Dude cut your xuckqueen outta the equation and just guzzle the blék cúhm yourself lól
This is the answer lol
Fake fixed effects = research misconduct
-
Dude cut your xuckqueen outta the equation and just guzzle the blék cúhm yourself lól
This is the answer lol
most people I know stopped finding " blék cúhm " jokes funny around the age of 14
it's telling that you repeat them thousands of times and think it is funny or interesting, upvoting yourself on a VPN all the while
-
As I am sure you know, 48 hours is not a time frame that any academic journal uses for anything. Giving this artificial deadline and then writing x ignores or doesn’t comment is a classic dishonest journalism move. You know this but don’t care. So you are dishonest. That is, you know the action you are doing is wrong but are doing it anyway. Your stated ambition is to get more attention, you’ve started down a path that has led you to be a dishonest person.
-
As I am sure you know, 48 hours is not a time frame that any academic journal uses for anything. Giving this artificial deadline and then writing x ignores or doesn’t comment is a classic dishonest journalism move. You know this but don’t care. So you are dishonest. That is, you know the action you are doing is wrong but are doing it anyway. Your stated ambition is to get more attention, you’ve started down a path that has led you to be a dishonest person.
Why can't they say "Yes we are looking into it" or "Okay we accept your complaint, we will launch an investigation" within four days? That is all an honest journal would need to say. This data issue isn't rocket science.
I will not wait weeks or months to be given the runaround
-
Even if Karl is a nutjob, he does have a valid point here.
The two authors have a long history of ethically questionable academic conducts. And in the specific case that Karl is bringing up, someone replicated their APSR paper using their own data and code, and find that the code is inconsistent with the reported specification for all the key results.
Specifically, the authors claimed to have controlled for FEs for their main results, but their codes suggest otherwise. If you run the regressions without FEs, you get exactly what they report in the tables (claiming they have included FEs), and running the regressions with FEs completely kills all the main results.
Regardless of whether this is intentional fraud or extreme sloppiness, the results are clearly wrong, and I see no reason why this paper should not be retracted. At the very least, APSR needs provide a serious response to Karl's inquiry (not necessarily within 48hrs of course).“ Why can't they say "Yes we are looking into it" or "Okay we accept your complaint, we will launch an investigation" within four days? ‘
Because you’re universally viewed as a misguided nutjob.