The subtitle of that article is Replications within the American Financial Assessment, and the authors are Jörg Ankel-Peters, Nathan Fiala, and Florian Neubauer. Right here is the summary:
Replication and constructive controversy are important for scientific progress. This paper opinions the impression of all replications revealed as feedback within the American Financial Assessment between 2010 and 2020. We examine the quotation charges of feedback and whether or not a remark impacts its unique paper’s quotation charges. We discover that almost all feedback are barely cited, and so they don’t have any impression on the unique papers’ subsequent citations. This discovering holds for unique papers for which the remark diagnoses a substantive downside. We conclude from these quotation patterns that replications don’t replace the economics literature. In an internet opinion survey, we elicited viewpoints of each remark authors and unique authors and discover that generally, there is no such thing as a consensus relating to the replication’s success and to what extent the unique paper’s contribution sustains. This resonates with the traditional knowledge that robustness and replicability are laborious to outline in economics.
Should you see a vital remark within the AER, the percentages that it’s appropriate, and considerably so, are actually fairly excessive, given the obstacles to getting in. But nobody appears to care. (Observe that the dearth of caring is linked to the Bayesian inference that the revealed vital feedback seemingly are appropriate.) That is to me one of many extra vital indictments of the economics professions as we all know it right this moment. And it’s not apparent how we would change this state of affairs.
Right here is the argument in tweet storm type.