Close

Complete Captcha

• 2 months - 174 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 470 Goods vs 111 No Goods

1. Economist
   7962
   

   At least when such a big mistake appear, the authors should retract the paper or correct the error. But for the APSR paper no result holds if the data and code are corrected... For the QJE and EJ paper, nobody replicate the other parts.

   If they retract the APSR, someone's tenure will also be withdrawned.

   You mean Chen Shuo? Not really. He is already a full professor in Fudan. Fudan actually does not work completely in the so-called "tenure system".

   Is he the one who does self-promotion through wechat all the time?

   3 weeks ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

2. Economist
   9ae4
   

   Interesting that no action from James Kung and his students... Editors also seems that economics does not care about if the evidence is scientific or not.

   lol the accusations are basically indefensible.. if kung would dare to rebut, he will only get exposed even more. and believe me, there is more.

   3 weeks ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 0 No Jab !

3. Economist
   0a7e
   

   Is he the one who does self-promotion through wechat all the time?

   lol, through wechat all the time?

   3 weeks ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

4. Economist
   0a7e
   

   Interesting that no action from James Kung and his students... Editors also seems that economics does not care about if the evidence is scientific or not.

   Not sure if they see the discussion in the forum

   3 weeks ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

5. Economist
   9ae4
   

   The author of this blog contacted Kung for his data, and informed him about the serious data and coding errors. Kung had plenty of chances to defend himself, but a serial fraud like him knows better than to defend the indefensible.

   Interesting that no action from James Kung and his students... Editors also seems that economics does not care about if the evidence is scientific or not.

   Not sure if they see the discussion in the forum

   3 weeks ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 0 No Jab !

6. Economist
   0a7e
   

   The author of this blog contacted Kung for his data, and informed him about the serious data and coding errors. Kung had plenty of chances to defend himself, but a serial fraud like him knows better than to defend the indefensible.

   Interesting that no action from James Kung and his students... Editors also seems that economics does not care about if the evidence is scientific or not.

   Not sure if they see the discussion in the forum
   

   Curious on how Kung relied to his email...

   3 weeks ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

7. Economist
   5018
   

   I wish the AEA would fund guys like this to replicate papers and post critiques instead of hiring omudspersons to police seminar questions.

   3 weeks ago # QUOTE 1 Jab 0 No Jab !

8. Economist
   dc4c
   

   The author of this blog contacted Kung for his data, and informed him about the serious data and coding errors. Kung had plenty of chances to defend himself, but a serial fraud like him knows better than to defend the indefensible.

   Interesting that no action from James Kung and his students... Editors also seems that economics does not care about if the evidence is scientific or not.

   Not sure if they see the discussion in the forum
   

   Curious on how Kung relied to his email...

   Kung is shame_less, what do you think?

   2 weeks ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

9. Economist
   dc4c
   

   Kung is the Voth of China: economic historian who doesn't really understand history, p-hacks for a living, extremely corrupt, complete azzh0le.

   James Kung is a fraud. His APSR paper misreported the main specification (claimed to have included fixed effects but didn't). Running the main regression as reported completely kills his results. There are MANY other examples like this.
   

   SAD

   2 weeks ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

10. Economist
    aa06
    

    Kung is the Voth of China: economic historian who doesn't really understand history, p-hacks for a living, extremely corrupt, complete azzh0le.

    James Kung is a fraud. His APSR paper misreported the main specification (claimed to have included fixed effects but didn't). Running the main regression as reported completely kills his results. There are MANY other examples like this.
    

    SAD

    Voth is at least original

    2 weeks ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

11. Economist
    27ae
    

    ^ Kung is the copycat of Voth.

    2 weeks ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

12. Economist
    4972
    

    Kung and his students are just liers. The editors are also biased.

    2 weeks ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

13. Economist
    a027
    

    bump

    2 weeks ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

14. Economist
    3751
    

    bump

    1 week ago # QUOTE 0 Jab 0 No Jab !

Reply

Post

Send Post »

Markup: a blockquote code em strong ul ol li.