SK and AB are very productive, so maybe these two papers are just careless omissions in the editing process?
"Will the real specification please stand up?" discredits accounting paper
-
As summarized below, it wasn't careless omissions in the editing process at two separate journals. There are only two possibilities to explain what happened.
The first is what Stephen Karolyi and Andrew Bird want you to believe, which is that they are victims of bad luck. Right before they were going to send TAR all the exculpatory data and code, their laptop failed, and nothing was ever backed up.
The second is that they're a pair of fraudsters who fabricated results in two papers.
You decide which possibility you find more believable.
Same identical wording change in two papers.
Numbers didn’t change.
See tar retraction and RFS “correction.”
Unbelievable laptop failure.
Replication kit never made public.
Inexplicable rumor of both on job market after sketchy internal investigation clears them.
Sounds totally credible.I might be an outlier on this forum. But I tend to believe they just made a mistake.
-
Did they post data and code for the other finance paper? If they did, I tend to give them some benefit of doubt.
As summarized below, it wasn't careless omissions in the editing process at two separate journals. There are only two possibilities to explain what happened.
The first is what Stephen Karolyi and Andrew Bird want you to believe, which is that they are victims of bad luck. Right before they were going to send TAR all the exculpatory data and code, their laptop failed, and nothing was ever backed up.
The second is that they're a pair of fraudsters who fabricated results in two papers.
You decide which possibility you find more believable.Same identical wording change in two papers.
Numbers didn’t change.
See tar retraction and RFS “correction.”
Unbelievable laptop failure.
Replication kit never made public.
Inexplicable rumor of both on job market after sketchy internal investigation clears them.
Sounds totally credible.I might be an outlier on this forum. But I tend to believe they just made a mistake.
-
Did they post data and code for the other finance paper? If they did, I tend to give them some benefit of doubt.
They did not post anything for the finance paper. They have never even admitted that the finance paper has the same "Same identical wording change in two papers, Numbers didn’t change" BS as the retracted accounting paper.
They originally posted a few code lines on SSRN for the accounting paper. But they forgot how Stata sorts by default, so instead of comparing firms in between the two Russell indexes, their code compared firms at opposite ends of the indexes.
https://www.filedropper.com/byaccountingresponseorig
When this was pointed out on EJMR, they deleted the code from SSRN.
-
We all need to turn the page, indeed. Everyone learned many lessons: RFS is corrupt. Nepotism is rampant in our profession. Integrity and honesty have not value in our profession anymore. Publish by any means or perish!!!
We all need to turn the page. Everyone learned a lesson. They paid for their mistake and will grow to be stronger researchers.
-
We all need to turn the page. Everyone learned a lesson. They paid for their mistake and will grow to be stronger researchers.
Meanwhile, some of us in the same corp gov/accounting subfield double-check every detail of our data queries, our data cleaning, and our code until the cows come home to be certain everything is accurate, and enthusiastically share data and code with anyone interested in our work enough to ask for it. We still manage to publish (occasionally in A journals) but could never dream of getting hired at a top 20. You're saying WE are the ones who need to learn a lesson?
-
I will have to say that I felt very bad about that. I wanted to say hi to him but didn’t want to be judged.
what is new?
Literally nobody wanted to talk to AB at FARS, it was both hilarious and kind of sad -- he was just standing around receptions/coffee breaks by himself every time I saw him.