‘The methodology does not generate the results’: Journal corrects accounting study with flawed methods

What a difference a Yi,t=β0+β1IOˆi,t+β2Xi,t+ωt+εi,t.Yi,t=β0+β1IO^i,t+β2Xi,t+ωt+εi,t. makes.

The authors of a 2016 paper on institutional investing have corrected their article — to include the equation above — in the wake of persistent questions about their methodology. The move follows the protracted retraction earlier this year of a similar article in The Accounting Review by the duo, Andrew Bird and Stephen Karolyi, of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, for related problems.

The bottom line, it seems, is that Bird and Karolyi appear to be unable adequately to explain their research methods in ways that stand up to scrutiny. 

The correction involves a paper published in The Review of Financial Studies, from Oxford University Press, titled “Do institutional investors demand public disclosure. According to the statement (the meat of which is behind a paywall): 

Continue reading ‘The methodology does not generate the results’: Journal corrects accounting study with flawed methods

Former accounting prof adds his 33rd retraction

James Hunton
James Hunton

Former accounting professor James Hunton has added a 33rd retraction to his total, solidifying his position at #10 on our leaderboard.

Hunton’s official total is 33.5, since one journal retracted only one section of a paper, making it a “partial” retraction. Most of those retractions came last year, the fallout from an investigation at Bentley University which concluded that the accounting researcher had committed misconduct. Hunton resigned from the university in 2012 after his first retraction, citing family matters.

After the Bentley University investigation, the journal Contemporary Accounting Research conducted its own review of the paper, and found “no credible evidence exists to support the validity of the data in the study,” according to the retraction note for “Decision Aid Reliance: A Longitudinal Field Study Involving Professional Buy-Side Financial Analysts.”

Here’s the entire retraction note:

Continue reading Former accounting prof adds his 33rd retraction

Former accounting prof adds his 32nd retraction

james-hunton
James Hunton

Another retraction makes 32.5 for former accounting professor James E. Hunton, and earns him the #10 slot on our leaderboard.

Though he resigned from his position at Bentley University in 2012, the story didn’t end there: In 2014, a university investigation found he’d committed misconduct in two papers. The, in June 2015, he notched 25 retractions all at once.

The newly retracted paper, “Effects of Anonymous Whistle- Blowing and Perceived Reputation Threats on Investigations of Whistle-Blowing Allegations by Audit Committee Members,” published in the Journal of Management Studies, suggests that, for public corporations, an anonymous whistleblower might not be as effective as an alert from a known source. The publisher Wiley put out a press release for the paper in 2010, and it succeeded in garnering some coverage.

Whether its conclusion remains valid is unclear, as Hunton didn’t provide evidence to support the validity of the data. The note explains:

Continue reading Former accounting prof adds his 32nd retraction

Second retraction appears for former accounting professor James Hunton

James Hunton, via Bentley University
James Hunton, via Bentley University

It took five months, but in December a second retraction popped up for disgraced accounting professor James E. Hunton.

Hunton resigned his teaching post at Bentley University in December of 2012. An extensive investigation by Bentley showed that not only was the data in two papers falsified. Hunton also lied about non-existent confidentiality agreements and tried to destroy evidence of his lies by unsuccessfully wiping his laptop and changing metadata on files.

The first paper Hunton was accused of faking, ironically about accounting fraud, was retracted in 2012.

Here’s the notice for “The relationship between perceived tone at the top and earnings quality”: Continue reading Second retraction appears for former accounting professor James Hunton

“Embarrassing and regrettable incident of faulty memory” leads to retraction

aaaIs there any accounting for plagiarism?

A set of educational materials for accounting classes has been retracted for plagiarizing work published a decade earlier.

We spoke to the author of the retracted work, who explained that over the course of ten years of revising his classroom material, he lost track of what was original, and what was written by him or his fellow University of Saskatchewan professors.

Here’s the notice for “Ramm Wholesale: Reviewing Audit Work”: Continue reading “Embarrassing and regrettable incident of faulty memory” leads to retraction

Accounting professor faked data for two studies, destroyed evidence: University report

James Hunton, via Bentley University
James Hunton, via Bentley University

The Bentley University accounting professor whose retraction we first reported on in November 2012 fabricated the data behind two papers, a university investigation has concluded.

James E. Hunton, who resigned in December 2012: Continue reading Accounting professor faked data for two studies, destroyed evidence: University report

Accounting professor resigns following retraction

James Hunton, via Bentley University
James Hunton, via Bentley University

An accounting professor at a Boston-area college has resigned a month after publishing a retraction that has sparked extensive discussion on Retraction Watch.

The Boston Globe reported late last week that James E. Hunton will leave Bentley University on December 31, with a spokesperson telling the paper he was leaving for “family and health reasons.”

Hunton and a co-author retracted “A Field Experiment Comparing the Outcomes of Three Fraud Brainstorming Procedures: Nominal Group, Round Robin, and Open Discussion” from the Accounting Review on November 9. The notice was scant, but the authors left a comment on our post with details: Continue reading Accounting professor resigns following retraction

Accounting fraud paper retracted for “misstatement”

The Accounting Review, a publication of the American Accounting Association, has retracted a 2010 paper, but the reason for the move is less than clear.

The article, “A Field Experiment Comparing the Outcomes of Three Fraud Brainstorming Procedures: Nominal Group, Round Robin, and Open Discussion,” was by James E. Hunton, an award-winning accountancy prof at Bentley University in Waltham, Mass., and Anna Gold [updated 1/22/13 to update link], of Erasmus University in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. It has been cited 24 times, according to Google Scholar.

According to the retraction notice: Continue reading Accounting fraud paper retracted for “misstatement”