This x 100
The fact that an AE at JF is on this paper makes me sick. It should pulled from forthcoming and sent back through the referee process. Two new referees and a new AE. Let them see if they make an incremental contribution above the VLRM paper. It clearly beat them to SSRN and to the published literature. Anything short of that and I have lost complete faith in the JF, AFA, and Amit Seru's ability to run a fair journal. This is CORRUPTION!
Reading the abstracts it certainly seems like the first one seems to be doing much more than just looking at the price differences, which is what the second one seems to focus on. So it Isn’t just the same paper by different authors, but it does seem that the first abstract does have one aspect of the paper that is very similar to the second one. So There should be a citation, no question, especially since the second paper has been on ssrn for a long time. But I don’t think the title of the thread is truly accurate.
Those of you no jerbing me should read the abstracts again. See this from the first abstract:
The gender gap grows significantly larger after accounting for mortgage borrowing: men earn 7.9 percentage points higher levered returns per year relative to women. Approximately 45% of the gap in housing returns can be explained by gender differences in the location and timing of transactions. The remaining gap arises primarily from gender differences in execution prices: data on repeat sales reveal that women buy the same property for approximately 2% more
The second abstract doesn’t talk about the effect of borrowing, or the location and timing impact. That is why I am saying it seems like the first one is trying to say more and break down entire differences in wealth, not just the effect of prices.
That said, I haven’t read the papers, as I already said. If you want to say I’m wrong, you should argue that the abstracts don’t fully summarize everything the second paper does, because the first definitely talks about more results.
This may be news to y’all, but similarity in abstracts is not a sign of fraud.
Just what exactly do you think will happen? They get stripped of tenure and banished into the badlands? Public apologies? Impeachment? Executions?
A footnote will be added, life will go on. I suggest you do too.
Reading the abstracts it certainly seems like the first one seems to be doing much more than just looking at the price differences, which is what the second one seems to focus on. So it Isn’t just the same paper by different authors, but it does seem that the first abstract does have one aspect of the paper that is very similar to the second one. So There should be a citation, no question, especially since the second paper has been on ssrn for a long time. But I don’t think the title of the thread is truly accurate.Those of you no jerbing me should read the abstracts again. See this from the first abstract:
The gender gap grows significantly larger after accounting for mortgage borrowing: men earn 7.9 percentage points higher levered returns per year relative to women. Approximately 45% of the gap in housing returns can be explained by gender differences in the location and timing of transactions. The remaining gap arises primarily from gender differences in execution prices: data on repeat sales reveal that women buy the same property for approximately 2% more
The second abstract doesn’t talk about the effect of borrowing, or the location and timing impact. That is why I am saying it seems like the first one is trying to say more and break down entire differences in wealth, not just the effect of prices.
That said, I haven’t read the papers, as I already said. If you want to say I’m wrong, you should argue that the abstracts don’t fully summarize everything the second paper does, because the first definitely talks about more results.
Nobody in their right mind would defend these authors. Put it together: 1) extremely similar papers, 2) later paper doesn’t cite the first one, 3)HRM and author is on editorial board. Oh common.
This may be news to y’all, but similarity in abstracts is not a sign of fraud.
Just what exactly do you think will happen? They get stripped of tenure and banished into the badlands? Public apologies? Impeachment? Executions?
A footnote will be added, life will go on. I suggest you do too.
Hi Paul.
This may be news to y’all, but similarity in abstracts is not a sign of fraud.
Just what exactly do you think will happen? They get stripped of tenure and banished into the badlands? Public apologies? Impeachment? Executions?
A footnote will be added, life will go on. I suggest you do too.
Will the footnote say: This paper's core findings are substantially similar to a prior study posted on SSRN in 2018 and published in 2019, which predates the public availability of our work. Although we, the authors and associate editor at the JF failed to cite this paper at any point during review process, this omission was brought to our attention from a seemingly credible source.
The acknowledgement should NOT be a footnote. If the paper is not pulled from the JF, it should have a section after the conclusion like Persson and Rossin-Slater added to their AER:
"VII. Note (Added Post-Acceptance) Since acceptance of this article, it was brought to our attention that there are other related studies on this topic. This note describes the relation of our work to these studies (the pertinent references have also been added). Kim et al. (2019)..."
Did you forget this one? https://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/a-new-marketing-consumer-research-scandal-on-sight
NC fired, AM and PW demoted.
Another 20 pages of nothing are coming.
Remember how the last scandal led to firings, and apologies? Me neither.
This place wastes bandwidth.ha-ters woke up