Laura Starks allowed misrepresenting prior work as SFS president in 2018
I keep reading about that. Any link?
Footnote 8
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1544612318307402Wow! I didn't know about. Do these people have no ethics at all?
Ethics is nothing burger compared to money and prestige
"The RFS paper [Christensen et al. (2016)] cites Cumming et al. [(2011)]... [t]herefore the editors, reviewers, and readers were certainly made aware of the paper. It is then partly the responsibility of the reader to decide about the substance and contribution of each paper."
As Karl wrote: This would be like if I wrote a paper about how E=MC^2, and buried in the footnotes I were to write: “See Einstein (1905) for prior evidence on the relationship between mass and energy.” I guess L Starks thinks that would be OK because Einstein (1905) is already cited, so it is up to the readers to decide Karl's contribution relative to Einstein's.
Great question - seems completely inconsistent for identical issue - yet same person - Laura Starks - ?!
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 whyGreat 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.
It appears it is not only Laura Starks 2018 SFS president and 2022 AFA president
Also Antoinette Schoar RFS exec in 2018 - she has a PhD from Chicago - RFS protected the Chicago guys Christian Leuz and company
Laura Starks promoted Antoinette Schoar to be the current 2022 JF editor
the Chicago provost and Booth Dean (PV) have come out in support of prior (more serious) fraud where Booth faculty lied outright about their data (e.g., they said they have data X, but they have data Y which is worthless for their RQ).
details here: https://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/actual-fraud-at-jar
Any statement from department chairs? Deans? How do these things happen under their watch? Don’t their faculty know the basic rules of academic research? Are they taking any actions?Additional excellent questions.
"The RFS paper [Christensen et al. (2016)] cites Cumming et al. [(2011)]... [t]herefore the editors, reviewers, and readers were certainly made aware of the paper. It is then partly the responsibility of the reader to decide about the substance and contribution of each paper."
As Karl wrote: This would be like if I wrote a paper about how E=MC^2, and buried in the footnotes I were to write: “See Einstein (1905) for prior evidence on the relationship between mass and energy.” I guess L Starks thinks that would be OK because Einstein (1905) is already cited, so it is up to the readers to decide Karl's contribution relative to Einstein's.
In the RFS case, Laura Starks technically said the equivalent of the following: it is ok to explicitly misstate the substance of prior work, and leave it for the responsibility of the reader to figure out otherwise.
Maybe these JF authors would not be withdrawn if the mischaracterized the content of the prior paper in their introduction?
"The RFS paper [Christensen et al. (2016)] cites Cumming et al. [(2011)]... [t]herefore the editors, reviewers, and readers were certainly made aware of the paper. It is then partly the responsibility of the reader to decide about the substance and contribution of each paper."
As Karl wrote: This would be like if I wrote a paper about how E=MC^2, and buried in the footnotes I were to write: “See Einstein (1905) for prior evidence on the relationship between mass and energy.” I guess L Starks thinks that would be OK because Einstein (1905) is already cited, so it is up to the readers to decide Karl's contribution relative to Einstein's.In the RFS case, Laura Starks technically said the equivalent of the following: it is ok to explicitly misstate the substance of prior work, and leave it for the responsibility of the reader to figure out otherwise.
Maybe these JF authors would not be withdrawn if the mischaracterized the content of the prior paper in their introduction?
Has she read AFA’s code of ethics 6(4)?
"The RFS paper [Christensen et al. (2016)] cites Cumming et al. [(2011)]... [t]herefore the editors, reviewers, and readers were certainly made aware of the paper. It is then partly the responsibility of the reader to decide about the substance and contribution of each paper."
As Karl wrote: This would be like if I wrote a paper about how E=MC^2, and buried in the footnotes I were to write: “See Einstein (1905) for prior evidence on the relationship between mass and energy.” I guess L Starks thinks that would be OK because Einstein (1905) is already cited, so it is up to the readers to decide Karl's contribution relative to Einstein's.In the RFS case, Laura Starks technically said the equivalent of the following: it is ok to explicitly misstate the substance of prior work, and leave it for the responsibility of the reader to figure out otherwise.
Maybe these JF authors would not be withdrawn if the mischaracterized the content of the prior paper in their introduction?Has she read AFA’s code of ethics 6(4)?
Apparently not even though she is now AFA president… but perhaps doing the right thing does not get you to the position of AFA president
TL;DR HRMs recycled an idea from an early 90s B-rated accounting journal and did not cite it. JF accepted it but has now withdrawn the article.
Kinney, M. R., & Trezevant, R. H. (1993). Taxes and the timing of corporate capital expenditures. The Journal of the American Taxation Association, 15(2), 40.
Club A-journals and their mafias predate on the good ideas published by lesser ranked journals. It's a hard truth.
TL;DR HRMs recycled an idea from an early 90s B-rated accounting journal and did not cite it. JF accepted it but has now withdrawn the article.
Kinney, M. R., & Trezevant, R. H. (1993). Taxes and the timing of corporate capital expenditures. The Journal of the American Taxation Association, 15(2), 40.Club A-journals and their mafias predate on the good ideas published by lesser ranked journals. It's a hard truth.
Why is everybody obsessed with that paper? What about Shin and Kim, Journal of Corporate Finance, 2002, "Agency costs and efficiency of business capital investment: evidence from quarterly capital expenditures"?
Try searching <"fourth quarter" "investment"> on google scholar. It's the third entry. First if you do <"fourth quarter" "investment" "compustat">.
First sentence of the abstract: "Using the quarterly Compustat files, we present empirical findings that business capital investment is significantly higher in the fourth quarter than in other quarters"
It's a journal in literally exactly the same field finding the same result. If they did a literature review, it was the laziest in history. Isn't "fourth quarter" "investment" literally the first thing you'd search for?
"The RFS paper [Christensen et al. (2016)] cites Cumming et al. [(2011)]... [t]herefore the editors, reviewers, and readers were certainly made aware of the paper. It is then partly the responsibility of the reader to decide about the substance and contribution of each paper."
As Karl wrote: This would be like if I wrote a paper about how E=MC^2, and buried in the footnotes I were to write: “See Einstein (1905) for prior evidence on the relationship between mass and energy.” I guess L Starks thinks that would be OK because Einstein (1905) is already cited, so it is up to the readers to decide Karl's contribution relative to Einstein's.In the RFS case, Laura Starks technically said the equivalent of the following: it is ok to explicitly misstate the substance of prior work, and leave it for the responsibility of the reader to figure out otherwise.
Maybe these JF authors would not be withdrawn if the mischaracterized the content of the prior paper in their introduction?
Karl, get back here, there's more work to do!