Lott has an update to his 6/13/03 post where he responds to this post. He writes:
An e-mailer asks about whether the Ayres and Donohue piece in the American Law and Economics Review was refereed. While the original papers in that journal are indeed refereed, their piece was a review article and my understanding from Ayres was that it was not refereed.
It seems that Lott is unable to admit to even the smallest error. He claimed that they had not published it in a refereed journal, when in fact they had. Instead of admitting to the error he pretends that his original claim was different.
More importantly, this very minor point has been the only response by Lott to my last two weeks of postings where I have raised some very important issues. When will Lott say something about the coding errors?
More like this
Lott's 6/13/03 entry on his blog links to a letter from David Mayer printed in the Columbus Dispatch replying to a letter from Donohue. Mayer asserts:
The recent letter by Stanford law professor John Donohue (June 7) nicely illustrates the propensity of gun-control advocates to play…
In his 6/9/03 posting, Lott claims that Donohue has made a "large number of easily identifiable mistakes". Even if true, such mistakes pale into insignificance compared with the coding errors that Lott made but will not admit to, but let's examine Lott's claims and see how many…
Lott has a new posting where he has some more about the important matter of the coding errors in his data. Sandwiched between some more complaints about unfair the Stanford Law Review has been and some imaginary errors in Ayres and Donohue, we have:
Of course, this is nothing new with…
I asked Ben Horwich, the president of volume 55 of the Stanford Law Review to comment on Lott's latest complaints<.phpa>. He writes:
I did not categorically promise Lott that we'd run a verbatim statement by Plassmann and Whitley. I did express my interest in working with them to…