Note on John Donohue's latest paper

Abhay Aneja, John J. Donohue III, and Alexandria Zhang have a new paper published in the ALER entitled: "The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws and the NRC Report: Lessons for the Empirical Evaluation of Law and Policy." Below is just a small portion of the correspondence that I have had trying to get the data for this paper. Many of the issues discussed in this paper, such as an index for cocaine use, are already used in the third edition of MGLC. The paper continually makes false claims about issues such as whether I have accounted for law enforcement or incarceration. Finally, I will make a very simple point: by throwing out the arrest rate variable, these authors create a truncation problem. Crime can't fall below zero no matter how effective a crime fighting effort is. There are lots of ways to deal with the truncation issue (count data, Tobit, etc), but these authors introduce this problem and they bias their results towards zero.  For those interested, a copy of the response that I put together regarding Donohue's paper can be found here.

This is an email that I have sent off this evening.

Dear John:

It is my understanding that your paper has now appeared in the ALER. It is very disappointing that you have chosen to delay providing the necessary data for 3.5 months until after your paper has been published.

What makes your delay especially disappointing are your allegations at the beginning of your conclusion asserting that I have provided flawed data to others so that you can not replicate various results. You make this claim without specifically explaining where those mistakes in the original data sets are, obviously putting a burden on me to sort through your data set and respond.

In sharp contrast to your approach, when you and your co-authors have asked that I provide you with data before my papers have been published, I have provided it within days of the request, and my papers were not attacks on your work. Your claims that you simply didn't understand my multiple requests or kept forgetting them just seems too clever by far.

Your unwillingness to cite or acknowledge or let alone respond to the third edition of my book that came out in 2010, which already anticipates many of your attacks, goes to your integrity as a researcher.

It is amazing that your paper can go from submission to publication faster than you can provide the data for the paper.

John


From: John Donohue
Date: Friday, November 11, 2011 Friday, November 11, 2:20 PM
To: John Lott
Cc: John Donohue , shavell@law.harvard.edu, emorri@law.columbia.edu
Subject: RE: Response to Donohue

Sorry for the delay. I had asked my RA to put it up on my bepress web page and he had told me it was up. see email below. If not there by Monday, let me know.


All best,

John

John J. Donohue
C. Wendell and Edith M. Carlsmith Professor of Law
Stanford Law School
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305
650 721 6339
650-723-4669 (FAX)
650 575-7166 (cell)
http://works.bepress.com/john_donohue/


all best,

John

. . .


From: John Lott [mailto:johnrlott@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 5:14 PM
To: John Donohue
Cc: John Donohue; shavell@law.harvard.edu; emorri@law.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: Response to Donohue


John:

My emails are perfectly clear. Reread the October 21st email for a recent request. It is my understanding that Carl Moody has also had correspondence making the exact same requests.

This information is particularly crucial in this case since you claim that you can't replicate previous results. I have made repeated data requests since August 4th. Steve and Ed have now seen several of my requests themselves.

You ask someone to write a comment, but you delay for months the information that is necessary to write such a comment. Your delaying tactics are simply unacceptable. When you and your co-authors have asked for data, I have provided it within days, not well after several months.

John

On Thursday, November10, 2011, at Thursday, November 10, 9:27 AM, John Donohue wrote:


My apologies. I didn't realize. Can you re-send any outstanding questions?
John

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 10, 2011, at 3:38 AM, John Lott wrote:


John:

It has been three weeks since my last email and I have yet to receive any response from you on getting the rest of the needed information. Are you planning on providing this information or are you going to wait until after your paper has been published? These delays are really inexcusable.

John

Begin forwarded message:


From: John Lott
Subject: Fwd: Response to Donohue
Date: Friday, October 21, 2011 Friday, October 21, 11:22 AM
To: John Donohue
Cc: shavell@law.harvard.edu, emorri@law.columbia.edu

John:

I have finally received part of the data for the paper (thank you), but I have not received everything. I still need the "do" file. It is my understanding that Carl Moody has also asked for this, but that he has not yet received it either. I look forward to receiving it soon. Thank you.

John

. . .

Begin forwarded message:

From: John Lott [mailto:johnrlott@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 4:21 AM
To: John Donohue
Subject: Re:

Dear John:

Please provide me the data for your ALER paper or tell me where I can obtain it.

Sincerely,
John