SK will get tenure at CMU. CMU as a deadwood zoo needs him to publish.They should hire LC from HKU, who publishes more than SK and is not got caught yet.
Do you mean CL? He could get any offer if he wants.
What does CL do to you to buy your loyalty and wash your brain?
what's funny is this guy still has multiple R&Rs, and referees and editors are still letting his papers go through. Corrupted profession!
I'm a junior faculty and I find this extremely discouraging and frustrating. People like him can generate multiple papers with fake results and never get punished. The tenure bar at universities goes up because such fraudulent publishing strategies become increasingly more popular.
They posted it a year (?) ago. Have you read it? Do you buy their dog-ate-my-homework excuse?
Does this response help?
https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/apmb/AAA%20Retraction%20Response.pdf
They are getting paid 200k+ as researchers. Come on, that excuse is unacceptable.
They posted it a year (?) ago. Have you read it? Do you buy their dog-ate-my-homework excuse?
Does this response help?
https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/apmb/AAA%20Retraction%20Response.pdf
I admit I followed this case only superficially, and I found the whole "replication kit" and "my notebook died" rather unconvincing. But, in this letter - which I have not read until today - they claim the "replication kit" is pretty much the original sample and programs fully recreated. And the results - apparently vetted by people outside of CMU - are nearly identical to those published in the original article. Which I presume includes that table containing the results that were supposed to lose significance based on the EJW article by Alex Young.
If that were the case, and the fully-replicated results are indeed the same: while I see that SK+AB might have completely brushed off Young (which they should not have done), where is the fraud?
If that were the case, they could have just released the kit, right?
They posted it a year (?) ago. Have you read it? Do you buy their dog-ate-my-homework excuse?Does this response help?
https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/apmb/AAA%20Retraction%20Response.pdf
I admit I followed this case only superficially, and I found the whole "replication kit" and "my notebook died" rather unconvincing. But, in this letter - which I have not read until today - they claim the "replication kit" is pretty much the original sample and programs fully recreated. And the results - apparently vetted by people outside of CMU - are nearly identical to those published in the original article. Which I presume includes that table containing the results that were supposed to lose significance based on the EJW article by Alex Young.
If that were the case, and the fully-replicated results are indeed the same: while I see that SK+AB might have completely brushed off Young (which they should not have done), where is the fraud?
If that were the case, you think the editor is dumb to retract their paper?
If that were the case, they could have just released the kit, right?
They posted it a year (?) ago. Have you read it? Do you buy their dog-ate-my-homework excuse?Does this response help?
https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/apmb/AAA%20Retraction%20Response.pdf
I admit I followed this case only superficially, and I found the whole "replication kit" and "my notebook died" rather unconvincing. But, in this letter - which I have not read until today - they claim the "replication kit" is pretty much the original sample and programs fully recreated. And the results - apparently vetted by people outside of CMU - are nearly identical to those published in the original article. Which I presume includes that table containing the results that were supposed to lose significance based on the EJW article by Alex Young.
If that were the case, and the fully-replicated results are indeed the same: while I see that SK+AB might have completely brushed off Young (which they should not have done), where is the fraud?
As 275c mentioned, Andrew Bird and Stephen Karolyi never released their so-called "replication kit," which makes their claims worthless.
Also, at some point after EJW article, SK+AB posted a response to SSRN where they argued that Young made a coding error and that if you fixed it, you could use his data and programs to replicate the SK+AB results.
EJMR found out that SK+AB's "fix" sorted the obs in the wrong order. Yes, you read that right. They actually forgot that Stata sorts in ascending order by default. Shortly after the EJMR posts were made, SK+AB revised their SSRN response by deleting all of their faulty code and tables.
See for yourself, https://www.filedropper.com/byaccountingresponseorig
I admit I followed this case only superficially, and I found the whole "replication kit" and "my notebook died" rather unconvincing. But, in this letter - which I have not read until today - they claim the "replication kit" is pretty much the original sample and programs fully recreated. And the results - apparently vetted by people outside of CMU - are nearly identical to those published in the original article. Which I presume includes that table containing the results that were supposed to lose significance based on the EJW article by Alex Young.
If that were the case, and the fully-replicated results are indeed the same: while I see that SK+AB might have completely brushed off Young (which they should not have done), where is the fraud?