Econ Journal Watch comment leads to retraction

1 minute read

Published:

Econ Journal Watch (EJW) is one of my favorite journals, which publishes critical comments. I have published one myself.

While browsing past issues of EJW, I came across this comment, which documents that the 2017 Accounting Review article of Bird and Karolyi reports exactly identical numbers in all 11 tables as the 2015 working paper version, despite the fact that the authors switched the main specification and the robustness check between the working paper version and the published version. To this comment, Bird and Karolyi replied

we identified a potentially confusing description of our methodology, which was introduced during the final iteration of copy editing at The Accounting Review. This description conflicted with our correct and clear description of our methodology elsewhere in the published version of the paper.

Out of curiosity, I checked the original published article, and the publisher simply states

The authors acknowledged that the published version of their article misstates the use of CRSP-based index membership in the main specifications and Russell-based index membership data as a robustness test. […] However, the authors were unable to provide the original data and code requested by the publisher that reproduce the findings, as shown in the article’s tables, supporting this assertion. Accordingly, the article has been retracted.

I am glad to know that some journals do the right thing.