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 Withdrawal is a bit too much in my view, an explicit statement would have been enough (the withdrawn paper does much more than just showing the baseline fact), but the language the journal used for the withdrawal is way too punitive and unfair.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 disagree. The authors committed the worst possible crime in academia. They knowingly failed to acknowledge the work of others in an proper way, and instead chose to present the paper’s idea as their own and results as novel, which is the very definition of plagiarism. Retracting the paper for omitted citation is the smallest, not largest, possible penalty. Also, remember that citing prior work is the sole responsibility of the authors. The referees and editors were lazy, but they are not responsible for this.
Honestly, the fact that so many people in the profession, especially in Finance, do not understand these basic rules of the game is extremely discouraging. That disgusting footnote 26 should be taught in PhD programs as an example of what must never be done.The “worst possible crime in academia”? Not being aware of paper from another field, then citing it when becoming aware? Yes they should have been clearer about prior paper’s contribution, but if you read both papers, there is no evidence of plagiarism. Just sloppy lit review and over-selling contribution. Not excusing it, just putting into proper context.
citing a paper with identical message as “evidence from the 80s” in footnote 29 is not giving appropriate credit. it is not honest. it is not scholarly. it tells you what kind of people they are. but you already know this. you are either trolling or you are a plagiarist yourself.