Peter Swan writes:
The problem you allude to in the above reference and in your other papers on ethics is a broad and serious one. I and my students have attempted to replicate a number of top articles in the major finance journals. Either they cannot be replicated due to missing data or what might appear to be relatively minor improvements in methodology may either remove or sometimes reverse the findings. Almost invariably, the journal is reluctant publish a comment. Due to the introduction of a new journal, Critical Finance Review, by Ivo Welsh, http://cfr.ivo-welch.info/, that insists on the provision of data/code and encourages the original authors to further comment, this poor outlook is improving in the finance discipline.
See for example: Gavin S. Smith and Peter L. Swan, Do concentrated institutional investors really reduce executive compensation whilst raising incentives?. Code, CFR 3-1, 49-83.
and the response:
Jay C. Hartzell and Laura T. Starks, Institutional Investors and Executive Compensation Redux: A Comment on “Do Concentrated Institutional Investors Really Reduce Executive Compensation Whilst Raising Incentives”, CFR 3-1, 85-97.
The model of criticism and rebuttal is fine, but it’s disturbing that the people criticized never seem to back down and say they were wrong. I don’t think people should always admit they’re wrong, because sometimes they’re not. But everybody makes mistakes, while the rate of admission of mistakes seems suspiciously low!