is usually no action from the journal regarding the inquiry.
-
The author’s account was mentioned in the thread, but there has been no response.
Typical case where p-hacking Econ historians get destroyed by real historians.Is there any response by authors?
The author mentioned in the thread is a JMC currently on the market. We can -and should - ask questions about the validity of empirical result, but forcing people into public twitter discussions while they are on the market is not cool IMO. I applaud Taisu Zhang for posting this on twitter, but he should also write an email to the AER editor and the authors of the paper. Then it's up to the authors to write a rebuttal and possibly to withdraw the paper.
Right, asking questions about fraud is "not cool". I think the police stopping criminals is also "not cool"
-
The author’s account was mentioned in the thread, but there has been no response.
Typical case where p-hacking Econ historians get destroyed by real historians.Is there any response by authors?
The author mentioned in the thread is a JMC currently on the market. We can -and should - ask questions about the validity of empirical result, but forcing people into public twitter discussions while they are on the market is not cool IMO. I applaud Taisu Zhang for posting this on twitter, but he should also write an email to the AER editor and the authors of the paper. Then it's up to the authors to write a rebuttal and possibly to withdraw the paper.
I don't see why it is not cool to discuss it publicly. If the discussion is kept privately, the authors could just ignore it. And we have seen that there is usually no action from the journal regarding the inquiry.
You did not read my post. I said it is cool that Taisu Zhang brought this up on twitter. It is NOT cool to expect Yiming Cao to have this discussion right now on twitter while he is on the market. Give him and his co-author time to look into this and decide to post a rebuttal or to withdraw the paper.
-
The author’s account was mentioned in the thread, but there has been no response.
Typical case where p-hacking Econ historians get destroyed by real historians.Is there any response by authors?
The author mentioned in the thread is a JMC currently on the market. We can -and should - ask questions about the validity of empirical result, but forcing people into public twitter discussions while they are on the market is not cool IMO. I applaud Taisu Zhang for posting this on twitter, but he should also write an email to the AER editor and the authors of the paper. Then it's up to the authors to write a rebuttal and possibly to withdraw the paper.
Right, asking questions about fraud is "not cool". I think the police stopping criminals is also "not cool"
Fraud is a big accusation. If there is fraud (or even if there is an honest mistake) the paper should be withdrawn. Police stopping criminals is ok. Police expecting suspected criminals to defend their case on twitter is something else.
-
Fisman just got another AER
Are we against Fisman?
No, just that one of the authors is Fisman's student.
Fisman has always had a bit of a dubious reputation in the econ history crowd. Seems to work on interesting "big" questions, along with the slew of Top 5s, but they end up forgettable after time.
-
Aside from the potential distortion of history, it is striking that such "economic shocks and conflicts" stuff can be published in AER in 2021. Isn't this an idea that has been tested since decades ago in numerous settings and published in various journals? What new insights does this paper bring to us?
-
Aside from the potential distortion of history, it is striking that such "economic shocks and conflicts" stuff can be published in AER in 2021. Isn't this an idea that has been tested since decades ago in numerous settings and published in various journals? What new insights does this paper bring to us?
basically, if LRM submits it, it is "not novel enough", but for HRM it is "please let us publish it as it opens the eyes of millions on something brazenly new!"