And we think we’ll fix the broken system by b!tc4!ng on an anon forum? I stopped caring about what goes on in the upper echelons a long time ago. I got my VLRM tenure, do my things, and am happy.
Forthcoming JF by Yale profs is a rip-off of LRM paper
-
The finance field fell to obscurity when practically anything under the sun can be considered as finance.
A financial variable on the LHS of a regression? Finance.
A financial variable on the RHS of a regression? Also finance.
No financial variables whatsoever? It's finance if you're in the club. -
You’re mistaken if you think that this doesn’t matter. Of course KS and PGP are not going to lose their jobs. But this is super embarrassing for them. Other HRM profs won’t want this to happen to them, so they will be more careful going forward and hopefully won’t be so blatant and steal other people’s research.
And we think we’ll fix the broken system by b!tc4!ng on an anon forum? I stopped caring about what goes on in the upper echelons a long time ago. I got my VLRM tenure, do my things, and am happy.
-
But here’s where you’re wrong. HRMs dont care about lesser research. Especially when it’s sloppy.
They don’t care about your opinion either.
They supremely don’t care about this site.
It’s just 10 folks here, choosing this week’s target, swapping ips and making it look like an angry mob. There is no mob. There are only basements and frustration.And this, dear children, is by far the biggest problem in Economics and Finance. HRMs are so entitled and full of themselves that they don’t even feel the obligation to cite papers by lesser scholars.
You are supremely a douche
-
The subtext of the papers is one group gets treated differently and this contemptible state of affairs means one group is markedly worse off in the long run. The nerve of Goldsmith-Pinkham and Shue to exploit such discrimination in another context in getting "their" work published.
One could perhaps rationalize the results of the papers with innate differences in aggressiveness between sexes (well-documented elsewhere!) The only explanation for the "publishing differential" is academic fraud.
-
But here’s where you’re wrong. HRMs dont care about lesser research. Especially when it’s sloppy.
They don’t care about your opinion either.
They supremely don’t care about this site.
It’s just 10 folks here, choosing this week’s target, swapping ips and making it look like an angry mob. There is no mob. There are only basements and frustration.And this, dear children, is by far the biggest problem in Economics and Finance. HRMs are so entitled and full of themselves that they don’t even feel the obligation to cite papers by lesser scholars.
oh, but they do care about this site. thats why this forum is so goddamn awesome
-
This story jumped out at me because I remembered just recently reading a letter of recommendation for a PhD applicant written by KS.
I kid you not, the letter made a big point that KS uses RAs to do lit reviews to make sure the question hasn't been answered and to discuss what is a substantial, rather than marginal contribution. Note the PhD applicant is not listed as an RA on the gender gap paper.
-
I mean they absolutely should have cited the LRM paper i fault them for that pretty heavily. Its nasty.
But their paper is way way way way better in execution. Not even close. Way more interesting. It’s not a ‘ripoff’ equal paper that gets higher journal just because of hrm status. They need 4 authors to do that 9 page LRM paper??
-
You guys are complete i.diots, you basement dwelling in.cels. Why are you spreading this misinformation.
This is a baseless accusation of plagiarism!
The two papers are completely different. The first paper finds that women pay higher PRICES on houses, and the second paper finds that women have lower RETURNS on houses. Prices and returns are two separate economic terms. You need to go back to econ 101...
-
You guys are complete i.diots, you basement dwelling in.cels. Why are you spreading this misinformation.
This is a baseless accusation of plagiarism!
The two papers are completely different. The first paper finds that women pay higher PRICES on houses, and the second paper finds that women have lower RETURNS on houses. Prices and returns are two separate economic terms. You need to go back to econ 101...If the papers are so different - yet studying clearly tangential topics - then why not cite the other study and inform the reader on these differences? Make no mistake. This omitted citation was strategic to avoid tipping the referee about the existence of this other paper. Even worse, it was a strategic omission by the AE at the JF.
-
The two papers are completely different. The first paper finds that women pay higher PRICES on houses, and the second paper finds that women have lower RETURNS on houses. Prices and returns are two separate economic terms. You need to go back to econ 101...
Okay, Einstein. How do you think returns are generated in housing? P1 - P0.