Olle Folke
@ollefolke.bsky.social
Professor, Department of Government Uppsala University https://sites.google.com/site/folkeolle/
He does not actually say what happens to the main results of the paper when we correct for the coding error.
July 1, 2025 at 9:54 AM
He does not actually say what happens to the main results of the paper when we correct for the coding error.
If it was a mea culpa, already the abstract should state that the main result of the paper was due to a coding error and that there is no evidence of an effect when correcting it. This is not clearly stated anywhere in the comment. The title is of course also misleading.
May 17, 2025 at 8:23 PM
If it was a mea culpa, already the abstract should state that the main result of the paper was due to a coding error and that there is no evidence of an effect when correcting it. This is not clearly stated anywhere in the comment. The title is of course also misleading.
Not sure if it even is a mea culpa…
May 17, 2025 at 12:21 PM
Not sure if it even is a mea culpa…
We have sent it to another journal.
May 16, 2025 at 2:02 PM
We have sent it to another journal.
Yes, the paper has been widely spread
May 16, 2025 at 6:22 AM
Yes, the paper has been widely spread
That there is no evidence of an effect.
May 15, 2025 at 9:18 PM
That there is no evidence of an effect.
In his published comment, the editor writes the following about the replication files" This substantial additional material was published with replication files and access to the data for further analysis and debate." At the same time, the matter seems to be closed. 4/4
May 15, 2025 at 5:42 PM
In his published comment, the editor writes the following about the replication files" This substantial additional material was published with replication files and access to the data for further analysis and debate." At the same time, the matter seems to be closed. 4/4
This is the journal's policy for retractions. Does the editor still have confidence in the findings of the main analysis? 3/4
May 15, 2025 at 5:42 PM
This is the journal's policy for retractions. Does the editor still have confidence in the findings of the main analysis? 3/4
In the comment "Ciacci (2025)" the author himself acknowledges that the main results do not hold up. Since the journal has published the comment, we can assume they agree with this conclusion. 2/4
May 15, 2025 at 5:42 PM
In the comment "Ciacci (2025)" the author himself acknowledges that the main results do not hold up. Since the journal has published the comment, we can assume they agree with this conclusion. 2/4
Our replication files are posted here drive.google.com/file/d/18Pa8...
Replication files re-analysis of Ciacci (2024).zip
drive.google.com
May 12, 2025 at 8:04 AM
Our replication files are posted here drive.google.com/file/d/18Pa8...
We submitted the report on the partial replication in March 2024, but the journal did not do anything with it. We are yet undecided on what to do with this updated report.
May 12, 2025 at 6:39 AM
We submitted the report on the partial replication in March 2024, but the journal did not do anything with it. We are yet undecided on what to do with this updated report.
This is a complete misrepresentation by the journal of what happened. We first sent the comment to the author. Then, we submitted it to the journal. Finally, we posted it on social media.
May 10, 2025 at 1:38 PM
This is a complete misrepresentation by the journal of what happened. We first sent the comment to the author. Then, we submitted it to the journal. Finally, we posted it on social media.
The journal did not answer and the author said it took to much time, that there was maybe data restrictions and that we were ideologically biased.
May 9, 2025 at 7:59 PM
The journal did not answer and the author said it took to much time, that there was maybe data restrictions and that we were ideologically biased.
They did post an almost complete replication package, which allowed us to replicate the 4 alternative identification strategies. It turns out none are robust. For a full description, see Johanna's thread and the @i4replication.bsky.social working paper www.econstor.eu/handle/10419...
Re-Analysis of Ciacci, R. (2024). Banning the purchase of sex increases cases of rape: evidence from Sweden.
EconStor is a publication server for scholarly economic literature, provided as a non-commercial public service by the ZBW.
www.econstor.eu
May 9, 2025 at 2:32 PM
They did post an almost complete replication package, which allowed us to replicate the 4 alternative identification strategies. It turns out none are robust. For a full description, see Johanna's thread and the @i4replication.bsky.social working paper www.econstor.eu/handle/10419...
It doesn't if you use the correct commands.
May 9, 2025 at 10:00 AM
It doesn't if you use the correct commands.