Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Olle Folke

@ollefolke.bsky.social

1.5K followers 600 following 39 posts

Professor, Department of Government Uppsala University https://sites.google.com/site/folkeolle/

sites.google.com

Posts Media Videos Starter Packs

Reposted by Olle Folke

Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics (SITE) @sitestockholm.bsky.social · 28d

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...

Reposted by Olle Folke

Johanna Rickne @johannarickne.bsky.social · Jun 24

📣 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...

Olle Folke @ollefolke.bsky.social · Jul 8

Looking for recommendations on a professional proofreader with experience of political science papers! (Our regular proofreader is not available)

Olle Folke @ollefolke.bsky.social · Jul 1

He does not actually say what happens to the main results of the paper when we correct for the coding error.

Reposted by Olle Folke

Joe Noonan @joenoonan.se · Jul 1

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...

Reposted by Olle Folke

Joop Adema @jopieboy.bsky.social · Jul 1

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...

Olle Folke @ollefolke.bsky.social · May 17

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.

Olle Folke @ollefolke.bsky.social · May 17

Not sure if it even is a mea culpa…

Olle Folke @ollefolke.bsky.social · May 16

We have sent it to another journal.

Olle Folke @ollefolke.bsky.social · May 16

Yes, the paper has been widely spread

Olle Folke @ollefolke.bsky.social · May 16

Yes

Olle Folke @ollefolke.bsky.social · May 15

That there is no evidence of an effect.

Olle Folke @ollefolke.bsky.social · May 15

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

Olle Folke @ollefolke.bsky.social · May 15

This is the journal's policy for retractions. Does the editor still have confidence in the findings of the main analysis? 3/4

Olle Folke @ollefolke.bsky.social · May 15

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

Olle Folke @ollefolke.bsky.social · May 15

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

Olle Folke @ollefolke.bsky.social · May 12

Our replication files are posted here drive.google.com/file/d/18Pa8...

Replication files re-analysis of Ciacci (2024).zip

drive.google.com

Olle Folke @ollefolke.bsky.social · May 12

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.

Olle Folke @ollefolke.bsky.social · May 10

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.

Olle Folke @ollefolke.bsky.social · May 9

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.

Olle Folke @ollefolke.bsky.social · May 9

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

Olle Folke @ollefolke.bsky.social · May 9

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

Johanna Rickne @johannarickne.bsky.social · May 9

🚨 REPLICATION REPORT UPDATE: One year ago, a tweet by John Holbein alerted me, @ollefolke.bsky.social, and @jopieboy.bsky.social to a paper with a shocking result about Sweden’s law criminalizing the purchase of sex.🧵

Reposted by Olle Folke

Institute for Replication @i4replication.bsky.social · May 9

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 🧵

Olle Folke @ollefolke.bsky.social · May 9

It doesn't if you use the correct commands.

Reposted by Olle Folke

Michal Grahn @grahn.bsky.social · May 9

🧵 What kind of POPE do AMERICANS want?📸

Before the Conclave, @sophiemainz.bsky.social and I asked 1,500 U.S. adults to choose among hypothetical papal candidates.

Results: Americans prefer a liberal and *non-political* Pope. The latter might be challenging for Leo XIV.

Results ⬇️

Polisky Datasky