"dog ate my codes! dog ate my codes!"
REStud retraction
-
it's not easy to publish in a top 5 journal, regardless of whether the paper is correct or flawed.
No, but it's eas(ier) to publish in a top 5 journal if you're willing to fake whatever results are needed to tell a beautiful economic story.
This is an issue for development economics that David Card warned about 20 years ago. It would be interesting to dig into the RCT literature with the statistical tools needed to detect data fabrication.
-
Funny how all this works. Write a wrong paper, get published get tenure it’s retracted nothing happens no penalty. It’s a fantastic way to build a career. Efforts to get it right not needed.
My take is that you didn't get tenure but did well later in your career.
I'm sorry you had to go through this. But it's not fair to project this onto a stranger's case.
-
"However, we now document that preferences move to the right, rather than to the left, of the political spectrum."
LJL. complete opposite results.Insider here. The new paper was requested by the editors at restud. They did not want to retract the paper and asked the authors to write a new piece that would get published (summarizing the literature). The process lasted 18 months. Paola ended up asking restud to retract the paper, which they ended up doing. I strongly doubt that the new paper is not getting published at restud.
Say whatever you want about Paola's (lack of) data skills and losing the data, but my personal problem with this mess is restud pretty much doing anything they could not to retract the paper. 18 months of none sense asking Paola and coauthor to write a new paper. And then finally retracted when Paola required it. And restud is now seen as this amazing journal that finally retracted a study (complete BS).
I am not making this up. Ask editors at restud or insiders...
-
"However, we now document that preferences move to the right, rather than to the left, of the political spectrum."
LJL. complete opposite results.Insider here. The new paper was requested by the editors at restud. They did not want to retract the paper and asked the authors to write a new piece that would get published (summarizing the literature). The process lasted 18 months. Paola ended up asking restud to retract the paper, which they ended up doing. I strongly doubt that the new paper is not getting published at restud.
Say whatever you want about Paola's (lack of) data skills and losing the data, but my personal problem with this mess is restud pretty much doing anything they could not to retract the paper. 18 months of none sense asking Paola and coauthor to write a new paper. And then finally retracted when Paola required it. And restud is now seen as this amazing journal that finally retracted a study (complete BS).
I am not making this up. Ask editors at restud or insiders...Sorry, typo. I meant "I strongly doubt that the new paper is getting published at restud."