He belongs in the prison!
James Kung: a serial data manipulator
-
But he falsified his results by misrepresenting his main economereic specification (pretending to use a FE model)
Using the Great Leap Famine of 1959–1961 as the context and associated data, James cogently demonstrates just how political institutions and policies could powerfully shape the economic behavior of government bureaucrats (in much the same way that managers in private enterprises are incentivized). His work is path-breaking, as it challenges (for the first time) the traditional belief that political radicalism is largely the dictator’s choice. James’ intellectual entrepreneurship was rewarded when the American Political Science Review—the top journal in political science—published his work; he is, in fact, the first (and thus far the only) academic from Asia to have disseminated in that journal.
The long quote is part of his biography on his website. The ego involved in writing that kind of stuff is amazing. “Intellectual entrepreneurship” for the win…
-
But he falsified his results by misrepresenting his main economereic specification (pretending to use a FE model)
Using the Great Leap Famine of 1959–1961 as the context and associated data, James cogently demonstrates just how political institutions and policies could powerfully shape the economic behavior of government bureaucrats (in much the same way that managers in private enterprises are incentivized). His work is path-breaking, as it challenges (for the first time) the traditional belief that political radicalism is largely the dictator’s choice. James’ intellectual entrepreneurship was rewarded when the American Political Science Review—the top journal in political science—published his work; he is, in fact, the first (and thus far the only) academic from Asia to have disseminated in that journal.
The long quote is part of his biography on his website. The ego involved in writing that kind of stuff is amazing. “Intellectual entrepreneurship” for the win…
He's not lying. He's full of "entrepreneurship" when it comes to cheating
-
The authors who wrote the comment on that fake APSR paper informed the editor (Daniel Treisman), but the editor did not want to retract, so the authors published that comment in a different journal instead.
For the QJE paper, the authors should definitely explain what is going on, there are many many factual mistakes in their data (provided by Kung himself), which happens to generate the very specific empirical patterns that they need for their story.If you have solid evidence, write to the editors of these journals.
Don’t be a dxxmbass who can only attack people anonymously.Don't presume too much. He could be writing to the editors at the same time
-
The problem is the Kung is afraiding of responding, even if the comment on his paper has been published. Everything is suspecious, and Kung looks very p*thetic. An old man publishes by fabricating data, mis-reporting results and using funds to serve the editor. 为老不尊。
-
If this is that easy, why don't you copy the process (seem very low cost) and publish papers in QJE and APSR? If you cannot even copy, please leave academia: the publication game is not for low-IQ people.
The problem is the Kung is afraiding of responding, even if the comment on his paper has been published. Everything is suspecious, and Kung looks very p*thetic. An old man publishes by fabricating data, mis-reporting results and using funds to serve the editor. 为老不尊。
-
This is not easy for a person of integrity. But it is easy for someone who likes cheating. In addition to IQ, academia also needs honesty and moral standards. If you do not understand this, then please leave academia, because you are paid by tax payers.
Re:
If this is that easy, why don't you copy the process (seem very low cost) and publish papers in QJE and APSR? If you cannot even copy, please leave academia: the publication game is not for low-IQ people. -
You must be joking.
To be honest with you, for empirical papers, if you don't twist the results in one way or another, they cannot be published in top journals. That applies to all the papers.
Economics is not science, it is more about storytelling and ideology. No one can guarantee the results will survive 100 robustness checks. Usually, you run 100 specifications and report the one that supports the story.
If you have not yet figured out this game, go and do experiments or study science. Economics is not for you.
This is not easy for a person of integrity. But it is easy for someone who likes cheating. In addition to IQ, academia also needs honesty and moral standards. If you do not understand this, then please leave academia, because you are paid by tax payers.
Re:
If this is that easy, why don't you copy the process (seem very low cost) and publish papers in QJE and APSR? If you cannot even copy, please leave academia: the publication game is not for low-IQ people. -
LMAO do you have ZERO integrity and self-respect???
If this is that easy, why don't you copy the process (seem very low cost) and publish papers in QJE and APSR? If you cannot even copy, please leave academia: the publication game is not for low-IQ people.
The problem is the Kung is afraiding of responding, even if the comment on his paper has been published. Everything is suspecious, and Kung looks very p*thetic. An old man publishes by fabricating data, mis-reporting results and using funds to serve the editor. 为老不尊。
-
LMAO that you ou have integrity and only knows how to attack someone in an anonymous forum. Go attack them in seminars and conferences!
LMAO do you have ZERO integrity and self-respect???
If this is that easy, why don't you copy the process (seem very low cost) and publish papers in QJE and APSR? If you cannot even copy, please leave academia: the publication game is not for low-IQ people.
The problem is the Kung is afraiding of responding, even if the comment on his paper has been published. Everything is suspecious, and Kung looks very p*thetic. An old man publishes by fabricating data, mis-reporting results and using funds to serve the editor. 为老不尊。
-
I can believe you respond to it, James.
I am a theorist and I don’t have to do p-hacking.
You must be joking.
To be honest with you, for empirical papers, if you don't twist the results in one way or another, they cannot be published in top journals. That applies to all the papers.
Economics is not science, it is more about storytelling and ideology. No one can guarantee the results will survive 100 robustness checks. Usually, you run 100 specifications and report the one that supports the story.
If you have not yet figured out this game, go and do experiments or study science. Economics is not for you.This is not easy for a person of integrity. But it is easy for someone who likes cheating. In addition to IQ, academia also needs honesty and moral standards. If you do not understand this, then please leave academia, because you are paid by tax payers.
Re:
If this is that easy, why don't you copy the process (seem very low cost) and publish papers in QJE and APSR? If you cannot even copy, please leave academia: the publication game is not for low-IQ people.