Fabo et al. (2021) show that papers written by central bank researchers find quantitative easing (QE) to be more effective than papers written by academics. Weale and Wieladek (2022) show that a subset of these results lose statistical significance when OLS regressions are replaced by regressions that downweight outliers. We examine those outliers and find no reason to downweight them. Most of them represent estimates from influential central bank papers published in respectable academic journals. For example, among the five papers finding the largest peak effect of QE on output, all five are published in high-quality journals (Journal of Monetary Economics, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, and Applied Economics Letters), and their average number of citations is well over 200. Moreover, we show that these papers have supported policy communication by the world's leading central banks and shaped the public perception of the effectiveness of QE. New evidence based on quantile regressions further supports the results in Fabo et al. (2021).

法博等人。（2021）表明，央行研究人员撰写的论文发现量化宽松（QE）比学者撰写的论文更有效。Weale 和 Wieladek (2022)表明，当 OLS 回归被减少异常值的回归取代时，这些结果的一部分会失去统计显着性。我们检查了这些异常值，发现没有理由降低它们的权重。其中大多数代表的是在受人尊敬的学术期刊上发表的有影响力的央行论文的估计。例如，发现量化宽松对产出峰值影响最大的五篇论文中，这五篇论文均发表在高质量期刊上（Journal of Monetary Economics、Journal of Money, Credit and Banking和Applied Economics Letters ），并且它们的平均数量被引用次数远远超过 200 次。此外，我们表明这些论文支持了世界主要央行的政策沟通，并塑造了公众对量化宽松有效性的看法。基于分位数回归的新证据进一步支持Fabo 等人的结果。（2021）。