They cite Kinney and Trezevant (1993) 17 times in the latest draft.
JF paper withdrawn for omitted citation!!!
-
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.
May be why her work repeatedly shows up as a subject in Critical Finance Review.
-
In earliest versions of the paper there was zero cites to this paper
Way too late in the journal process. Despite knowing of the paper and it’s presence for years.
^was it added late in the process? Here is the original version: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3002942
-
In earliest versions of the paper there was zero cites to this paper
Way too late in the journal process. Despite knowing of the paper and it’s presence for years.
^was it added late in the process? Here is the original version: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3002942
There are none in the 2018 version on SSRN. So did they add it at the request of a referee? If so, I am confused as to why it was withdrawn. Unless there was some kind of conflict of interest exposed by the investigation.
-
I told Zwick about the prior paper at a conference (1-on-1 after the presentation, politely so as not to embarrass him).
Kudos to JF though.
This directly contrasts with how JAR (and Wiley) handled Mike Minnis and Pete Lisowsky lying about their data. (Interestingly, I also told those fraudsters that they misrepresented their data at a conference - less politely throughout their presentation as well as afterwards - crazy the different treatment)
https://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/actual-fraud-at-jarEven 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.
Chief, you must be a big shot, seeing the way you're just telling and telling all these researchers.
-
https://karlstack.substack.com/p/journal-of-finance-retracts-article
"This retraction would likely never have materialized if I hadn’t shone a light on it and pestered the Journal of Finance. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber so that I can pester more journals"
LOL, this boy called Karl. He is a hero here
-
Apparently many researchers are just flat out mo/rons. They rely on old, mor/on reviewers and editors to publish their papers.
Anyone with minimal intelligence (understanding rules/research settings, using a search engine, etc.) can easily discredit people like Zwick and Lisowsky and Minnis.
The only fraud that took any intelligence to uncover was SKAB. It's hard to fault the reviewers for missing that huge cover up. AY is and always will be a beast for destroying those |o$ers.
Chief, you must be a big shot, seeing the way you're just telling and telling all these researchers.
-
Apparently many researchers are just flat out mo/rons. They rely on old, mor/on reviewers and editors to publish their papers.
Anyone with minimal intelligence (understanding rules/research settings, using a search engine, etc.) can easily discredit people like Zwick and Lisowsky and Minnis.
The only fraud that took any intelligence to uncover was SKAB. It's hard to fault the reviewers for missing that huge cover up. AY is and always will be a beast for destroying those |o$ers.
Chief, you must be a big shot, seeing the way you're just telling and telling all these researchers.
-
Great point
Laura Starks is president of AFAWhy is it ok to misrepresent prior work in one case
https://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/hrm-strategy-for-publishing-in-rfsBut not ok to misrepresent prior work in another case?
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.
-
Laura Starks allowed misrepresenting prior work as SFS president in 2018
Laura Starks does not allow misrepresenting prior work as AFA president in 2022
Should be a thread on this asking Laura Starks why
Great point
Laura Starks is president of AFA
Why is it ok to misrepresent prior work in one case
https://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/hrm-strategy-for-publishing-in-rfs
But not ok to misrepresent prior work in another case?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.
-
Maybe Google algo dint bring this citation in first page.
It's exhausting having to explain this over and over. It is OK if they missed that paper when they wrote their first draft and other versions. That can happen to anyone. Nothing wrong with that. Fine. BUT, once they found out about the existence of a prior paper, they had the obligation to represent with absolute precision how their paper contributed to the literature relative to that paper. Because doing so would have killed their chances at any good journal, and for sure at JF, they chose to miscite the paper in footnote 29.
Misrepresenting the work of others with the intention of making their own contribution much bigger than it actually was may not be plagiarism, but it is just as bad, dishonest and harming for academic research.