Bump
Kasy and Sautmann Econometrica 2021 proven wrong

Not only did they expose shoddy work (fraud), they actually provided the proofs the original, scamming authors claimed to. Look, I don't check every proof in every papers I referee, but these are the main contributions here. The fact that ECTA doesn't publish the comment shows it's a club  just a different club from the others.

Not only did they expose shoddy work (fraud), they actually provided the proofs the original, scamming authors claimed to. Look, I don't check every proof in every papers I referee, but these are the main contributions here. The fact that ECTA doesn't publish the comment shows it's a club  just a different club from the others.
It's very embarrassing for the authors and ECMA, but I don't like using the word "fraud" here. Fraud requires intent. I can't imagine anyone would willingly put wrong claims in a theory paper.

Not only did they expose shoddy work (fraud), they actually provided the proofs the original, scamming authors claimed to. Look, I don't check every proof in every papers I referee, but these are the main contributions here. The fact that ECTA doesn't publish the comment shows it's a club  just a different club from the others.
It's very embarrassing for the authors and ECMA, but I don't like using the word "fraud" here. Fraud requires intent. I can't imagine anyone would willingly put wrong claims in a theory paper.
What makes you so sure?

Not only did they expose shoddy work (fraud), they actually provided the proofs the original, scamming authors claimed to. Look, I don't check every proof in every papers I referee, but these are the main contributions here. The fact that ECTA doesn't publish the comment shows it's a club  just a different club from the others.
It's very embarrassing for the authors and ECMA, but I don't like using the word "fraud" here. Fraud requires intent. I can't imagine anyone would willingly put wrong claims in a theory paper.
What makes you so sure?
I'm not sure, but the paper will be there forever, and so the error would eventually be exposed. I just personally really hate finding errors in my own working papers (let alone my published ones) and so it's really hard to imagine putting an error out there intentionally in the top journal.

Not only did they expose shoddy work (fraud), they actually provided the proofs the original, scamming authors claimed to. Look, I don't check every proof in every papers I referee, but these are the main contributions here. The fact that ECTA doesn't publish the comment shows it's a club  just a different club from the others.
It's very embarrassing for the authors and ECMA, but I don't like using the word "fraud" here. Fraud requires intent. I can't imagine anyone would willingly put wrong claims in a theory paper.
What makes you so sure?
I'm not sure, but the paper will be there forever, and so the error would eventually be exposed. I just personally really hate finding errors in my own working papers (let alone my published ones) and so it's really hard to imagine putting an error out there intentionally in the top journal.
It is hard to imagine for a decent person/researcher. But there are other types out there. They don't care about reseaerch at all, what counts for them is another Econometrica publication...

As an applied person this interests me. It is wellknown that a lot of famous applied papers are just phacking. Top journals will not publish anything criticizing a published paper, so there is no incentive to change conduct. Turns out theory has a related problem.

As an applied person this interests me. It is wellknown that a lot of famous applied papers are just phacking. Top journals will not publish anything criticizing a published paper, so there is no incentive to change conduct. Turns out theory has a related problem.
Yes. As a student this enraged me. I had trouble following a famous (seminal even) paper on dynamic contracting and my advisor just casually mentioned that it was "wellknown" to have a few wrong claims. This "wellknown" fact appears nowhere on the journal's website and he never mentioned it prior to me bringing up the paper.

Not only did they expose shoddy work (fraud), they actually provided the proofs the original, scamming authors claimed to. Look, I don't check every proof in every papers I referee, but these are the main contributions here. The fact that ECTA doesn't publish the comment shows it's a club  just a different club from the others.
A similar scandal is here
https://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/amoderngaussmarkovtheoremSame editor G.I.
The problems became apparent after the paper had been accepted, but before it appeared in print. A retraction would have been easy.