Fraudsters
Cond. Accepted AER article distorts history to get DID right
-
Distort history to get paper accepted, then revise history before publication? Sounds chill.
Look at their forthcoming version: "For this reason, the operation of the canal was restored in the following year, and the government continued its investment in restoring and maintaining the canal for at least another two decades."
-
One of the author, Shuo Chen, replies on his Weibo (Chinese version of Twitter)
An user: Don't you dare mention the question about the closing time of the canal?
Shuo: So curious, why not just read the paper?
An user: Did you add the fixed effect?
Shuo: I'm still using a real name at least haha
-
Wow just wow
One of the author, Shuo Chen, replies on his Weibo (Chinese version of Twitter)
An user: Don't you dare mention the question about the closing time of the canal?
Shuo: So curious, why not just read the paper?
An user: Did you add the fixed effect?
Shuo: I'm still using a real name at least haha
Source: https://weibo.com/2701845882/LnuOygu46 -
It has been 6 months. Authors still too busy to respond?
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?
Thread was posted less than 9 hours ago. Is he supposed to be available on twitter 24/7?
-
It's not a "response". They just completely reverted their historical narrative, which no longer fits their DID results.
^See the forthcoming AER (May 2022).
I don't think their response is satisfactory by any means, but it appears ED let it get by.
Zhang, it's none of your business. Go back to your basement and enjoy your mom.