GI most corrupt editor at econometrica
Kasy and Sautmann Econometrica 2021 proven wrong
-
Put the proof aside, what is the contribution of this paper? The main idea has been explored in the CS and stat literatures for a while. Recycling ideas from other ideas is common for a great number of papers in Econometrica.
Significance of the paper may be another question, but it does not make sense to ask if the paper is WRONG.
-
From Econometrica's webpage:
Editor of Econometrica- Editorial Board Changes
The current four-year term of the Editor of Econometrica, G(u;i;d;o). W. Imbens, will reach completion June 30, 2023. I am very pleased to announce that G(u;i;d;:o) has agreed to stay on as Editor for an additional and last term of two years. Econometrica has greatly benefited from G.(u;i;d,o’s) leadership, vision, and expertise, and the Econometric Society is grateful for his willingness to continue his service as Editor. The extension of his term confirms the Society’s commitment to high standards of editorial quality in all branches of economics, theoretical and empirical, abstract and applied, providing wide-ranging coverage across the subject area.
G(u;i;d;o) Tabellini
President, Econometric Society
Publication Date:
Friday, May 27, 2022Unbelievable, they extend the tenure of this most c;o;r u;pt editor who has brought to us crappy papers like Kasy&Sautman and Hansen!
-
As an applied person this interests me. It is well-known that a lot of famous applied papers are just p-hacking. 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 "well-known" to have a few wrong claims. This "well-known" fact appears nowhere on the journal's website and he never mentioned it prior to me bringing up the paper.
Name the paper!
-
As an applied person this interests me. It is well-known that a lot of famous applied papers are just p-hacking. 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 "well-known" to have a few wrong claims. This "well-known" fact appears nowhere on the journal's website and he never mentioned it prior to me bringing up the paper.
Name the paper!
Spear and Srivastava claim the value function in their model is always decreasing (among other erroneous claims). Many subsequent papers computed it and found that this does seem to be true. Renner and Schmedders give a thorough account of all this in a recent TE.
-
Noah Williams' ECMA?
As an applied person this interests me. It is well-known that a lot of famous applied papers are just p-hacking. 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 "well-known" to have a few wrong claims. This "well-known" fact appears nowhere on the journal's website and he never mentioned it prior to me bringing up the paper.
Name the paper!
-
\Noah Williams' ECMA?
As an applied person this interests me. It is well-known that a lot of famous applied papers are just p-hacking. 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 "well-known" to have a few wrong claims. This "well-known" fact appears nowhere on the journal's website and he never mentioned it prior to me bringing up the paper.
Name the paper!
No, I think that post (based on the reply) was referring to the Spear and Srivastava ECMA from 1987(?), although I have heard serious doubts about the Williams paper too.