I just wrote a policy brief summarizing our research on how sexual harassment affects gender inequality in the labor market. We argue that discrimination in work conditions, such as sexual harassment, is a key reason why women work in workplaces and occupations with lower pay.
📈 TODAY is the last day to answer our short survey on interpreting research graphs!
supsy.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_...
... we are now looking for people with some spare time to read our paper draft... please send us a message if this might be you 🤗
📣Help needed! We are trying to reach people outside Europe with our short survey on research graphs! Could you share the link with someone? Take the survey yourself? Thanks in advance!! 🙏🌷🙏 (Europeans still welcome, of course!) supsy.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_...
It is to complement a regular longer survey. We are also particularly interested in the population we reach in this manner.
❗ Help needed ❗ Please take our 5-minute survey about interpreting research graphs 📈 And please help us share this post with lots of people 🤗
supsy.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_...
Thank you!!
🧵 Prior work studied the effect of (refugee) migration on far-right voting, but local inflows can only explain a sliver of the increase in FR voting around refugee waves. In my new WP, find that increased EXPECTATIONS about future migration causally increased FR voting in the Netherlands!
Why are workers underrepresented in Swedish politics—despite being half the electorate?
In a new SNS Analys report, SITE’s Olle Folke and co-author Johanna Rickne find that structural barriers—not lack of ambition—keep workers from power.
➡️ Read the report (in Swe): www.sns.se/artiklar/sns...
📣 Submit your paper to the Leibniz Open Science Day! I will be there to talk about our recent experience with replicating Ciacci (2024) about impacts of the Swedish legislation that banned sex purchases. Call for papers: www.zbw.eu/de/ueber-uns...
Looking for recommendations on a professional proofreader with experience of political science papers! (Our regular proofreader is not available)
He does not actually say what happens to the main results of the paper when we correct for the coding error.
I really recommend this podcast episode on the story of this paper and the strange non-responses from the journal. A depressing case of how science fails to be self-correcting even in the face of extremely obvious errors.
open.spotify.com/episode/4Eo0...
Update #2, RETRACTED: 15 months after we (w @ollefolke.bsky.social and @johannarickne.bsky.social ) submitted the initial comment to the Journal, we've noticed the paper was ultimately retracted. Retraction note here: link.springer.com/article/10.1...
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…
We have sent it to another journal.
Yes, the paper has been widely spread
Yes
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
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
Update: We submitted the comment to the Journal of Population Economics, and today we got a desk reject with this motivation. However, we do not know their conclusion about the main results and why the paper was not retracted. Clearly, they do not hold. 1/4
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.
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...
After one year of waiting, we finally got a response from the Journal of Population Economics about our replication of "Banning the purchase of sex increases cases of rape: evidence from Sweden", confirming the major coding error that invalidates the main results, but not retracting the paper. 1/2
A re-analysis of Ciacci's (2024) "Banning the purchase of sex increases cases of rape: Evidence from Sweden" Journal of Population Economics reveals major issues. A year ago, reproducers Adema, Folke, and Rickne found coding errors driving the paper's key results. Let's unpack this in a 🧵
It doesn't if you use the correct commands.