Statalist


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date index][Thread index]

Re: st: Incomplete references are not acceptable


From   "Erasmo Giambona" <e.giambona@gmail.com>
To   statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
Subject   Re: st: Incomplete references are not acceptable
Date   Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:30:39 +0200

Dear Nick,
It was obviously not my intention to offend anybody, so my apologies
to anybody who might have felt offended. I just assumed in good faith
(and wrongly obviously) that people were aware of the Stock-Yogo and
Stock-Wright (2000) tests reported as output when running xtivreg2.

In any case, here are the two complete references:


Stock, J.H. and Wright, J.H.  2000.  GMM with Weak Identification.
Econometrica, Vol. 68, No. 5, September, pp. 1055-1096.

Stock, J.H. and Yogo, M.  2005.  Testing for Weak Instruments in
Linear IV Regression.  In D.W.K. Andrews and J.H. Stock, eds.
    Identification and Inference for Econometric Models:  Essays in
Honor of Thomas Rothenberg. Cambridge: Cambridge University
    Press, 2005, pp. 80–108.  Working paper version: NBER Technical
Working Paper 284.  http://www.nber.org/papers/T0284.

Regards,
Erasmo


On 7/30/07, n j cox <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
> Despite many requests and a detailed exhortation in the
> FAQ, postings with incomplete references (name(s) and date only or
> even names alone) persist. It should be self-evident that incomplete
> references are obscure to very many; only complete references are
> helpful. Also, the implication that you care only about people in your
> own sub-discipline who may know the answer is insensitive, if not mildly
> offensive.
>
> I invite Statalist members to refuse to answer postings with
> incomplete references and to complain personally to
> people who insist on ignoring good practice.
>
> People who want to participate in an alternative list based
> on different principles should feel free to set it up and
> run it their way. Otherwise, expect the disapproval of those who have
> worked hard to set high standards on this list and to
> maintain them. Statalist is free and there is no charge
> for the quick, correct and helpful answers likely if you ask
> clear questions, but there is not a free ride for people who
> won't even think carefully about their postings.
>
> Nick
> n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk
>
> Erasmo Giambona wrote
>
> ... Stock-Yogo  ... Stock-Wright (2000)
>
> Mahabir Priydarshini wrote
>
> Eaton's and Tamura's (1994)
>
>
> *
> *   For searches and help try:
> *   http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
> *   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
> *   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
>

*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/res/findit.html
*   http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/



© Copyright 1996–2014 StataCorp LP   |   Terms of use   |   Privacy   |   Contact us   |   What's new   |   Site index