Interesting thread.
Strategically omitted references in Spiess (2017) JMP
-
^
So summarizing the thread, the timeline is as follows:
- There is a draft of Wu and Gagnon-Bartsch as early as December 2016.
- Jann Spiess started writing his paper in October 2017.
- The first draft posted with any proofs is at the end of November 2017, which does not cite WGB but has the same main example as WGB. The deadline to submit applications is in November for the majority of schools.
- Calls were made after Thanksgiving, between November 24 and December 8 (for all the top places that he does have flyouts at according to the Wiki).
- The second draft posted on December 8 cites WGB lightly in 4 footnotes.
- Drafts during January did not change the citations to WGB. This is during the high of the flyout season for top places.
- Someone called out JS on EJMR about copying from statistics papers.
- In the latest version on February 4, the paper cites WGB in the main text, with a total of 14 cites, acknowledging that many of the ideas are the same. -
So he didn't cite him/them at the beginning. Now he is doing the correct thing. For all we know, it could have just been an honest omission. I don't know for how long the "he forgot to cite in November crowd" is going to continue to rip him apart. Please move on. This is one of the many reasons why EJMR is a toxic place besides the overuse of sexist and racist vocabulary in most topic threads.
-
So he didn't cite him/them at the beginning. Now he is doing the correct thing. For all we know, it could have just been an honest omission. I don't know for how long the "he forgot to cite in November crowd" is going to continue to rip him apart. Please move on. This is one of the many reasons why EJMR is a toxic place besides the overuse of sexist and racist vocabulary in most topic threads.
You're about 10 pages late, welcome to the party. Citing a paper 14 times is admitting it's very closely related. You don't go from 0 to 4 footnotes to 14 cites, especially with the motivating example being identical. You just don't go from 4 footnotes to 14 cites in the same paper, which all obviously happened after you're aware of the cited paper.
And apparently it's not even the best paper to cite, all the more clear how he could cook up a job market paper in two months: by copying stats people thinking fewer people know of their work, while knowing little of the literature yourself.
-
Citing papers that are very closely related is ok. Move on bud.
You're clearly dense. If he had always cited the paper 14 times, sure. Pretending a paper you copy from didn't exist, then pretending it's barely relevant (footnote level), to all over the place, depending on which stage of the market it is... ok my a$$