^ The funny thing is that WM got rejected by all the other guys.
"Will the real specification please stand up?" discredits accounting paper
-
This is a bigger deal than the AER paper because it is possible the authors of the AER paper did not know about the previous paper, especially since it was published in a different literature.
This is one of the first instances on EJMR where it looks like fraud undoubtedly took place. The results are there with the original methodology, but not the updated methodology. The writing was changed without the numbers being changed. This is a big deal. It looks like this paper should be retracted.
Interesting! This seems the biggest scandal within the last 10 years in EJR. The AER scandal is nothing compared to this since it had to do with a single paper. In this case, there are several (more or less 6 ?) top journal pubs involved.
-
I dont think that TAR will retract the paper so fast. But i agree that if TAR does it, RFS should also do it.
I've just read the response of AB and SK to AY. brutally week and so pathetic. Can the father help? When Accounting Review retract AB and SK's paper, RFS should retract their paper as well.
-
There is no substantial response to the placebo test. The footnote shows their weak and incorrect defense. The only response seems to be that all papers have replicated our findings, however wrong they are. These are hustlers who want a line on their cv for a publication. Scholarship be damned.
-
The whole accounting profession is corrupt. What is the big deal? He was fast and loose, and did many times, and got caught. By going after him, do accountants think they are clean? Everyone knows publishing in jar and jae is an inside game. If you really care about the profession, have the decency to post something about that as well.
Wow. What a stink. I'm going to circulate the paper and response in my network.
-
Why? I am part of the gang so why I will say anything
The whole accounting profession is corrupt. What is the big deal? He was fast and loose, and did many times, and got caught. By going after him, do accountants think they are clean? Everyone knows publishing in jar and jae is an inside game. If you really care about the profession, have the decency to post something about that as well.
Wow. What a stink. I'm going to circulate the paper and response in my network.
-
Well this looks like an easy issue to resolve: All AB and SK have to do is share their data and code as has been requested. If their defense is correct, this issue will be resolved in 10 minutes. They don't even have to share data and code publicly, simply with the journal and Young would be fine.
If they keep refusing to share, absent any objective reason (there's no proprietary data involved here), it looks strongly as if Young is correct, and that they did this on purpose.
I personally know and like SK and AB - but this is a matter of professional conduct. If you guys screwed up, own up to it. You are good researchers and nice people with plenty of additional papers. Your career will recover.
-
Do you really think they will recover? It is no secret that the most important thing in academia is your reputation. Their reputations will be shot and will take a very long time to recover. It is also not good because the are junior with no big contributions yet.