The legal world came to a sudden halt when economists Darren Bush, Gabriel Lozada, and Mark Glick’s controversial article was pulled from ProMarket. Their article, titled “The Antitrust Output Goal Cannot Measure Welfare,” aimed to contest the conventional wisdom among antitrust professionals that output always increases welfare. They argued, and claimed to have successfully shown, that this is not always the case. Subsequently, their work was removed from ProMarket without substantial explanation.
The trio made peace with the fact, that they disagreed widely with the ProMarket Advisory Board, who eventually took a harsh decision to pull their work. However, they maintained respect for the staff editors of ProMarket, whom they credit for their cooperative nature throughout. The trouble, they claim, began with the objection from an unidentified member of the Advisory Board.
After the article was published and circulated among other economists, the authors state an anonymous Board member voiced the only complaint received, which eventually sparked a chain of suggestions including the ‘pulling of graphs’. ProMarket had reportedly conceded that the authors’ argument was proven.
The authors insisted that there was no wrongdoing on their part, as they had verified their argument with economists, including those who have previously been published in ProMarket. They asserted that the only ones who found issue were the anonym Board Member and an Editorial Board member. This incident marked the second time their article had been pulled from ProMarket.
Adding to these conflicts, the authors withdrew another piece they had planned to submit to ProMarket. They sensed that the intellectual integrity of the platform was compromised, and hence decided not to publish their piece on the proposed Merger Guideliness. The authors also stated their concern about ProMarket’s approach, disappointing them in a way, that this could happen to other pieces in the future.
Interestingly, the disputed piece is set to be republished on The Sling in its original form alongside the revised versions. The bitter dispute and complex dynamics of this situation underline the critical importance of the academic freedom and transparent communication practices in scholarly publications.
The incident is detailed further at Above the Law.