Opinion on the Replication Debate over Heyes and Saberian (2019)

David Roodman

No 227, I4R Discussion Paper Series from The Institute for Replication (I4R)

Abstract: Heyes and Saberian (2019) finds that U.S. immigration judges are less likely to grant asylum in cases heard on warmer days. Spamann (2022) corrects errors in that paper, enlarges the sample, proposes additional revisions, and strongly challenges the conclusion. In a rejoinder, Heyes and Saberian (2022) incorporates many of these comments, yet maintains that "results…are qualitatively un-changed." Experimenting with a new academic-literary form, I review the case as a judge might, to offer a take that is more independent and legible than the partisans can offer. I agree with Spamann (2022): the only viable explanation for the combined evidence is publication bias or other forms of result filtration.

Date: 2025
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-law
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/316399/1/I4R-DP227.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:zbw:i4rdps:227

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in I4R Discussion Paper Series from The Institute for Replication (I4R)
Bibliographic data for series maintained by ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics ().