EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT by FINANCE ACADEMICS

3 weeks - 224 posts - Latest - RSS
Thread: 544 Goods vs 228 No Goods

Economics Job Market Rumors » Job Market » Finance Job Rumors

EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT by FINANCE ACADEMICS

Economist
5147

EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT - FAKE CITATIONS & POSSIBLE FAKE Referring
----------------------------------------------------------------

1) Editorial Positions
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Review of Financial Analysis - editor: Lucey, Batten, associate editor: Corbet, Urquhart, Yarovaya, Goodell

Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions & Money - editor: Batten, subject editor: Vigne, Yarovaya

International Review of Economics & Finance - Lucey, Corbet, Vigne, Yarovaya

Research in International Business and Finance - Goodell, Corbet, Vigne, Urquhart, Yarovaya

Finance Research Letters - editors Vigne, Batten

2) Impact Factors for the Journals
----------------------------------------------------------------

International Review of Financial Analysis: 5.373

Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions & Money: 4.211

International Review of Economics & Finance: 2.522

Research in International Business and Finance: 4.091

Finance Research Letters: 5.596

3) Citations for the maf ia
----------------------------------------------------------------

Brian Lucey - 13148
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=WGptVJMAAAAJ&hl=en

Shaen Corbet - 3054
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=iuuv2xcAAAAJ&hl=en

Larisa Yarovaya - 2662
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=NMapf10AAAAJ&hl=en

Andrew Urquhart - 2954
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=O2DunEMAAAAJ&hl=en

Jonathan A. Batten - 3388
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=PqEqUcAAAAAJ&hl=en

Samuel A. Vigne - 785
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=S5cB_dAAAAAJ&hl=en

John W. Goodell - 2017
https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=lJyDADsAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate

4) How it works
----------------------------------------------------------------
- It is very clear that they engage in predatory / coercive / fake citations for what is at a great extent poor work. The citations of their work are NOT dispersed - they are generated by the Elsevier ecosystem (swamp)

- While these journals are not serious - still it is clear that there are revolving doors & No serious referring - just friends helping each other. An Elsevier ecosystem !
There has to be an independent investigation for how they handle their own submissions.

3 weeks ago # QUOTE 77 Jab 1 No Jab !
Economist
044b

Have you heard of a game called circular referring? A cites B's papers, B cites C's papers, and C cites A's papers. It is very popular in natural science areas.

3 weeks ago # QUOTE 10 Jab 0 No Jab !
Economist
ae85

You think that "serious" misconduct in finance is citing your friends? Oh honey you should know that at least 70% of that data is faked and you only get published if you send your paper to your friend and to top it off finance is well known for having senior professors steal JMC paper ideas and rush the paper through the publishing cycle so they can claim it was originally their own idea, while JMCs are busy interviewing and completing their thesis and moving to their new jobs.

3 weeks ago # QUOTE 7 Jab 0 No Jab !
Economist
3bc5

Here is another ring (Energy Economics)

Muhammad Shahbaz 33190: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=qZjaLDcAAAAJ&hl=en
Ilhan Ozturk 21482: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=_LnB9a8AAAAJ&hl=en

3 weeks ago # QUOTE 13 Jab 1 No Jab !
Economist
d392

Here is another ring (Energy Economics)
Muhammad Shahbaz 33190: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=qZjaLDcAAAAJ&hl=en
Ilhan Ozturk 21482: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=_LnB9a8AAAAJ&hl=en

Muhammad Shahbaz 33190: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=qZjaLDcAAAAJ&hl=en
This guy publish over 100 papers in 2021 so far. So genius.

3 weeks ago # QUOTE 7 Jab 1 No Jab !
Economist
ae85

Just to be clear, yes they use proprietary data or expensive datasets that most people cannot access and then based on that they either make up their own estimates or selectively collect the observations that sell the story they want and not the real story (or even just make up their own data). Because its so hard to get the same data its hard to replicate papers and I think that I've only ever seen 2 or 3 papers successfully replicated by several authors. I'll even say that I'm 99% certain that a person I know ended up pretending that part of their paper got the same results as some important paper because they were afraid the original authors would be their referees and would reject the paper if they showed the original results could not be replicated (I was active involved in discussing ideas and results with one of the researchers and every intermediate result they had contradicted the famous paper and they were afraid of getting rejected... then out of nowhere they say they managed to exactly replicate the paper while not having any changes to the other results that was the main focus of their paper, which was 100% impossible and a contradiction to what they were doing, and the researcher stopped discussing that paper with me)

3 weeks ago # QUOTE 4 Jab 0 No Jab !
Economist
ba25

Here is another ring (Energy Economics)
Muhammad Shahbaz 33190: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=qZjaLDcAAAAJ&hl=en
Ilhan Ozturk 21482: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=_LnB9a8AAAAJ&hl=en

Muhammad Shahbaz 33190: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=qZjaLDcAAAAJ&hl=en
This guy publish over 100 papers in 2021 so far. So genius.

100 papers in 2021 alone? Fear God and stop lying!

3 weeks ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 1 No Jab !
Economist
ba25

Here is another ring (Energy Economics)
Muhammad Shahbaz 33190: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=qZjaLDcAAAAJ&hl=en
Ilhan Ozturk 21482: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=_LnB9a8AAAAJ&hl=en

Muhammad Shahbaz 33190: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=qZjaLDcAAAAJ&hl=en
This guy publish over 100 papers in 2021 so far. So genius.

100 papers in 2021 alone? Fear God and stop lying!

Just to be clear, yes they use proprietary data or expensive datasets that most people cannot access and then based on that they either make up their own estimates or selectively collect the observations that sell the story they want and not the real story (or even just make up their own data). Because its so hard to get the same data its hard to replicate papers and I think that I've only ever seen 2 or 3 papers successfully replicated by several authors. I'll even say that I'm 99% certain that a person I know ended up pretending that part of their paper got the same results as some important paper because they were afraid the original authors would be their referees and would reject the paper if they showed the original results could not be replicated (I was active involved in discussing ideas and results with one of the researchers and every intermediate result they had contradicted the famous paper and they were afraid of getting rejected... then out of nowhere they say they managed to exactly replicate the paper while not having any changes to the other results that was the main focus of their paper, which was 100% impossible and a contradiction to what they were doing, and the researcher stopped discussing that paper with me)

Who is this researcher? You forgot to mention the name in your post

3 weeks ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !
Economist
3ce4

Great summary OP

3 weeks ago # QUOTE 10 Jab 2 No Jab !
Economist
2380

Elsevier will not do anything. The above evidence should be sent to Deans and department heads.

3 weeks ago # QUOTE 5 Jab 0 No Jab !
Economist
9be4

They belong in the prison!

3 weeks ago # QUOTE 8 Jab 0 No Jab !
Economist
5653

They should be fired from their academic jobs for professional misconduct and should be be able to get an academic job in future. This is Fraud!!

3 weeks ago # QUOTE 5 Jab 1 No Jab !
Economist
778f

The should be sent to China and face the wrath of Zhang!

3 weeks ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !
Economist
ae85

Who is this researcher? You forgot to mention the name in your post

Are you crazy! One of the most important rules is: No snitching!

3 weeks ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !
Economist
1348

Good work, OP! Finance needs to start taking moral philosophy.

3 weeks ago # QUOTE 3 Jab 0 No Jab !
Economist
27c9

Elsevier will not do anything. The above evidence should be sent to Deans and department heads.

Not a bad idea. Let's collect all the evidence and email the Deans of UK business schools and senior finance professors.

3 weeks ago # QUOTE 4 Jab 0 No Jab !
Economist
31f0

Just to be clear, yes they use proprietary data or expensive datasets that most people cannot access and then based on that they either make up their own estimates or selectively collect the observations that sell the story they want and not the real story (or even just make up their own data). Because its so hard to get the same data its hard to replicate papers and I think that I've only ever seen 2 or 3 papers successfully replicated by several authors. I'll even say that I'm 99% certain that a person I know ended up pretending that part of their paper got the same results as some important paper because they were afraid the original authors would be their referees and would reject the paper if they showed the original results could not be replicated (I was active involved in discussing ideas and results with one of the researchers and every intermediate result they had contradicted the famous paper and they were afraid of getting rejected... then out of nowhere they say they managed to exactly replicate the paper while not having any changes to the other results that was the main focus of their paper, which was 100% impossible and a contradiction to what they were doing, and the researcher stopped discussing that paper with me)

There is litte point saying “I’m 99% sure” when you don’t say who you are. I understand your frustration, I really do, life is hard and to people like you it seems unfair at times. But all this slander will not make you happy. It’s early July, take a break, you’re always on EJMR that’s not healthy for your mind and body.

3 weeks ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 2 No Jab !
Economist
3ce4

Publication Ethics for Editors - by Elsevier
————————————————————-

https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/publishing-ethics

* Journal metrics

“The editor must not attempt to influence the journal’s ranking by artificially increasing any journal metric. In particular, the editor shall not require that references to that (or any other) journal’s articles be included except for genuine scholarly reasons and authors should not be required to include references to the editor’s own articles or products and services in which the editor has an interest.”

* Competing Interests

“The editor must not be involved in decisions about papers which s/he has written him/herself or have been written by family members or colleagues or which relate to products or services in which the editor has an interest. Further, any such submission must be subject to all of the journal’s usual procedures, peer review must be handled independently of the relevant author/editor and their research groups, and there must be a clear statement to this effect on any such paper that is published”

THEY HAVE VIOLATED BOTH PRINCIPLES

3 weeks ago # QUOTE 6 Jab 0 No Jab !
Economist
0f6b

Rangan Gupta
P Narayan
S Mallick

Free market rings

3 weeks ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !
Economist
b727

Brian Lucey, Shaen Corbet, Larisa Yarovaya, Andrew Urquhart, Jonathan A. Batten, Samuel A. Vigne and John W. Goodell

THEY HAVE ABUSED THEIR EDITORIAL POSITIONS

SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS OF PUBLICATIONS ETHICS
https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/publishing-ethics
-------------------------------------------------------

1) Journal Metrics
-------------------------------------------------------
They have attempted and succeed to influence the journal’s ranking by artificially increasing journal metrics (see the sudden increase of the Impact factors)

2) Competing Interests
-------------------------------------------------------
They are involved in decisions about papers by active co-authors and other active members of their research groups. Elsevier policies state that "peer review must be handled independently of the relevant author/editor and their research groups, and there must be a clear statement to this effect on any such paper that is published" - there is no statement anywhere.

This is not a typicality - It is clear there are revolving doors between the journals and friends helping friends.

3 weeks ago # QUOTE 45 Jab 0 No Jab !

12…12 Next »

Recently Announced

Upcoming

Economics

Job Market

Off Topic

Job Market Wiki

Job Market Candidates

Updates

EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT by FINANCE ACADEMICS

Reply »