🔥The 9th Round of Easy Loan, Earn $40 Reward is in progress❗️ ⏰ Promotion Period: January 15th - Feburary 15th, 2025 👉 Register now and check more details at gate.io/campaigns/358

We have no insights or knowledge about the practice of withdrawing author names. This is new to us. Some journals are also confused and trying to gather information.

COPE offers chart on what to do when researchers ask their names to be withdrawn: the first challenge is to determine if there is reasons to suspect misconduct... who determines this and how?

#GDRI_rep Update 4: We have a new report. We reproduced the paper entitled "Parent–teacher meetings and student outcomes" by Islam @ European Economic Review. See below for links to report and author's response.

Oof. Replication of "Parent-teacher meetings" (EER 2019). "40 schools were selected randomly for the treatment. The remaining 36 schools served as the control group." The map of treatment and control schools: 1/

In a new I4R report we replicate Islam (2019). Main issue: the randomized controlled trial was not randomized. And many other things on top of that. See full report for details. (w/ Niklas Jakobsson, Gunther Bensch, Bonander, Holzmeister & Brodeur)

New report just dropped. Time for a thread. You can find the replication report and the author's response in the linked thread (in the second tweet).

Andreas Ortmann Thanks! I'm sure I missed some key points. I did it rather quickly over my morning coffee :)

#GDRI_rep Update 5: We have a new report. We reproduced the paper entitled "Partisan Effects of Information Campaigns in Competitive Authoritarian Elections: Evidence from Bangladesh" by Ahmed, Hodler and Islam published at The Economic Journal. See below for links to report and responses.

A response to a re-response to a response to a report.

This gem is hidden in the response to the response. ”…within a few hours and under extreme time pressure 11,843 households were visited and 22,686 respondents interviewed (two spouses in each household).” Indeed hard to believe 🫠

🚨 New Special Issue Alert! 🚨 This special issue of Economic Inquiry on reproducibility & replicability in economics is co-edited by Farasat Bokhari, Michalis Drouvelis and our chair, Abel Brodeur. This is Part I, focusing on methodological advances and key challenges. 🧵👇

Talouskasvu on hyvinvoinnin perusta

"No reason" is the most common reason for retracting a paper in economics. Sounds like a "no problem" to me.

#GDRI_rep Update 6: Some of the authors have responded to our report on "Raising Health Awareness in Rural Communities" The Review of Economics and Statistics (REStat). Authors received our report Feb 6. A short 🧵

We will publicly release these reports shortly. We have requested several replication packages over the past months. Unfortunately, we have not yet managed to get a single new replication package as of today (excluding updated packages for one article at the request of editors)

#GDRI_rep Update 7: Retraction! Our comment of "Parent–teacher meetings and student outcomes: Evidence from a developing country" has led to the paper being retracted. Our comment is accepted as is. Short 🧵

Half of children died. A thread. 🧵

Investigative journalists found that the Finnish finance ministry selectively cited our study (with Sebastian [email protected]) on the growth effects of corporate tax cuts to back the ministry's claim that planned tax cuts will largely pay for themselves. Our main result is inconsistent with this

It wasn't me this week, but I have encountered the same problem many times. I wonder, do not these people know how the internet works?