https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jofi.13164
Let this be a lesson to all HRMs that think they can steal LRM ideas without consequences.
https://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/2022-jf-paper-copies-1993-b-journal-paper
JF paper withdrawn for omitted citation!!!
-
"The Accepted Article version of the above article from The Journal of Finance, published online on 30 May 2022 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been withdrawn by agreement between the journal's editors and Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of the American Finance Association. The withdrawal has been agreed after an additional review of the article revealed that the authors did not properly characterize the relationship of their work to the earlier literature."
-
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 JF accepted it but has now withdrawn the article.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.
-
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 Withdrawal is a bit too much in my view, an explicit statement would have been enough (the withdrawn paper does much more than just showing the baseline fact), but the language the journal used for the withdrawal is way too punitive and unfair.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 The Shue and Goldsmith-Pinkham paper on gender and housing returns shares EXACLTY the same issue and was not withdrawn.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.
-
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.Wait a couple of weeks. Not sure if the KS-PGP paper will make it
-
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.It was clear that the authors stole the idea from an unknown journal and re-sold it to a top journal. The fact that the referees/conference participants etc. failed to notice this, does not justify the authors' behavior.
I agree that there is too much corruption, but at least some journals care...that's something.
-
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-jar
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. -
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.I disagree. Zwick knew about this paper. I saw it being addressed to him, in a non-public way. The way that he dishonestly carried on with the paper even after knowing the existence of the other work merits the withdrawal and the "punitive" words.
This is not to say that Goldsmith-Pinkham and Kelly Shue should receive a lighter punishment.
-
SN was editor on KS P paper. As per earlier message posted by Karl. PB was editor on Q Z paper as by Krl message. Very confused messaging otherwise.
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. -
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.