But they aren't aware of the prior article?! Bs.
As someone working with Scandinavian registry data I claim that one generally has a pretty good idea who has used the data before and for what outcomes. With a low probability, maybe staff at the stats office has turned over and didn't pass on the knowledge about the old article, but these people have life contracts, so I really doubt that.
I think the newer article's authors were aware of the older contribution.
One of the few things that EJMR is really good for. Stuff like this has always happened in the Economics profession, but at least now there is a place for it to be pointed out.
the consequences are quite severe. EO, for example, is now no longer taken seriously, thanks to the evisceration of her work after the various issues came to light. The same will be true of these two. In case you're thinking, "Oh but they still get an AER out of it", let me tell you that it is not worth it. Pretty much everyone will soon know that this paper is a ripoff and in the long-term these authors will suffer. People will think less of them, they will be less likely to be invited to conferences and special issues, and less likely to co-author with others.
The more this stuff is exposed, the less it will happen. Bravo, OP!
Is it just me or are the outcomes completely different in the two papers? One is all about stuff happening at birth, the newer one much later in life. I'm all for witch-hunting but let's read the papers bros.
It's imminently plausible to me that the authors missed a paper in the health literature. The ID strategy is kind of obvious if you think about the admin data they have. They should have cited it, but two papers using a similar identification strategy with completely different outcomes is still not a scandal.
Is it just me or are the outcomes completely different in the two papers? One is all about stuff happening at birth, the newer one much later in life. I'm all for witch-hunting but let's read the papers bros.
This was my reaction as well.
Three pages of EMJR outrage and self-congratulation without anyone actually reading the abstracts?
It would not be a scandal if they were citing it and explaining the identification strategy was not novel. The very fact that they do not shows that there is something fishy.
(and if you know the database they use you know there is NO WAY they were not aware of the previous paper)
Is it just me or are the outcomes completely different in the two papers? One is all about stuff happening at birth, the newer one much later in life. I'm all for witch-hunting but let's read the papers bros.
It's imminently plausible to me that the authors missed a paper in the health literature. The ID strategy is kind of obvious if you think about the admin data they have. They should have cited it, but two papers using a similar identification strategy with completely different outcomes is still not a scandal.
I agree it looks *very* fishy that they did not cite an extremely closely related paper. This certainly made the contribution look bigger than it actually is.
But the the real issue is why this got in the AER, even with the authors' (intentional or unintentional) misguiding about the novelty of their work. Suppose the earlier paper had not existed. Even then there is clearly a large existing literature on this already and the authors have nothing to offer in terms of new data, identification strategy etc. They only look at some other variables. So this is field journal material at best.
It is neither original nor creative nor particularly interesting to the broader economics community (really a very narrow health topic). This is consistent with the impression I have of these authors' work more generally. Many people I know where quite surprised Persson got into Stanford (Rossin-Slater seems more appropriately placed).
It would not be a scandal if they were citing it and explaining the identification strategy was not novel. The very fact that they do not shows that there is something fishy.
(and if you know the database they use you know there is NO WAY they were not aware of the previous paper)Is it just me or are the outcomes completely different in the two papers? One is all about stuff happening at birth, the newer one much later in life. I'm all for witch-hunting but let's read the papers bros.
It's imminently plausible to me that the authors missed a paper in the health literature. The ID strategy is kind of obvious if you think about the admin data they have. They should have cited it, but two papers using a similar identification strategy with completely different outcomes is still not a scandal.
Nah, I use similar data in a different country. Couldn't tell you 5 percent of what's been done with it, even in my field. EJMR, you've found an oversight of citation. Congratulations. But you have not uncovered a scandal.
HaHa. Loser LRMs on this board do not get that Female APs with HRM degrees in an MRM is all that matters.
Grow up folks. Smell the deep s**t that is reality.
Economics is not a Science. It is a mathematical and rhetorical tool to play politics designed for and by the elite for consumption by proles. The truth? The truth is for philosophers who go insane eventually.
Sorry to tell you the truth. This is never going to change.
Play your games at your local LRM and get that tenure. You want to do Science?
You chose the wrong field.
Is it just me or are the outcomes completely different in the two papers? One is all about stuff happening at birth, the newer one much later in life. I'm all for witch-hunting but let's read the papers bros.
It's imminently plausible to me that the authors missed a paper in the health literature. The ID strategy is kind of obvious if you think about the admin data they have. They should have cited it, but two papers using a similar identification strategy with completely different outcomes is still not a scandal.
This was my reaction as well.
Three pages of EMJR outrage and self-congratulation without anyone actually reading the abstracts?
It looks like you didn't read the papers. Protip: if you want to defend your fellow corrupt HRMs, read the f**king papers first, so you know when to shut up.
Persson and Rossin-Slater claim (page 2) that, "By considering the deaths of different relatives, our approach presents a new measure of the intensity of stress exposure—the strength of the family tie that is severed." But it is clear that Class et al. already looked at "death of the father of the child or first degree relative of the mother."
Persson and Rossin-Slater motivate their paper primarily in terms of mental health, which Class et al. don't look at. But Persson and Rossin-Slater emphasize that their second "primary contribution" is (page 3)
we can trace the onset of adverse effects of exposure to maternal bereavement in utero. We document that important physical health consequences are already evident at birth and in early childhood. In particular, we see 12, 24, and
12 percent increases in the likelihoods of low-birth-weight (less than 2,500 grams), very-low-birth-weight (less than 1,500 grams), and pre-term (less than 37 weeks gestation) births, respectively.
Hmm, didn't Class et al. already look at PTB and LBW? What did they say their objective was?
To identify the impact of timing of prenatal stress exposure on offspring risk for shortened gestational age (GA), preterm birth (PTB), low birth weight (LBW), and small for gestational age (SGA) using a population-based sample.
tl;dr f**k all of you corrupt HRM douchebags.
Understanding their contribution is also complicated by the AEJ paper by Black, Devereux, and Salvanes that looks at the exact same question in Norway and does not find effects on adult outcomes. The AEJ certainly came out first. Why does one get into AER and the other AEJ?
Black et al. describe the AER paper as follows:
"Most closely related to our own work is work done concurrently by Persson and Rossin-Slater (2014), who look at the death of a family member in utero on the short- and
long-run health outcomes of children in Sweden. Using a similar identification strategy comparing children in utero for the death of a close family member to those who experience a similar death immediately after birth, the authors find that in utero exposure to stress through the death of a family member affects health at birth and later psychological conditions. While we use a slightly different identification strategy, examining only the death of grandparents of the child in utero to avoid any
other confounding factors associated with the death, such as changes in resources,
we view this paper as a complement to our own—despite their finding of longer run
effects on mental health, we find no significant effects on education or future labor
market success."
Which paper gets it right?
I think the authors do not deserve much blame here, perhaps they should have seen this article. It seems pretty obscure to me and its not 100% clear in my opinion what cross-disciplinary publications should be cited (had they known of this article, i agree they should have cited it).
When you type "impact of death of parent in pregnancy" or any similarly relevant quote into Google Scholar, the old article comes up on the first page. How could they have missed it?
