Never forget!
James Kung: a serial data manipulator
-
i think he is confused with Narcos AI. Anyway, his emotions fluctuate 24/7, (as of last week) checked he was also living in the basement, which he was deeply disappointed with. He also plugged in CB paragraph inside without asking for coauthorship in his context.
cb paragraph is not hers!
-
i think he is confused with Narcos AI. Anyway, his emotions fluctuate 24/7, (as of last week) checked he was also living in the basement, which he was deeply disappointed with. He also plugged in CB paragraph inside without asking for coauthorship in his context.
cb paragraph is not hers!
70% of her words are re-written in his words without the consent of the name which is published under.
-
On the Chen and Kung 2019 QJE paper:
"This is extremely suspicious. Speculating, it looks like the authors had a nice paper using provincial data, but a referee asked them to extend it to prefecture leaders. To fit their story, they needed to find an effect of land sales for secretaries (but not mayors), and an effect of GDP growth for mayors (but not secretaries). But maybe the data didn’t agree, and their RA had to falsify the mayor promotion data to get the ‘correct’ result. This wouldn’t be easy for referees to spot, since the replication files didn’t include spell-level data. But how else did they collect such error-ridden data that also just happened to produce results consistent with their story?"
Source: https://michaelwiebe.com/blog/2021/02/replications -
Chen Shuo got another top publication:
Rebel on the Grand Canal: Disrupted Trade Access and Social Conflict in China, 1650-1911. Conditionally Accepted by American Economic Review
https://www.yimingcao.com/research.html@ZhangTaisu: This is an interesting paper, and the basic conclusion that Qing grain tribute trade routes had a large effect on regional socioeconomic stability is probably correct. However, there’s one big oddity in the results, which is that its effects begin with the first sea-shipping experiment by the Qing Court in 1826, instead of the more permanent sea shipping reforms in the later 1840s. As anyone who knows this history can tell you, the 1826 experiment lasted for a grand total of 1 year, and canal shipping resumed at normal levels shortly afterwards. It wasn’t until two decades later that more systemic changes were put in place. So why would a 1 year experiment have such a large and durable effect on local stability? You might say that local populations could anticipate the 1840s reforms after 1826, but that seems highly unlikely given the Imperial Court’s rapid backtracking. So what was the casual mechanism in the 20 years in-between? The paper really needs an answer for this.
-
用kung和chen自己提供的数据和代码，发现他们文章里一堆结果都复制不出来。尤其是最重要的那个回归，文章里说加了FE，但是code里面没有加FE（可以得到文章里报告的结果），如果按照文章说的那样加了FE的话就一点结果都没有了。
都锤到这个地步了，如果还不算造假，那你倒是说说应该怎么洗白？
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzI2ODA5MDg1MQ==&mid=2652448982&idx=1&sn=1ca3285cd87676fa58f316a0bb3a6d1d&chksm=f119645ac66eed4c5befe4d2ad217cdce93604fdcc36de07fe318188eda5dbd6e3387c3a9b66&sessionid=0&scene=126&clicktime=1625494168&enterid=1625494168&ascene=3&devicetype=android-29&version=28000653&nettype=WIFI&abtest_cookie=AAACAA%3D%3D&lang=zh_CN&exportkey=Aa8jFhjeJJgWs7IU3ldUyO8%3D&pass_ticket=ivdKqZ8Z38AsFwdSVl93OknkDBYqou8JnzLL%2BwCnwKe3dcUjAO62r59IIaBdv%2FHU&wx_header=1 -
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. -
LOL that way Kung will be winning his Nobel Prize in no time!
"Whenever anyone criticize my research on EJMR you simply
accept another paper of my clan,” ordered by James to the pale, red headed irish girl he had invited to the editorial board.
"Yes, sir," she sighs. She wishes she had not accepted the deal from devil.