Great formula. Scoop LRM ideas, release NBER paper, and profit.
https://jaypgreene.com/2017/08/04/the-chutzpah-of-abdulkadiroglu-pathak-and-walters/
HRMs steal another idea from LRMs
-
-
Spicy
-
Even a child have good ideas once in a while, so do LRMs. But only HRMs have the necessary toolkit and skills to develop them into a well-published paper.
-not and HRM
-
This is absurd! Absolutely no ethics, very close to plagiarism
-
OP, write better threads. Put more details in. Like:
Attila Abdulkadiroglu, Parag Pathak, and Christopher Walters (from MIT) rushed to publish the results from the first year of the Louisiana Scholarship Program while knowing that it was already done by Jonathan Mills and his advisor at the University of Arkansas and published in his doctoral thesis (i.e. there is a job market paper out there with this analysis). The paper was even presented 8 times and it is know that those 3 authors sat in on those presentations and were 100% aware of that work.
Then add this citation:
"Why they were rushing is an incredibly depressing story about how status and power in our field contributes to academic abuse and dishonesty– a story the reporter who wrote the article entirely missed." -
Even a child have good ideas once in a while, so do LRMs. But only HRMs have the necessary toolkit and skills to develop them into a well-published paper.
-not and HRMWithout due credit, this is just plagiarism. Don't convince yourself that this is in some way acceptable it is not. Without due credit it's no different than stealing really
-
Even a child have good ideas once in a while, so do LRMs. But only HRMs have the necessary toolkit and skills to develop them into a well-published paper.
-not and HRMYou mean they belong to the club and so editors will push their work forward will sitting on other people's papers (like Levitt once confessed to doing when he was an editor)
-
Even a child have good ideas once in a while, so do LRMs. But only HRMs have the necessary toolkit and skills to develop them into a well-published paper.
-not and HRMWithout due credit, this is just plagiarism. Don't convince yourself that this is in some way acceptable it is not. Without due credit it's no different than stealing really
Clear plagiarism attempt, and they should be blocked from accessing data.
-
Even a child have good ideas once in a while, so do LRMs. But only HRMs have the necessary toolkit and skills to develop them into a well-published paper.
-not and HRMThen HRM's contributions are toolkits, not ideas. Please make it clear in the literature review.
-
Even a child have good ideas once in a while, so do LRMs. But only HRMs have the necessary toolkit and skills to develop them into a well-published paper.
-not and HRMThen HRM's contributions are toolkits, not ideas. Please make it clear in the literature review.
Sometimes theya rent even that, they are just obfuscation.
-
This is disgusting. Those three gentleman from MIT are not just intellectually inferior to those other guys, since they clearly could not come up with a novel idea themselves, but they also lack any moral character. They should have their paper retracted, and the original work by the grad student should be published. It's even sadder when you realized they prayed on a grad student, a really low-level play
-
It is pretty shameful that some "eminent" researchers would stoop so low.
-
The research designs were nearly identical. The data were almost the same. The only difference was that Jon and Pat had a more complete data set and as a result reported more negative results.
That’s right. Jon and Pat had more negative results. They released those results along with the negative 2nd year results in February 2016. So the fact that Jon and Pat continued getting access to LA data while APW did not does not appear to have anything to do with reporting negative results. It seems to be related to the fact that APW were rushing to release results. They didn’t take the time like Jon and Pat did to solve missing data issues. Instead they were determined to move fast to get their results out first.
Even a child have good ideas once in a while, so do LRMs. But only HRMs have the necessary toolkit and skills to develop them into a well-published paper.
-not and HRMThen HRM's contributions are toolkits, not ideas. Please make it clear in the literature review.
-
Even a child have good ideas once in a while, so do LRMs. But only HRMs have the necessary toolkit and skills to develop them into a well-published paper.
-not and HRMfunny how you aspies take the bait so easily
-
In this particular case, the HRMS were sloppy and lazy.
Even a child have good ideas once in a while, so do LRMs. But only HRMs have the necessary toolkit and skills to develop them into a well-published paper.
-not and HRMThen HRM's contributions are toolkits, not ideas. Please make it clear in the literature review.
-
Forthcoming in the AER
Worst case scenario they will cash in the good ol' QJE voucher
LRMs at best get a post acceptance note in the online appendix, Hoynesy-style
Ahhh, the profession just keeps getting better! -
Can someone who knows this literature and has read both papers please comment. Everyone is just quoting this one source that is possibly biased. If it's true, certainly juicy, but guessing as always it's a little more complicated.
-
Those three gentleman from MIT are not just intellectually inferior to those other guys, since they clearly could not come up with a novel idea themselves, but they also lack any moral character.
Yes.
-
This, if true, must be the greatest fraud ever!
-
Great formula. Scoop LRM ideas, release NBER paper, and profit.
https://jaypgreene.com/2017/08/04/the-chutzpah-of-abdulkadiroglu-pathak-and-walters/OP please re-write the thread with a description of what happened and the names of the ones involved in the title so that this will be in evidence...
This needs to become a mega thread so it will gain notoriety
It's just not ok to prey on people and steal their research
We can at least use EJMR to do some good