From fraud to Freud
Forthcoming JF by Yale profs is a rip-off of LRM paper
-
I think it's time for another calm, considerate signed message from PGP about how his situation is very, precisely, extremely-subtly different from the EZ plagiarism case and he'll add another footnote explaining this to clear this up, and please do email him with any other concerns
-
How can it be contemporaneous if the others did it first?
Here is the timeline:
-- 2018: KONS put their paper on SSRN
-- 2019: KONS publish their paper in Economics Bulletin
-- 2020: PS put their paper on SSRN
-- 2022a: PS paper is forthcoming in JF
-- 2022b: Issues raised on EJMR
-- 2022c: PS edit accepted JF paper to acknowledge KONS as 'contemporaneous'KONS is *prior* work, not *contemporaneous* work.
How can the JF ignore this timeline?
-
How can it be contemporaneous if the others did it first?
Here is the timeline:
-- 2018: KONS put their paper on SSRN
-- 2019: KONS publish their paper in Economics Bulletin
-- 2020: PS put their paper on SSRN
-- 2022a: PS paper is forthcoming in JF
-- 2022b: Issues raised on EJMR
-- 2022c: PS edit accepted JF paper to acknowledge KONS as 'contemporaneous'
KONS is *prior* work, not *contemporaneous* work.How can the JF ignore this timeline?
The worst part is he went to a conference at Oklahoma in 2018/19 in which he certainly heard about the paper.
-
it doesn't matter if they did or didn't know (their explanation) or what they intended, it matters that it's no longer a contribution
Exactly. “Sorry, we didn’t know someone had already published this paper. Unfortunately, we don’t know how to use Google. But no problem, we’ll just add a footnote and everybody happy. OK?” How on earth is this an acceptable response?
-
The worst part is he went to a conference at Oklahoma in 2018/19 in which he certainly heard about the paper.
I doubt SO was in attendance at this seminar. Oklahoma Finance is a great department. Oklahoma Econ is a joke. It is unlikely there is much contact or overlap between the departments
-
While it is somewhat unusual for people to post under their real names here, we felt it was important to set the record straight.
Our failure to cite Kim, O'Connor, Norwood, and Shen (2019 Economic Bulletin, KONS) in our paper is the result of an early literature review. The anonymous allegations that we copied KONS or that we were told of KONS and strategically chose not to cite it are false. The prosaic reality is that we did not know about the existence of KONS until this week when this forum thread was brought to our attention. We conducted our main literature review in 2018, which is why we missed the KONS paper, which was first posted to SSRN in January 2019. We have detailed documentation of communication dating back to 2018 describing our hypotheses, empirical strategy, literature review, results, etc., and we have already contacted our Editor to express our willingness to share documentation.
This is one of those cases where an important topic (in this case gender and housing) gets worked on independently by multiple research teams at around the same time. We're grateful to Sean O'Connor, one of the authors of KONS, for reaching out to us and confirming that he and his coauthors do not support the allegations in this thread.
Our paper is not yet in print, and we have modified our paper to cite KONS. We have always cited other related work on demographic differences in housing markets that we found during our literature review, and indeed there are other papers already on gender and housing.
We think the KONS paper is a great piece of research, and we believe both papers make important contributions. KONS use Zillow deeds data and focus on gender differences in transaction prices and mortgages loan terms. We use both CoreLogic deeds and listings data and focus on gender differences in returns due to market timing and negotiated discounts relative to the initial listing price. We also show that gender gaps close in tight markets when bilateral negotiations are replaced with quasi-auctions.
It is our responsibility to conduct continuous, up-to-date literature reviews. The earlier version of our paper failed to give KONS credit for their work, and we have directly contacted the authors of that paper to apologize for our omission.
We will end our response here. If you have questions, you are welcome to contact us directly via email.
Kelly and PaulEven if we take your word for it citing that paper is not enough--Your findings are not different from theirs. Even the patent office goes by who files first. You must clearly state in your paper that your paper makes no original contribution, and at best, it is a replication attempt using CoreLogic data.
If you had a modicum of proper academic behavior you will withdraw the paper and publish it as a replication study. Thank God for EJMR--else HRMs will keep pushing their nonsense research with qualifiers of -- "a study by a researcher at XYZ HRM, shows that..." . Impressionable students/media will take this nonsense study as "science".
The only honorable party here is KOS. They published their study in shite journal Economics Bulletin, and moved on with their lives. Kelly and Paul are misguiding everyone involved.
-
Who believe this cr@p? They became so honest and apologetic after they got caught by EJRM
While it is somewhat unusual for people to post under their real names here, we felt it was important to set the record straight.
Our failure to cite Kim, O'Connor, Norwood, and Shen (2019 Economic Bulletin, KONS) in our paper is the result of an early literature review. The anonymous allegations that we copied KONS or that we were told of KONS and strategically chose not to cite it are false. The prosaic reality is that we did not know about the existence of KONS until this week when this forum thread was brought to our attention. We conducted our main literature review in 2018, which is why we missed the KONS paper, which was first posted to SSRN in January 2019. We have detailed documentation of communication dating back to 2018 describing our hypotheses, empirical strategy, literature review, results, etc., and we have already contacted our Editor to express our willingness to share documentation.
This is one of those cases where an important topic (in this case gender and housing) gets worked on independently by multiple research teams at around the same time. We're grateful to Sean O'Connor, one of the authors of KONS, for reaching out to us and confirming that he and his coauthors do not support the allegations in this thread.
Our paper is not yet in print, and we have modified our paper to cite KONS. We have always cited other related work on demographic differences in housing markets that we found during our literature review, and indeed there are other papers already on gender and housing.
We think the KONS paper is a great piece of research, and we believe both papers make important contributions. KONS use Zillow deeds data and focus on gender differences in transaction prices and mortgages loan terms. We use both CoreLogic deeds and listings data and focus on gender differences in returns due to market timing and negotiated discounts relative to the initial listing price. We also show that gender gaps close in tight markets when bilateral negotiations are replaced with quasi-auctions.
It is our responsibility to conduct continuous, up-to-date literature reviews. The earlier version of our paper failed to give KONS credit for their work, and we have directly contacted the authors of that paper to apologize for our omission.
We will end our response here. If you have questions, you are welcome to contact us directly via email.
Kelly and Paul