Influential Reinhart-Rogoff economics paper suffers spreadsheet error

April showers bring … database errors?

The other day, we wrote about two retractions in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, and another in the American Heart Journal, stemming from database errors.

Seems to be catching.

The Economist (among other outlets) this week is reporting about a similar nother database glitch — not, we’ll admit, a retraction — involving a landmark 2010 paper by a pair of highly influential economists. The controversial article, “Growth in a Time of Debt,” by Harvard scholars Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, argued that countries that took on debt in excess of 90% of their gross domestic product suffered sharp drops in economic growth. That evidence became grist for the austerity mill, including Paul Ryan.

Turns out, that conclusion was based to some extent on an Excel error.

Markets crash, and so does a paper explaining why

Markets undergo flash crashes — when stocks or bonds rapidly nosedive in value and then just as rapidly recover — every day. On May 6, 2010, for example, the entire equity market flamed out and then nearly recovered its value all in the matter of hours.

Economic papers can do the same, apparently. Take the recent withdrawal of an paper from the Journal of Financial Markets:

“[A]ll of Section 3 is wrong until proven otherwise”: Correction of paper on Democrats’ economic policy

Andrew Gelman

Andrew Gelman, a statistician at Columbia University and a friend of the blog, has corrected a 2008 paper in the blunt way you’d expect him to.

Here’s the notice in the Annals of Applied Statistics:

In the paper, “Should the Democrats move to the left on economic policy?” AOAS 2 (2), 536-549 (2008), by Andrew Gelman and Cexun Jeffrey Cai, because of a data coding error on one of the variables, all our analysis of social issues is incorrect. Thus, arguably, all of Section 3 is wrong until proven otherwise. We thank Yang Yang Hu for discovering this error and demonstrating its importance.

In a post called “Retraction watch” — hey now! — Gelman writes:

Lichtenthaler co-author Ernst retracts paper that didn’t include Lichtenthaler

A frequent co-author of Ulrich Lichtenthaler — the management professor who has retracted at least eight papers — has now withdrawn one of his own from Research Policy.

The original paper, “How to create commercial value from patents: The role of patent management,” by Holger Ernst and colleagues, went online on May 21, 2012. Here’s the notice:

One plagiarized economics paper that won’t need to be retracted

Late last year, we covered a paper wondering why there were so few retractions in business and economics journals. That post was on our minds as we read a fantastic piece of reporting by reporters at the Scarlet & Black, the Grinnell College student paper.

The story concerns Brian Swart, a Grinnell economics professor who “abruptly resigned in the middle of last semester,” reporters Peter Sullivan and Hayes Gardner note. As is unfortunately often the case, the university wouldn’t say why Swart was leaving. But Sullivan and Gardner didn’t leave it there. They talked to “professors from other institutions involved in the situation” and got the food of investigative reporters everywhere: Documents. Those interviews and documents showed that:

Duplicate analysis of Eastern Europe’s GDP retracted from two journals, one in US, one in Croatia

Two papers by researchers from China and Taiwan have been retracted from two journals, one based in the US, one in Croatia, after identical studies appeared in the June 2011 issues of both publications.

Eastern European Economics retracted their version first, and that journal’s editor discussed the case with the editors of Proceedings of Rijeka Faculty of Economics: Journal of Economics and Business, where the same paper was also published.

Eastern European Economics‘ retraction reads:

Why aren’t there more retractions in business and economics journals?

A new paper has catalogued retractions over the past few decades in business and economics journals — and hasn’t found very many.

In “Retraction, Dishonesty and Plagiarism: Analysis of a Crucial Issue for Academic Publishing, and the Inadequate Responses from Leading Journals in Economics and Management Disciplines,” which just went online in the Journal of Applied Economics and Business Research (JAEBR), Solmaz Filiz Karabag and Christian Berggren identified 31 retractions in business journals dating back to 2005, and just six in economics journals, dating back to 2009.

The numbers in business journals are even lower when you consider that