Reflections on a critique

Dale Cloninger () and Roberto Marchesini

Applied Economics Letters, 2009, vol. 16, issue 17, 1709-1711

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.

Date: 2009
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.informaworld.com/openurl?genre=article& ... 40C6AD35DC6213A474B5 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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:taf:apeclt:v:16:y:2009:i:17:p:1709-1711

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/RAEL20

DOI: 10.1080/13504850701604177

Access Statistics for this article

Applied Economics Letters is currently edited by Anita Phillips

More articles in Applied Economics Letters from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().