No, I didn’t say that…let’s pump the brakes here. The estimand is the same as Gehan’s, but the estimator is very different. The new estimator is based on the Kaplan-Meier estimator, while Gehan’s is not. I agree that the authors should have cited Gehan, which they failed to do. However, it’s a nonsequitur to use that mistake to dismiss the entire work as “suspect”.
On another recent thread I gently noted that an excellent paper had misattributed the random sampling framework of Fisher 1922 to Neyman & Pearson 1928- I called it a “nitpick” because that is exactly what this type of blunder is. (And a much bigger blunder than the one just discussed.)
I undestand the temptation to dismiss others’ work. Very few papers are worth our time, and we use heuristics to filter the literature. However, public criticisms of a paper should be justified, and on this forum I thought they usually were.