Truly surprised. But why do they say withdrawn and not retracted?
JF paper withdrawn for omitted citation!!!
-
They’re not the best corporate finance researchers. Not even close.
doesnot this incident clearly expose the incompetence of corporate finance researchers, even the best of them?
Even if you agreed with the final decision to withdraw, this language is way too punitive to the authors. The earlier paper was in a random journal and nobody was aware of it, I saw the authors' paper presented at several conferences in front of dozens of empirical corporate researchers, including senior ones, and nobody has ever brought up the earlier paper. I agree that once you learn that the baseline fact was actually buried somewhere in earlier literature you need to accept that and act. Withdrawal is a bit too much in my view, an explicit statement would have been enough (the withdrawn paper does much more than just showing the baseline fact), but the language the journal used for the withdrawal is way too punitive and unfair. Also, why are the editors and referees part of the process if not also to assess the contribution relative to the literature?? The journal's process shares as much responsibility as the authors for not properly acknowledging since early on that the baseline empirical facts had already been published.
I am also appalled about the obvious lack of fairness in treating different cases. The Shue and Goldsmith-Pinkham paper on gender and housing returns shares EXACLTY the same issue and was not withdrawn. Why? Because Amit Seru, the most corr*pt finance person ever, wants to help his little friends to get favors going forward? And you, SN, who were the main editor during this whole mess, just say nothing?? How can you accept this differential treatment just due to trading favors by some of the editors? So ultimately QX and EZ get treated very harshly just because PB is not their friend while KS and PGP get treated extra nicely because AS wants to help them?! Come on.
And I'm not even discussing about the fact that the "main" contribution of KS and PGP on top of baseline facts that had already been published based on the same data is proposing a channel (women are scre*ed by real estate agents) that is IMPOSSIBLE to explain their results, because they find that couples of men and women realize much lower returns not only relative to men but also relative to women alone. It is obvious to anybody who has never even studied economics that the channel they trumpet as their main contribution cannot explain this strong fact the data show.
-
The agreement to withdraw the article was made between the editors and the publisher, not by the authors.
At least these two seem to have some ethical standards. Too many HRM’s did the same thing but were never punished.
That's what confuses me. Usually, it would be called withdrawing only if it's initiated by the authors. Otherwise, it should be a retraction.
-
Truly surprised. But why do they say withdrawn and not retracted?
I believe it's because the article was "only" published online and had not yet been assigned to an issue in print. The withdrawn/retraction distinction is a vestige of the old days when a paper wasn't published until the issue had been printed and mailed out.
-
Truly surprised. But why do they say withdrawn and not retracted?
I believe it's because the article was "only" published online and had not yet been assigned to an issue in print. The withdrawn/retraction distinction is a vestige of the old days when a paper wasn't published until the issue had been printed and mailed out.
where is KS-PGP in the pipeline?
-
This sends a strong message. Kudos to JF Editors for doing the right thing. HRM types need to know it is not ok to steal. Hope to see equally strong enforcement going forward.
They only responded that way because they got caught. They'd let it slide if it were under the radar.
-
This sends a strong message. Kudos to JF Editors for doing the right thing. HRM types need to know it is not ok to steal. Hope to see equally strong enforcement going forward.
They only responded that way because they got caught. They'd let it slide if it were under the radar.
No, this basically only happened because Nagel, while not perfect, has repeatedly proven himself to be the only "top" finance journal editor today who actually has a modicum of scientific integrity. REMINDER that JFE and RFS have still never retracted a single paper yet.
-
L Starks, previous RFS Editor, *explicitly* said it is ok for authors to oversell their papers by omitting citations and/or hiding negative results or whatever.
This sends a strong message. Kudos to JF Editors for doing the right thing. HRM types need to know it is not ok to steal. Hope to see equally strong enforcement going forward.
They only responded that way because they got caught. They'd let it slide if it were under the radar.
No, this basically only happened because Nagel, while not perfect, has repeatedly proven himself to be the only "top" finance journal editor today who actually has a modicum of scientific integrity. REMINDER that JFE and RFS have still never retracted a single paper yet.
-
The withdrawn paper used to be titled, "Kinky Tax Policy and Abnormal Investment Behavior." https://ssrn.com/abstract=3002942.
I bet the referee asked them to change it. Maybe the JF reviewers should focus more on incremental contribution and less on title changes.