Lol only retarded undergreads and red.ditards like ca36 use ejmr these days
also, what are you by your own reasoning?
Schiraldi (LSE) and Seiler (Stanford) false coauthors of AER publication
-
Try to get out of your mom's basement first
STFU B1TCH
thanks PS (or maybe SS.. just to be fair)
Easy big boy. No need to lose our temper. Still waiting a response my other question?
What are you given your reasoning?Gonna discuss it further with senior colleagues and the editor of a major journal to see when I can do just that.
Thanks for the encouragement PS (or SS). I am doing my best though!
-
Well, just to argue the other side -- not that it's the side I take -- context can matter. If heavy hitters with track records of strong solo papers were being accused, they'd deserve more benefit of the doubt based on their prior contributions. Although that usually comes more at the sentencing phase of a trial...
Why is the track record of PS or SS any relevant here?
Of course one will naturally have doubts about their contributions to other co-authored publications, but it's not relevant for the current discussion -
OT sounds like a vindictive awipe. He's lucky that he's in some no-name university or else his career would be ending. He's already going nowhere with those garbage publications and seems like nothing but HS's RA.
There are more no-name LRMs in the US than the rest of the world combined.
I’m sorry to say this but top national universities are much more prestigious in their countries, regions and even worldwide than anything outside the top 10-15 US schools (top 15 is being generous).
-
You can see this in the way that prestigious places like University of Bucharest are able to attract students from around the globe, while midranked US places like Irvine only attract students from in state.
OT sounds like a vindictive awipe. He's lucky that he's in some no-name university or else his career would be ending. He's already going nowhere with those garbage publications and seems like nothing but HS's RA.
There are more no-name LRMs in the US than the rest of the world combined.
I’m sorry to say this but top national universities are much more prestigious in their countries, regions and even worldwide than anything outside the top 10-15 US schools (top 15 is being generous). -
^We know that:
1) the most senior author HS was the data provider for both projects
2) according to the HS the senior author -again, the only person working on the two projects- OT came up with the model and the estimation strategy and execution for their project
3) SSS initially copied OT model and added/changed features without OT's knowledge or consent
4) HS was leading the estimation strategy in SSS paper, without apparent success
4) OT and HS completed the paper with success with most work done by OT
So, PS and SS:
1) did not come up with the original theory; they copied and extended without the original author's consent
2) did not lead the estimation/empirics
When OT and HS were ready to submit they attempted to join in; when they were denied, PS bullied and threatened someone running down his tenure clock.
Essentially they tried - and likely did work on - something that was likely very costly for them and ended up failing and being scooped. It is understandable that they were dejected by their own coauthor scooping them. But the other paper was not theirs to take, indeed OT rejected the approach and only backed down due to threats that, if carried through, would at best detail his career and tenure.
This much comes literally from reading the emails. So either PS and SS prove that these facts are taken out of context and further facts change the interpretation or an investigation should be started to reascertain the facts above and punish bullying/threatening practices -
Stephan Seiler (Stanford) and Pasquale Schiraldi (LSE) committed gross moral turpitude and got caught... Now nothing good is coming down their way. One of them will most likely be fired, the other one would most probably not be able to find a job...
Would you not go deranged if you were in their place?
PS increasingly derranged over the last few pages. What you gonna do boy? threaten me?
-
are you thick? Or do you enjoy the feeling of imagining other people paying attention to you? Since the latter is not going to happen, you'd be better served spending time on your problem sets.
Stephan Seiler (Stanford) and Pasquale Schiraldi (LSE) committed gross moral turpitude and got caught... Now nothing good is coming down their way. One of them will most likely be fired, the other one would most probably not be able to find a job...
Would you not go deranged if you were in their place?PS increasingly derranged over the last few pages. What you gonna do boy? threaten me?
-
are you thick? Or do you enjoy the feeling of imagining other people paying attention to you? Since the latter is not going to happen, you'd be better served spending time on your problem sets.
Stephan Seiler (Stanford) and Pasquale Schiraldi (LSE) committed gross moral turpitude and got caught... Now nothing good is coming down their way. One of them will most likely be fired, the other one would most probably not be able to find a job...
Would you not go deranged if you were in their place?PS increasingly derranged over the last few pages. What you gonna do boy? threaten me?
You sound Italian, PS
-
Can someone summarize the argument please?
Someone on the marketing list did a good job:
SS, PS and HS (SSS) fail in their attempt to implement the model in a particular set up.
SS emails OT to request coautorship claiming that SSS developed the model.
HS emails SS explaining SSS didn't develop the model, as it had been developed earlier by OT.
PS emails OT threatening him (and CCed SS) with his connections with senior colleagues and journal editors.
SS is therefore aware that his failed paper (SSS) did not develop the model that OT uses (OT himself developed it) and that OT accepted the coautorship under a threat. Doesn't matter, he still signs the agreement to be a coauthor (also disclosed by OT).
This is the sequence of events that can be checked in the emails OT made public. I guess for some people there could be some missing piece of information that make this sound acceptable, but maybe not for others.
-
I'm getting tired of these inane defenses, 'reality is more complicated'... Let's do it like this.
Tonight I'll send an anonymous email with all the material making the points that are obvious from there: that you coerced -by threatening - someone into giving you a publication and that you all collectively and knowingly lied to the AER and mislead it's editor by inserting that footnote. You can take it from there and explain your thuggish complications to your senior colleagues, senior admin and editors.
Oh and that's not a threat. It's a factRetraction Watch recommends to contact first the universities, not the editor:
By the way, does Retraction Watch follows these allegations? They have the muscle and the exposure to blow this up.
-
Looks like HS posted a statement on the dispute on his website: https://sites.google.com/site/howardwilliamsmith/publications-1
direct link here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Oad2I-a1SuKesWp0iu84zVuX1CKhuEo2/view
-
Looks like HS posted a statement on the dispute on his website: https://sites.google.com/site/howardwilliamsmith/publications-1
direct link here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Oad2I-a1SuKesWp0iu84zVuX1CKhuEo2/viewPretty much confirms the story.
-
Looks like HS posted a statement on the dispute on his website: https://sites.google.com/site/howardwilliamsmith/publications-1
direct link here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Oad2I-a1SuKesWp0iu84zVuX1CKhuEo2/viewClearly explained, the story is simply shocking. If our profession cares about incentives at all, punishment should be applied with the highest severity for this kind of behavior.
I wish Paul Romer could get into this fight and through a few punches where it is deserved.
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.