Post <blockquote><blockquote>What was so striking about this episode, and what makes it so damning, is how much resistance there was to correcting these errors after the fact. I have no problem believing the earlier papers were overlooked, but when it became clear that ruptures was less original — both topically and econometrically — why not pull it, or move it to one of the AEJs? Why was it so important that a paper that turned out to be a pretty marginal contribution just had to be published in the AEA, come hell or high water? This is Heckman’s “curse of the top 5” playing out in plain sight, along with al of the crass cronyism that creates. </blockquote> Very good comment!</blockquote>

Send Post »

Markup: a blockquote code em strong ul ol li.