Reflections on a critique

Critiques of scholarly research contain their own flaws; sometimes even more so than the work they are critiquing. Such is the case of the critique of our research authored by John Donohue and Jason Wolfers. Published in the Stanford Law Review their paper avoided the blind peer review process and c...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Applied economics letters 2009-11, Vol.16 (17), p.1709-1711
Main Authors: Cloninger, Dale O., Marchesini, Roberto
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Criminology
Economic analysis
Economics
Peer review
Studies
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c505t-baa2224b57f456332e2e9f4c5cdbbcec938ef5f2c087a501e25aeb54105e8a633
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c505t-baa2224b57f456332e2e9f4c5cdbbcec938ef5f2c087a501e25aeb54105e8a633
container_end_page 1711
container_issue 17
container_start_page 1709
container_title Applied economics letters
container_volume 16
creator Cloninger, Dale O.
Marchesini, Roberto
description Critiques of scholarly research contain their own flaws; sometimes even more so than the work they are critiquing. Such is the case of the critique of our research authored by John Donohue and Jason Wolfers. Published in the Stanford Law Review their paper avoided the blind peer review process and consequently contains elements that undoubtedly would not have survived peer review. That possibility aside, we show that their alternative measures of criminal activity have no theoretical basis nor any empirical precedent within the modified portfolio approach employed in our research. Putting even that aside, we show that their empirical results are not inconsistent with ours. Thus, upon reflection, we see no justification to amend, modify or otherwise alter our methods or results.
doi_str_mv 10.1080/13504850701604177
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1080_13504850701604177</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1900123131</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c505t-baa2224b57f456332e2e9f4c5cdbbcec938ef5f2c087a501e25aeb54105e8a633</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFUE1LAzEQXUTBWv0BvRUP3lZnsslmF7yI-AUVQfQcsmmCW7abmqRq_71TKx4sIiTzlffeTCbLRginCBWcYSGAVwIkYAkcpdzJBsjLMuesxl2K6T0nAO5nBzHOAKCs6nKQjR6t66xJre_j2PdjPTahTe3r0h5me0530R59-2H2fH31dHmbTx5u7i4vJrkRIFLeaM0Y442QjouyKJhltnbcCDNtGmNNXVTWCccMVFILQMuEto3gCMJWmgjD7GSjuwie2sak5m00tut0b_0yqkIyqOgQ8PgXcOaXoafZFNaS81IIJBBuQCb4GIN1ahHauQ4rhaDWm1JbmyLO_YYT7MKaH0LSTlPeJfWmCo0lmRVdBlCTa9c1SWbxFVANJaJ6SXPSkxu9tnc-zPW7D92U5FadDy7o3rRxewqVPhIxz_9lFn9_5BNMvJfN</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>197446551</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Reflections on a critique</title><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><source>Business Source Ultimate</source><source>EBSCOhost Econlit with Full Text</source><source>Taylor and Francis Social Sciences and Humanities Collection</source><creator>Cloninger, Dale O. ; Marchesini, Roberto</creator><creatorcontrib>Cloninger, Dale O. ; Marchesini, Roberto</creatorcontrib><description>Critiques of scholarly research contain their own flaws; sometimes even more so than the work they are critiquing. Such is the case of the critique of our research authored by John Donohue and Jason Wolfers. Published in the Stanford Law Review their paper avoided the blind peer review process and consequently contains elements that undoubtedly would not have survived peer review. That possibility aside, we show that their alternative measures of criminal activity have no theoretical basis nor any empirical precedent within the modified portfolio approach employed in our research. Putting even that aside, we show that their empirical results are not inconsistent with ours. Thus, upon reflection, we see no justification to amend, modify or otherwise alter our methods or results.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1350-4851</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1466-4291</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/13504850701604177</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Taylor &amp; Francis</publisher><subject>Criminology ; Economic analysis ; Economics ; Peer review ; Studies</subject><ispartof>Applied economics letters, 2009-11, Vol.16 (17), p.1709-1711</ispartof><rights>Copyright Taylor &amp; Francis Group, LLC 2009</rights><rights>Copyright Taylor &amp; Francis Group Nov 2009</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c505t-baa2224b57f456332e2e9f4c5cdbbcec938ef5f2c087a501e25aeb54105e8a633</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c505t-baa2224b57f456332e2e9f4c5cdbbcec938ef5f2c087a501e25aeb54105e8a633</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,33200,33201</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://econpapers.repec.org/article/tafapeclt/v_3a16_3ay_3a2009_3ai_3a17_3ap_3a1709-1711.htm$$DView record in RePEc$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cloninger, Dale O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marchesini, Roberto</creatorcontrib><title>Reflections on a critique</title><title>Applied economics letters</title><description>Critiques of scholarly research contain their own flaws; sometimes even more so than the work they are critiquing. Such is the case of the critique of our research authored by John Donohue and Jason Wolfers. Published in the Stanford Law Review their paper avoided the blind peer review process and consequently contains elements that undoubtedly would not have survived peer review. That possibility aside, we show that their alternative measures of criminal activity have no theoretical basis nor any empirical precedent within the modified portfolio approach employed in our research. Putting even that aside, we show that their empirical results are not inconsistent with ours. Thus, upon reflection, we see no justification to amend, modify or otherwise alter our methods or results.</description><subject>Criminology</subject><subject>Economic analysis</subject><subject>Economics</subject><subject>Peer review</subject><subject>Studies</subject><issn>1350-4851</issn><issn>1466-4291</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFUE1LAzEQXUTBWv0BvRUP3lZnsslmF7yI-AUVQfQcsmmCW7abmqRq_71TKx4sIiTzlffeTCbLRginCBWcYSGAVwIkYAkcpdzJBsjLMuesxl2K6T0nAO5nBzHOAKCs6nKQjR6t66xJre_j2PdjPTahTe3r0h5me0530R59-2H2fH31dHmbTx5u7i4vJrkRIFLeaM0Y442QjouyKJhltnbcCDNtGmNNXVTWCccMVFILQMuEto3gCMJWmgjD7GSjuwie2sak5m00tut0b_0yqkIyqOgQ8PgXcOaXoafZFNaS81IIJBBuQCb4GIN1ahHauQ4rhaDWm1JbmyLO_YYT7MKaH0LSTlPeJfWmCo0lmRVdBlCTa9c1SWbxFVANJaJ6SXPSkxu9tnc-zPW7D92U5FadDy7o3rRxewqVPhIxz_9lFn9_5BNMvJfN</recordid><startdate>20091101</startdate><enddate>20091101</enddate><creator>Cloninger, Dale O.</creator><creator>Marchesini, Roberto</creator><general>Taylor &amp; Francis</general><general>Taylor and Francis Journals</general><general>Taylor &amp; Francis LLC</general><scope>DKI</scope><scope>X2L</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20091101</creationdate><title>Reflections on a critique</title><author>Cloninger, Dale O. ; Marchesini, Roberto</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c505t-baa2224b57f456332e2e9f4c5cdbbcec938ef5f2c087a501e25aeb54105e8a633</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Criminology</topic><topic>Economic analysis</topic><topic>Economics</topic><topic>Peer review</topic><topic>Studies</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cloninger, Dale O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marchesini, Roberto</creatorcontrib><collection>RePEc IDEAS</collection><collection>RePEc</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>Applied economics letters</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cloninger, Dale O.</au><au>Marchesini, Roberto</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Reflections on a critique</atitle><jtitle>Applied economics letters</jtitle><date>2009-11-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>17</issue><spage>1709</spage><epage>1711</epage><pages>1709-1711</pages><issn>1350-4851</issn><eissn>1466-4291</eissn><abstract>Critiques of scholarly research contain their own flaws; sometimes even more so than the work they are critiquing. Such is the case of the critique of our research authored by John Donohue and Jason Wolfers. Published in the Stanford Law Review their paper avoided the blind peer review process and consequently contains elements that undoubtedly would not have survived peer review. That possibility aside, we show that their alternative measures of criminal activity have no theoretical basis nor any empirical precedent within the modified portfolio approach employed in our research. Putting even that aside, we show that their empirical results are not inconsistent with ours. Thus, upon reflection, we see no justification to amend, modify or otherwise alter our methods or results.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Taylor &amp; Francis</pub><doi>10.1080/13504850701604177</doi><tpages>3</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1350-4851
ispartof Applied economics letters, 2009-11, Vol.16 (17), p.1709-1711
issn 1350-4851
1466-4291
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1080_13504850701604177
source International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); Business Source Ultimate; EBSCOhost Econlit with Full Text; Taylor and Francis Social Sciences and Humanities Collection
subjects Criminology
Economic analysis
Economics
Peer review
Studies
title Reflections on a critique
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T12%3A36%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Reflections%20on%20a%20critique&rft.jtitle=Applied%20economics%20letters&rft.au=Cloninger,%20Dale%20O.&rft.date=2009-11-01&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=17&rft.spage=1709&rft.epage=1711&rft.pages=1709-1711&rft.issn=1350-4851&rft.eissn=1466-4291&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/13504850701604177&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1900123131%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c505t-baa2224b57f456332e2e9f4c5cdbbcec938ef5f2c087a501e25aeb54105e8a633%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=197446551&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true