Close

Complete Captcha

• 2 years - 4050 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 5653 Goods vs 2066 No Goods

1. Economist
   3f1d
   

   Quite embarrassing........this is academic fraud. Can’t wait to see who shows up today to present their fraudulent paper. Who was the moron at FARS that let their crap in? RM from Arizona needs to screen better.

   A retraction is quite embarrassing. It also has implications moving forward. Editors might no longer give the benefit of the doubt. Same with referees. Seminar invites could decline. Zero opportunity to be an expert witness or do consulting. Can you imagine putting someone on the witness stand as an expert witness? I can hear the opposing lawyer: "sir, concerning that retraction... why should anyone believe your testimony today?" The list goes on... Reputation is everything in academia.

   2 years ago # QUOTE 6 Jab 0 No Jab !

2. Economist
   b4ae
   

   Hmmm....

   https://www.cmu.edu/policies/research/handling-alleged-misconduct-in-research.html

   2 years ago # QUOTE 2 Jab 0 No Jab !

3. Economist
   fbe6
   

   It's just a coding error that led to similar results in both methodologies. Apparently AY can replicate one set of results, that means the description is clear and transparent enough.

   2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 9 No Jab !

4. Economist
   3392
   

   Let it go. Let it go. It is copy-editor's fault. It is royal family. It is something everyone does. It is... Let it go. Let it go.

   2 years ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 5 No Jab !

5. Economist
   6cc3
   

   It's just a coding error that led to similar results in both methodologies. Apparently AY can replicate one set of results, that means the description is clear and transparent enough.

   Gaslighting doesn't work that well when the retraction is 4 sentences long.

   The authors acknowledged that the published version of their article misstates the use of CRSP-based index membership in the main specifications and Russell-based index membership data as a robustness test. The article asserts that the two index membership definitions do not produce quantitatively different estimates. However, the authors were unable to provide the original data and code requested by the publisher that reproduce the findings, as shown in the article’s tables, supporting this assertion. Accordingly, the article has been retracted.

   It's clear that Bird and Karolyi couldn't provide the data and code because they fabricated some of the results. Fabrication is fraud, not a coding error.

   2 years ago # QUOTE 6 Jab 0 No Jab !

6. Economist
   d624
   

   AB still lists it as a pub on his faculty and personal websites. Such a POS.

   It's just a coding error that led to similar results in both methodologies. Apparently AY can replicate one set of results, that means the description is clear and transparent enough.

   2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

7. Economist
   7650
   

   Could it be that AB did it without SK’s knowledge?

   2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 8 No Jab !

8. Economist
   3392
   

   I am shocked that CMU has not taken any action. Reputation is the most valuable asset for any research institution. What is the agency story here? Afraid of AK again?

   2 years ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 0 No Jab !

9. Economist
   b4ae
   

   AB still lists it as a pub on his faculty and personal websites. Such a POS.

   It's just a coding error that led to similar results in both methodologies. Apparently AY can replicate one set of results, that means the description is clear and transparent enough.
   

   As I questioned earlier, what is the protocol here? List both the pub and the retraction on the vita, or list neither?

   2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

10. Economist
    b4ae
    

    I am shocked that CMU has not taken any action. Reputation is the most valuable asset for any research institution. What is the agency story here? Afraid of AK again?

    Look at the CMU link I posted earlier. Maybe the provost is investigating? who knows.

    2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

11. Economist
    6cc3
    

    As I questioned earlier, what is the protocol here? List both the pub and the retraction on the vita, or list neither?

    Retraction Watch did a poll on that question in 2011, and it seems either option (don't list/list as retracted) is acceptable.

    https://retractionwatch.com/2011/01/26/how-should-authors-mark-retracted-papers-on-their-cvs-compare-a-chronic-lyme-doctor-with-one-from-the-mayo/

    Either way, the Bird and Karolyi TAR paper now has a RETRACTED watermark, so even if they keep listing the paper with no mention of the retraction, it doesn't matter.

    http://aaajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.2308/accr-51520

    2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

12. Economist
    b4ae
    

    As I questioned earlier, what is the protocol here? List both the pub and the retraction on the vita, or list neither?

    Retraction Watch did a poll on that question in 2011, and it seems either option (don't list/list as retracted) is acceptable.
    https://retractionwatch.com/2011/01/26/how-should-authors-mark-retracted-papers-on-their-cvs-compare-a-chronic-lyme-doctor-with-one-from-the-mayo/
    Either way, the Bird and Karolyi TAR paper now has a RETRACTED watermark, so even if they keep listing the paper with no mention of the retraction, it doesn't matter.
    http://aaajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.2308/accr-51520

    Interesting, thanks for the links. IMO both should be listed since otherwise the vita does not accurately represent the author's career.

    2 years ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 0 No Jab !

13. Economist
    dc4c
    

    Could it be that AB did it without SK’s knowledge?

    Don't throw your coauthor under the bus Stephen. If your name is on the paper, you have equal responsibility. So just stop.

    2 years ago # QUOTE 7 Jab 0 No Jab !

14. Economist
    3964
    

    How do we know if it one with out the other? Could be that one did the analysis but how can we check who is responsible?
    Serious question here

    Could it be that AB did it without SK’s knowledge?

    Don't throw your coauthor under the bus Stephen. If your name is on the paper, you have equal responsibility. So just stop.

    2 years ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 1 No Jab !

15. Economist
    b4ae
    

    How do we know if it one with out the other? Could be that one did the analysis but how can we check who is responsible?
    Serious question here

    Could it be that AB did it without SK’s knowledge?

    Don't throw your coauthor under the bus Stephen. If your name is on the paper, you have equal responsibility. So just stop.
    

    provost would need to investigate

    2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

16. Economist
    ee0a
    

    If your name is on it, you are responsible for it.

    2 years ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 0 No Jab !

17. Economist
    7650
    

    Not true for Hunton’s case.

    If your name is on it, you are responsible for it.

    2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

18. Economist
    3964
    

    I agree... Non of Hunton coauthors got punished. They had papers retracted but not punished

    Not true for Hunton’s case.

    If your name is on it, you are responsible for it.
    

    2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

19. Economist
    72f2
    

    Why do you assume sk did it and not ab?

    2 years ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 1 No Jab !

20. Economist
    7f1f
    

    Come on. Two young scholars made a mistake and suffered consequences. Can we please let this go?

    2 years ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 7 No Jab !

Reply »