Entire disciplines are in the process of being destroyed by this sort of thing. Still, well done to you for making sure everyone knows (disclosure: previous employment in the legal end of corporate finance).
Plenty of reasons to care very deeply, but you've made that caring a bit more comprehensible.
The response you received to your EJMR comment, encapsulates the effect of the meta-problem of dataset "adjustments" throughout every type of research.
Credentials do not obviate naked self-interest. On the contrary, they enhance the pursuit of wealth and influence; it is their raison d'etre.
The fashionable assumption that those bestowing credentials concurrently bestow probity upon the recipient, is risible.
I likely missed it, but, while I understand the nature of the fraud and the implications on subsequent papers etc., I don’t understand what exactly it was that BBW claim to have proved or demonstrated that now needs to be scrapped. Is there a simple summary of what it was that everyone got excited about in their original paper? Did they purport to show something about bond returns that is not true?
You should elaborate on that. It sounds like a potential risk of the so-called “meta analysis” referred to by one of the objectors to Coleman _______ on The Free Press recent piece on his TED talk kerfuffle.
I am appalled at this. First, that it was done. Second if Georgetown tries to sweep this under the rug every donor should pull funding. I have to think though, three white guys doing this? How soon would they be fired?
Entire disciplines are in the process of being destroyed by this sort of thing. Still, well done to you for making sure everyone knows (disclosure: previous employment in the legal end of corporate finance).
“My job is to make you care, by explaining this scandal in a digestible way.”
Performance review: Fulfills all expectations. Goes above and beyond.
Plenty of reasons to care very deeply, but you've made that caring a bit more comprehensible.
The response you received to your EJMR comment, encapsulates the effect of the meta-problem of dataset "adjustments" throughout every type of research.
Credentials do not obviate naked self-interest. On the contrary, they enhance the pursuit of wealth and influence; it is their raison d'etre.
The fashionable assumption that those bestowing credentials concurrently bestow probity upon the recipient, is risible.
Let us all fake some results to get publications and then tenure. Let's worry about being caught later.
I likely missed it, but, while I understand the nature of the fraud and the implications on subsequent papers etc., I don’t understand what exactly it was that BBW claim to have proved or demonstrated that now needs to be scrapped. Is there a simple summary of what it was that everyone got excited about in their original paper? Did they purport to show something about bond returns that is not true?
> I don’t understand what exactly it was that BBW claim to have proved
Whether or not downside risk is a strong predictor of future bond returns. It isn't!
Well done Chris. Thank you for all your work.
Nicely done!
The studies in support of so-called protected bikeways suffer from similar fraud.
You should elaborate on that. It sounds like a potential risk of the so-called “meta analysis” referred to by one of the objectors to Coleman _______ on The Free Press recent piece on his TED talk kerfuffle.
Coleman Hughes.
Working on it, but it's been time consuming https://principledbicycling.substack.com/
I am appalled at this. First, that it was done. Second if Georgetown tries to sweep this under the rug every donor should pull funding. I have to think though, three white guys doing this? How soon would they be fired?
Bravo!