Post <blockquote><blockquote><blockquote> <blockquote> <blockquote>should be cited, but its possible that obscure papers are missed. i dont think people go scanning non-econ journals for ideas to turn into their own projects. </blockquote> Where the fock do you think they heard of the data? </blockquote> Both of them have had extensive access to Scandinavian admin data and PP is Swedish. if you work in this field and have used this type of data before you become well aware of the data. </blockquote> It does not matter. Not citing an already published study that has very similar conclusions to your main contribution shows that either you are trying to hide something or you are a sloppy researcher that does not know the literature. In either case, it does not bode well. The economically relevant part of the paper is section 6, the impact of economic shocks on the persistence of poverty, etcetera. If section 6 was carefully developed and formed the core of the paper, this could have been a very worthwhile contribution to economic research. As it is, section 6 is an after-thought and the paper is little more than a rehash of existing medical research. </blockquote> The real question is if the paper could be published in the AER if everything except section 6 was removed. But still, not only are the authors oblivious to prior literature on this matter as the referees were clearly not knowledgeable about this topic and prior literature and so should never have refereed this paper. AER has been run like an amateur outfit in this last year.</blockquote>

Send Post »

Markup: a blockquote code em strong ul ol li.