is the window closed for retracting PGP? he got away with it?
Yes got away with it.
There are clearly different standards for enforcing improper citation misconduct depending on the enforcer (such as Laura Starks) and the authors.
Same issue across all of these cases and different outcomes that help some and hurt others.
This whole incident says even more about the JF and the whole state of finance research than it does about authors. I mean how is it even possible that low rank publications from decades ago now are considered for top journals? Makes no sense. It is making it so obvious that you just have to know the right people and be at the right places then you can just do some mediocre research, even recycle from low ranked publications or working papers from unknown people. Seen it so often and most people get away with it. Research is not only in a replication crisis, it is in a real plagiarism crisis with sick buddy networks. So obvious how reviewers are just strategic about their reviews, either pushing their buddies or field of work or protecting their own work. This whole blind review system lets them do it without any risk.
a588 nails it. It's not just this case, but this case makes it crystal clear that a small network of people decide what research is interesting and worthy of recognition and what isn't on the basis of self interest.
Also, there is no accountability. The authors will suffer no penalty beyond the obvious consequence of retraction. And Tthe editor does not believe he owes us an explanation of why he let this happen and what he will do in the future to prevent situations like this.
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.
HRM privilege
This whole incident says even more about the JF and the whole state of finance research than it does about authors. I mean how is it even possible that low rank publications from decades ago now are considered for top journals? Makes no sense. It is making it so obvious that you just have to know the right people and be at the right places then you can just do some mediocre research, even recycle from low ranked publications or working papers from unknown people. Seen it so often and most people get away with it. Research is not only in a replication crisis, it is in a real plagiarism crisis with sick buddy networks. So obvious how reviewers are just strategic about their reviews, either pushing their buddies or field of work or protecting their own work. This whole blind review system lets them do it without any risk.