It is common to get results that contradicts establish theory in the literature. However, the main challenge has always been to provide good and convincing explanation why the new findings contradict established theory. In my recent experience, the probability of publishing contradictory findings was below 40% initially, but eventually rises above 50% after some modification and counter arguments. What is the probability of publishing new findings that contradicts established theory, especially in Finance and Economics (If any)? Please, your contributions are welcome!
Dear B.T Matemilola,
I believe that a good analysis and a robust empirical evidence can find space, even if the results are in contrast. In my view, the striking example might be Eugene Fama, who won the Nobel in 2013 after years of empirical studies on models of asset pricing raising questions about the validity of the CAPM.
Best,
Fabrizio
Publishing new findings that contradict established theory is feasible. However, as Fabrizio has said, you need to have rock solid arguments.
What is less likely to publish is a different approach, one that does not follow the established paths and steers away from main-flow.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Publishing