What are editors and referees doing? I would never trust a single piece of result on their papers except they publicize data and codes
How can SK/AB continue to get a bunch of R&Rs after the retraction drama?
-
Bad workS in MULTIPLE manuscriptS DOES MEAN SOMETHING
It is not just bad work, it is work based on FAKE dataBad work in a manuscript does not mean that other works are also bad. We cannot punish someone just because few mistakes and then generalize that all of his/her works are bad.
-
^NGL, it's a huge TFP boost when you just make up your results!
More seriously, before the scandal, SK was known in finance as a sloppy unserious cat. How else do you have ~20 working papers and numerous R&Rs just a few years after graduation?
The scandal showed that in >=2 papers, *that we know of*, he and AB crossed the line into outright fraud.
-
It could be all AB. Don’t see any reason for SK to do this.
Then Karolyi would've thrown Bird under the bus a long, long time ago. Instead, they jointly issued the dog ate my laptop statement.
Besides, "it could be all" doesn't matter anymore ever since the Hunton scandal. Coauthors of TAR papers have to indicate who's responsible for the data, and the retraction applied to both of them, so it was joint responsibility.
-
The issue lies with our system. We cannot suddenly require code, data and a replication for one specific group of researchers, regardless of prior issues.
So you put the referee and AE ina position of reading what seems to be a quality paper, but knowing who the authors are with no tools for adding credibility to the results ex ante. What would you do? If you reject you have to give a reason to the editor, and you can’t say “it’s SK and AB so I’m assuming these results are fraudulent.”
-
Wouldn’t it be a Pareto improvement if AB took all responsibility in exchange for something from the K family?
It could be all AB. Don’t see any reason for SK to do this.
Then Karolyi would've thrown Bird under the bus a long, long time ago. Instead, they jointly issued the dog ate my laptop statement.
Besides, "it could be all" doesn't matter anymore ever since the Hunton scandal. Coauthors of TAR papers have to indicate who's responsible for the data, and the retraction applied to both of them, so it was joint responsibility. -
I hate to say it but I just do not believe the veracity of quality of your work if you have more than a couple new working papers per year. Given the average paper takes about 3 years from idea conception to publication, that's 6 working papers in total at any given time. Most highly productive people I know are at about that level or slightly under. And they are all very busy with work. I admit I HATE working (thank god I got tenure) but when I am juggling 3 working papers at any time I feel my plate is full. Maybe these guys never saw a woman before but I just don't understand how there enough hours in a day to live a life (like do they even shower?) and still ensure the quality of that many papers.