His APSR paper misreported the main regression, where he claimed to have included fixed effects, but did not. Running the regression as reported completely kills his findings. Moreover, other scholars have uncovered serious issues in Kung's dataset: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13603116.2014.882560
His QJE paper, again, completely manipulated the politician promotion data. Once these obvious data errors are fixed, the corresponding findings completely go away: https://michaelwiebe.com/blog/2021/02/replications
And for most of his other economic history papers, he never shares his datasets, keeps asking for exemptions from the journal data policies despite the fact that his datasets are digitized from historical sources and are not even proprietary. When people email him asking for datasets for replication purposes, he keeps coming up with excuses not to share. Very suspicious.
People like these are the reason why no one trusts empirical works anymore.
James Kung: a serial data manipulator
-
-
wow
His APSR paper misreported the main regression, where he claimed to have included fixed effects, but did not. Running the regression as reported completely kills his findings. Moreover, other scholars have uncovered serious issues in Kung's dataset: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13603116.2014.882560
His QJE paper, again, completely manipulated the politician promotion data. Once these obvious data errors are fixed, the corresponding findings completely go away: https://michaelwiebe.com/blog/2021/02/replications
And for most of his other economic history papers, he never shares his datasets, keeps asking for exemptions from the journal data policies despite the fact that his datasets are digitized from historical sources and are not even proprietary. When people email him asking for datasets for replication purposes, he keeps coming up with excuses not to share. Very suspicious.
People like these are the reason why no one trusts empirical works anymore. -
His APSR paper misreported the main regression, where he claimed to have included fixed effects, but did not. Running the regression as reported completely kills his findings. Moreover, other scholars have uncovered serious issues in Kung's dataset: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13603116.2014.882560
His QJE paper, again, completely manipulated the politician promotion data. Once these obvious data errors are fixed, the corresponding findings completely go away: https://michaelwiebe.com/blog/2021/02/replications
And for most of his other economic history papers, he never shares his datasets, keeps asking for exemptions from the journal data policies despite the fact that his datasets are digitized from historical sources and are not even proprietary. When people email him asking for datasets for replication purposes, he keeps coming up with excuses not to share. Very suspicious.
People like these are the reason why no one trusts empirical works anymore. -
Voth is a suspect since he claims to have lost his dissertation data.
Kung is proven guilty for his best two pubs.I have no interest in defending Kung, but people in this thread seem to think his conduct is unusual. It is not. Some of the other people mentioned here (like Voth) are just as bad -- probably worse.
-
Chen Shuo is a golden fabricator. Just check his papers. He can fake anything from data, code to background context without any shame.
And he can even show off with all these "little tricks"...
A lot of unknowing PhD students were impressed by how smart he sounded on his Wechat articles.
-
Chen Shuo is a golden fabricator. Just check his papers. He can fake anything from data, code to background context without any shame.
And he can even show off with all these "little tricks"...
A lot of unknowing PhD students were impressed by how smart he sounded on his Wechat articles.
He is just smart in the aspect of playing tricks. Besides the fabrication things, he is good at combining other people's resources and claiming them as his own.