Can we hear about why you want to take another look at Egger et al. (2021)? This is a really important paper and it’s important to get this stuff right; OTOH, its data and programs are publicly accessible (download link here), the journal has a pretty robust replication policy...I guess I’m thinking that if something is wrong in this paper it’s going to be off in the text and not in the code, i.e. that any mistakes are going to be conceptual. WDYT?
I happen to think Johannes is unusually careful about this stuff; per the original UCT evaluation:
Second, we also follow common practice by making public the data and code that produce the results we report in this paper. However, it has recently been shown that data and code used in economics papers frequently contains errors, making it difficult for readers to confirm the findings (Chang and Li 2015). We therefore hired two graduate students to audit the data and code for this paper. They were compensated on an hourly basis, and paid a bonus for any errors they identified. We report the errors they identified and changes they suggested in Online Appendix Section 20. The errors were minor and did not materially change the results and interpretation. We also report which suggested changes we rejected, and why.
so I assume a similar level of care in Egger et al., on which he is coauthor
Can we hear about why you want to take another look at Egger et al. (2021)? This is a really important paper and it’s important to get this stuff right; OTOH, its data and programs are publicly accessible (download link here), the journal has a pretty robust replication policy...I guess I’m thinking that if something is wrong in this paper it’s going to be off in the text and not in the code, i.e. that any mistakes are going to be conceptual. WDYT?
I’d expect this article to be pretty solid, but errors in top journals do happen.
Yep, I recall this case from Bryan Caplan as well: https://​​betonit.substack.com/​​p/​​a-correction-on-housing-regulation
I happen to think Johannes is unusually careful about this stuff; per the original UCT evaluation:
so I assume a similar level of care in Egger et al., on which he is coauthor