Then why did they withdraw the paper by QX and EZ? Double standards are the worst thing that can happen to the reputation of a journal and editorial team
Tbh I find PGP and KS's explanation to be credible. I think this is a non-issue and it shouldn't affect the publication of the paper.
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 a strategic 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 prozac reality is that we knew about the existence of KONS weeks ago when the faculty at OU brought it to our attention. We conducted our lazy literature review in 2018, so we decided to strategically omit the KONS paper since they are ULRMs. It was eventually posted to SSRN in January 2019 (the same year it was published).
We have detailed documentation of communication dating back to 2018 describing our hypotheses, empirical strategy, lazy and incomplete literature review, results, etc., and we have already contacted our Editor to remind him of our HRM privilege. In the meantime, we will play the victim card to our friends and keep posting wokey nonsense to Twitter to elevate our view in the profession as "really nice people."
This is one of those cases where a woke topic (in this case gender and housing) gets worked on independently by multiple research teams at around the same time because editors are afraid to reject even if the same paper was already published in much lower tier journal. We're grateful to one of the authors of KONS, for reaching out to us and kissing up in hopes of us letting him our HRM club. His coauthors secretly support the allegations in this thread, but this one person is scared by the HRM cabal.
Our paper is not yet in print, and we have modified our paper to inappropriately cite the KONS paper published 3 years ago as contemporaneous. We have always cited other HRM related work on demographic differences in housing markets that we found during our lazy and strategic literature review, and indeed there are other papers already on gender and housing.
We think the KONS paper is poorly executed piece of research, like ULRM work, but we believe both papers make important contributions to the woke topic. 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 largely replicate their results because both are based on datasets that compile publicly information.
It is our responsibility to conduct continuous, up-to-date literature reviews. We just thought it did not apply to non-HRM work. 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. I know this last part is confusing because we claimed they reached out to us above, but we forgot this lie already at this point.
We will end our BS response here. If you have questions, you are welcome to contact us directly via email.
Kelly and Paul
10/10. You win EJMR for today, sir.
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 a strategic 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 prozac reality is that we knew about the existence of KONS weeks ago when the faculty at OU brought it to our attention. We conducted our lazy literature review in 2018, so we decided to strategically omit the KONS paper since they are ULRMs. It was eventually posted to SSRN in January 2019 (the same year it was published).
We have detailed documentation of communication dating back to 2018 describing our hypotheses, empirical strategy, lazy and incomplete literature review, results, etc., and we have already contacted our Editor to remind him of our HRM privilege. In the meantime, we will play the victim card to our friends and keep posting wokey nonsense to Twitter to elevate our view in the profession as "really nice people."
This is one of those cases where a woke topic (in this case gender and housing) gets worked on independently by multiple research teams at around the same time because editors are afraid to reject even if the same paper was already published in much lower tier journal. We're grateful to one of the authors of KONS, for reaching out to us and kissing up in hopes of us letting him our HRM club. His coauthors secretly support the allegations in this thread, but this one person is scared by the HRM cabal.
Our paper is not yet in print, and we have modified our paper to inappropriately cite the KONS paper published 3 years ago as contemporaneous. We have always cited other HRM related work on demographic differences in housing markets that we found during our lazy and strategic literature review, and indeed there are other papers already on gender and housing.
We think the KONS paper is poorly executed piece of research, like ULRM work, but we believe both papers make important contributions to the woke topic. 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 largely replicate their results because both are based on datasets that compile publicly information.
It is our responsibility to conduct continuous, up-to-date literature reviews. We just thought it did not apply to non-HRM work. 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. I know this last part is confusing because we claimed they reached out to us above, but we forgot this lie already at this point.
We will end our BS response here. If you have questions, you are welcome to contact us directly via email.
Kelly and Paul
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 a strategic 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 prozac reality is that we knew about the existence of KONS weeks ago when the faculty at OU brought it to our attention. We conducted our lazy literature review in 2018, so we decided to strategically omit the KONS paper since they are ULRMs. It was eventually posted to SSRN in January 2019 (the same year it was published).
We have detailed documentation of communication dating back to 2018 describing our hypotheses, empirical strategy, lazy and incomplete literature review, results, etc., and we have already contacted our Editor to remind him of our HRM privilege. In the meantime, we will play the victim card to our friends and keep posting wokey nonsense to Twitter to elevate our view in the profession as "really nice people."
This is one of those cases where a woke topic (in this case gender and housing) gets worked on independently by multiple research teams at around the same time because editors are afraid to reject even if the same paper was already published in much lower tier journal. We're grateful to one of the authors of KONS, for reaching out to us and kissing up in hopes of us letting him our HRM club. His coauthors secretly support the allegations in this thread, but this one person is scared by the HRM cabal.
Our paper is not yet in print, and we have modified our paper to inappropriately cite the KONS paper published 3 years ago as contemporaneous. We have always cited other HRM related work on demographic differences in housing markets that we found during our lazy and strategic literature review, and indeed there are other papers already on gender and housing.
We think the KONS paper is poorly executed piece of research, like ULRM work, but we believe both papers make important contributions to the woke topic. 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 largely replicate their results because both are based on datasets that compile publicly information.
It is our responsibility to conduct continuous, up-to-date literature reviews. We just thought it did not apply to non-HRM work. 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. I know this last part is confusing because we claimed they reached out to us above, but we forgot this lie already at this point.
We will end our BS response here. If you have questions, you are welcome to contact us directly via email.
Kelly and Paul
Lmfao
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 a strategic 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 prozac reality is that we knew about the existence of KONS weeks ago when the faculty at OU brought it to our attention. We conducted our lazy literature review in 2018, so we decided to strategically omit the KONS paper since they are ULRMs. It was eventually posted to SSRN in January 2019 (the same year it was published).
We have detailed documentation of communication dating back to 2018 describing our hypotheses, empirical strategy, lazy and incomplete literature review, results, etc., and we have already contacted our Editor to remind him of our HRM privilege. In the meantime, we will play the victim card to our friends and keep posting wokey nonsense to Twitter to elevate our view in the profession as "really nice people."
This is one of those cases where a woke topic (in this case gender and housing) gets worked on independently by multiple research teams at around the same time because editors are afraid to reject even if the same paper was already published in much lower tier journal. We're grateful to one of the authors of KONS, for reaching out to us and kissing up in hopes of us letting him our HRM club. His coauthors secretly support the allegations in this thread, but this one person is scared by the HRM cabal.
Our paper is not yet in print, and we have modified our paper to inappropriately cite the KONS paper published 3 years ago as contemporaneous. We have always cited other HRM related work on demographic differences in housing markets that we found during our lazy and strategic literature review, and indeed there are other papers already on gender and housing.
We think the KONS paper is poorly executed piece of research, like ULRM work, but we believe both papers make important contributions to the woke topic. 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 largely replicate their results because both are based on datasets that compile publicly information.
It is our responsibility to conduct continuous, up-to-date literature reviews. We just thought it did not apply to non-HRM work. 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. I know this last part is confusing because we claimed they reached out to us above, but we forgot this lie already at this point.
We will end our BS response here. If you have questions, you are welcome to contact us directly via email.
Kelly and Paul
someone add this post to "reasons EJMR is good"
Too fake
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 a strategic 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 prozac reality is that we knew about the existence of KONS weeks ago when the faculty at OU brought it to our attention. We conducted our lazy literature review in 2018, so we decided to strategically omit the KONS paper since they are ULRMs. It was eventually posted to SSRN in January 2019 (the same year it was published).
We have detailed documentation of communication dating back to 2018 describing our hypotheses, empirical strategy, lazy and incomplete literature review, results, etc., and we have already contacted our Editor to remind him of our HRM privilege. In the meantime, we will play the victim card to our friends and keep posting wokey nonsense to Twitter to elevate our view in the profession as "really nice people."
This is one of those cases where a woke topic (in this case gender and housing) gets worked on independently by multiple research teams at around the same time because editors are afraid to reject even if the same paper was already published in much lower tier journal. We're grateful to one of the authors of KONS, for reaching out to us and kissing up in hopes of us letting him our HRM club. His coauthors secretly support the allegations in this thread, but this one person is scared by the HRM cabal.
Our paper is not yet in print, and we have modified our paper to inappropriately cite the KONS paper published 3 years ago as contemporaneous. We have always cited other HRM related work on demographic differences in housing markets that we found during our lazy and strategic literature review, and indeed there are other papers already on gender and housing.
We think the KONS paper is poorly executed piece of research, like ULRM work, but we believe both papers make important contributions to the woke topic. 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 largely replicate their results because both are based on datasets that compile publicly information.
It is our responsibility to conduct continuous, up-to-date literature reviews. We just thought it did not apply to non-HRM work. 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. I know this last part is confusing because we claimed they reached out to us above, but we forgot this lie already at this point.
We will end our BS response here. If you have questions, you are welcome to contact us directly via email.
Kelly and Paul