wow
Schiraldi (LSE) and Seiler (Stanford) false coauthors of AER publication
-
My comment didn't come up. A cursory read at this suggests (I can be persuaded otherwise) that HS screwed up. As the senior co-author and the one on both project, one should make sure to remove/manage any ambiguity over the two papers. If there is enough fat and there are two distinct top papers, good. If not, then the right thing to do is always to merge, as 1 AER is worth a lot more than two crappy papers. I am not saying HS is bad or anything (as far as i can see, everybody here could be nice, in principle) but there clearly has been misunderstanding and we can safely say HS was in the best position to avoid them.
-
Pascuale, stop bombing the thread. You guys could not make your paper work, OT did it for his paper. This is not a merge of papers; you initially took over a young guys model developed for another project without him knowing; then, when you couldn't make it work for your setting, you took over his paper wholesale, arguing the contributions were too close - of course they were, you had ripped his model- without having contributed anything to that paper.
Despicable behavior
-
I am surprised people here care so little. If you read the email conversation (assuming it is true), then:
(1) PS adopts model from competing OT-HS paper for his own project with HS and SS after seeing HS‘s slides on OT-HS. According to HS‘s email, PT was aware of this and the flow of ideas goes clearly from OT-HS to PS (and SS)
(2) PS and SS threaten OT and HS to sabotage their project on the grounds that the papers are too similar due to the model being the same
This is crazy! If true I hope their will be some consequence. I wonder if SS and PS would have behaved the same if OT and HS would be at higher ranked departments
-
The last time I checked Schiraldi was doomed to become a teacher at the LSE. Now gets two AERs. The one with Nava, where everyone knows PS does not have the brains to pull it off and now this one, where he bullied a junior in Korea after copying the juniors model. Excellent promotion prospects based on no worth. I'll make sure to bring it up with LSE seniors
-
Pascale's email:
Oyvind,
(...)
Let me be clear about what is going to happen. I have already informally discussed this with my senior colleagues and an editor of a major journal, I am going to write a letter to the editors of the main journals to make them aware of the situation. After this letter, the papers will not be published and in the best scenario the editor in charge will require us
to merge or reach an agreement after communicating the whole situation to our head of departments at that point our bargaining position will be very different. At very best this whole process will delay the publication of the papers for years and there is a likely scenario where nothing will be published. As for my point of view having no publication or a minor one it does not make any difference and therefore I will go ahead in writing this letter because I must and will safeguard my own interest at that point.If you think this is a better outcome for you than reaching now an agreement I cannot force you otherwise then the
only thing left for me to do is to go ahead with this alternative way.Best
Pasquale -
Let me be clear about what is going to happen. I have already informally discussed this with my senior colleagues and
an editor of a major journal, I am going to write a letter to the editors of the main journals to make them aware of the
situation.How can LSE tolerates this behavior? The head of the department must know how PS gets his publications
Schiraldi, another low life bully
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.