When I brought this problem to the attention of the journal's editors back in March, they insisted Slobodian's piece had undergone rigorous peer review and dismissed my concern.
Not so. Peer review flagged the same concern. The journal's editors ignored it. pic.twitter.com/QdKYFbIpxr
— Phil Magness (@PhilWMagness) August 23, 2021
I'm now told by the journal's publisher that this is simply "scholarly disagreement" in their eyes rather than misrepresentation of evidence achieved by Slobodian's editing of the Mises source material to alter its meaning.
And yes, the example above is one of many in the paper.
— Phil Magness (@PhilWMagness) August 23, 2021
h/t Glenn
Trending:
- Inter-Bank Lending Has Stopped And We’re On The Verge Of A Crash
- Stanford business study shows bank values are actually $2trillion lower than book value
- The UN Moves to Take Control of ALL Water
- AZ overturns election judgement to verify signatures
- France On Fire: Firefighters Joining The Protests… Trash Collection Workers In Paris Have Been On Strike For 17 Days
- Fifty More US Banks on the Verge of Failing
- Incredibly Good Article in The Economist About the Banking Crisis
- Putin Announces Agreement for the Yuan to Become the New Global Reserve Currency
- Knock knock. You’re next… Deutsche Bank
- I am surprised a Japanese magazine would allow this to run, but it is correct…
Views: 31