Lol, you fabricate your results too?
Stop bullying. Let the two young men do their work.
"Will the real specification please stand up?" discredits accounting paper
-
Do you mean fabricate more results in laptops that suddenly die when scrutinized?
Oh these scholars don’t know how to work with google drive and drop box - yeah right,
There is a bridge we would like to sell to you...Stop bullying. Let the two young men do their work.
-
This whole controversy could be over in a day, literally, if the authors decide to post the replication kit and if the replication kit does what they say it does. They could eliminate people's suspicions, effectively recover their retracted and semi-retracted articles, and send a big F-U to their haters and critics. All in the few minutes of time it takes to upload it to a website and write a brief blurb explaining what it is and how to use it to replicate their findings.
I wonder why they're choosing not to post it?
-
This whole controversy could be over in a day, literally, if the authors decide to post the replication kit and if the replication kit does what they say it does. They could eliminate people's suspicions, effectively recover their retracted and semi-retracted articles, and send a big F-U to their haters and critics. All in the few minutes of time it takes to upload it to a website and write a brief blurb explaining what it is and how to use it to replicate their findings.
I wonder why they're choosing not to post it?world's fault for not trusting people
-
This whole controversy could be over in a day, literally, if the authors decide to post the replication kit and if the replication kit does what they say it does. They could eliminate people's suspicions, effectively recover their retracted and semi-retracted articles, and send a big F-U to their haters and critics. All in the few minutes of time it takes to upload it to a website and write a brief blurb explaining what it is and how to use it to replicate their findings.
I wonder why they're choosing not to post it?Because the replication kit can't withstand any scrutiny. Bird and Karolyi actually did what you suggested to some extent. They posted a note to SSRN with a few lines of Stata code and argued that if you added their lines to AY's code, their TAR results were replicable with both methods.
As it turned out, Bird and Karolyi either forgot how sort works in Stata, or never knew how it worked. They wanted to sort from big-to-small by group, and then compare the smallest in group 1 to the biggest in group 2.
But they actually sorted from small-to-big by group, so their R"D"D compared the biggest in group 1 to the smallest in group 2. To make that more concrete, they were basically comparing a gigantic company like Exxon to some tiny microcap you've never heard of and calling it an RDD.
I wish I was making that up. They took down the note and replaced it with a version that had no code after EJMR called them out for their amazingly bad coding "skills." Now you know why it's easier for Stephen to get 12 references than to do what you said.
-
This whole controversy could be over in a day, literally, if the authors decide to post the replication kit and if the replication kit does what they say it does. They could eliminate people's suspicions, effectively recover their retracted and semi-retracted articles, and send a big F-U to their haters and critics. All in the few minutes of time it takes to upload it to a website and write a brief blurb explaining what it is and how to use it to replicate their findings.
I wonder why they're choosing not to post it?Because the replication kit can't withstand any scrutiny. Bird and Karolyi actually did what you suggested to some extent. They posted a note to SSRN with a few lines of Stata code and argued that if you added their lines to AY's code, their TAR results were replicable with both methods.
As it turned out, Bird and Karolyi either forgot how sort works in Stata, or never knew how it worked. They wanted to sort from big-to-small by group, and then compare the smallest in group 1 to the biggest in group 2.
But they actually sorted from small-to-big by group, so their R"D"D compared the biggest in group 1 to the smallest in group 2. To make that more concrete, they were basically comparing a gigantic company like Exxon to some tiny microcap you've never heard of and calling it an RDD.
I wish I was making that up. They took down the note and replaced it with a version that had no code after EJMR called them out for their amazingly bad coding "skills." Now you know why it's easier for Stephen to get 12 references than to do what you said.That's f'd up
-
This whole controversy could be over in a day, literally, if the authors decide to post the replication kit and if the replication kit does what they say it does. They could eliminate people's suspicions, effectively recover their retracted and semi-retracted articles, and send a big F-U to their haters and critics. All in the few minutes of time it takes to upload it to a website and write a brief blurb explaining what it is and how to use it to replicate their findings.
I wonder why they're choosing not to post it?Because the replication kit can't withstand any scrutiny. Bird and Karolyi actually did what you suggested to some extent. They posted a note to SSRN with a few lines of Stata code and argued that if you added their lines to AY's code, their TAR results were replicable with both methods.
As it turned out, Bird and Karolyi either forgot how sort works in Stata, or never knew how it worked. They wanted to sort from big-to-small by group, and then compare the smallest in group 1 to the biggest in group 2.
But they actually sorted from small-to-big by group, so their R"D"D compared the biggest in group 1 to the smallest in group 2. To make that more concrete, they were basically comparing a gigantic company like Exxon to some tiny microcap you've never heard of and calling it an RDD.
I wish I was making that up. They took down the note and replaced it with a version that had no code after EJMR called them out for their amazingly bad coding "skills." Now you know why it's easier for Stephen to get 12 references than to do what you said.Is this sorting mistake contained in the RFS paper?
-
Unless they cheated in every paper , cheating is a serial addiction. Not saying they did, just saying it’s possible.
On another hand, cheating is an epidemic. They just got caught because of a whistleblowerthese are white dudes, they don't cheat
Where is your money?
-
"Careless mistakes" doesn't explain why they never posted their data and code, or why they finally went with an excuse (dog ate my data) that most people are too embarrassed to use beyond the third grade. "Cheating" explains both of these.
Can’t tell what was going on in their minds, but they had so many papers and thus little incentive to cheat, so it was probably careless mistakes.
-
White men definitely cheat. That's why all 12 of his references are white men. Doesn't anyone see a problem with this? This is a classic example of dominant white men coming to his support, so they can keep their privileged positions and oppress others. His supporters should be shunned too.
-
White men can’t jump
White men definitely cheat. That's why all 12 of his references are white men. Doesn't anyone see a problem with this? This is a classic example of dominant white men coming to his support, so they can keep their privileged positions and oppress others. His supporters should be shunned too.