Jonas Heering

@jonasheering.bsky.social

PhD Student in International Relations at Georgetown University

My and @abenewman.bsky.social Underground Empire is on sale at $1.99 for the Kindle edition. If you've been sitting on it, this is the time to buy it. If you've read it and liked it, would love it if you shared this post, and be more grateful than I can say if you starred/reviewed it on Amazon.

Underground Empire: How America Weaponized the World Economy

Underground Empire: How America Weaponized the World Economy [Farrell, Henry, Newman, Abraham] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Underground Empire: How America Weaponized the World Economy

amazon.com

I have a new paper. We look at ~all stats articles in political science post-2010 & show that 94% have abstracts that claim to reject a null. Only 2% present only null results. This is hard to explain unless the research process has a filter that only lets rejections through.

It must be very hard to publish null results
Publication practices in the social sciences act as a filter that favors statistically significant results over null findings. While the problem of selection on significance (SoS) is well-known in theory, it has been difficult to measure its scope empirically, and it has been challenging to determine how selection varies across contexts. In this article, we use large language models to extract granular and validated data on about 100,000 articles published in over 150 political science journals from 2010 to 2024. We show that fewer than 2% of articles that rely on statistical methods report null-only findings in their abstracts, while over 90% of papers highlight significant results. To put these findings in perspective, we develop and calibrate a simple model of publication bias. Across a range of plausible assumptions, we find that statistically significant results are estimated to be one to two orders of magnitude more likely to enter the published record than null results. Leveraging metadata extracted from individual articles, we show that the pattern of strong SoS holds across subfields, journals, methods, and time periods. However, a few factors such as pre-registration and randomized experiments correlate with greater acceptance of null results. We conclude by discussing implications for the field and the potential of our new dataset for investigating other questions about political science.

Ahead of tomorrow's hearing on European "censorship" of Americans under the Digital Services Act, I have a new blog post explaining why that is not a thing. You can get the gist in about two minutes of skimming the bold text, or stay for the details. 1/ cyberlaw.stanford.edu/a-primer-on-...

A Primer on Cross-Border Speech Regulation and the EU’s Digital Services Act

Some U.S. politicians have recently characterized European platform and social media regulation laws as “censorship” of speech in the U.S. If this claim were true, it would be a very big deal. As some...

cyberlaw.stanford.edu

Seems relatively clear that UK officials are laying the groundwork for concessions on the UK digital services tax. The DST absolutely can't "continue to garner significant revenue" if you exempt targeted sectors or tax profits instead of revenue. Those things are the whole point of the tax.

Bild
StephenFoleyFT@stephenfoleyft.bsky.social · last yr.

UK officials are exploring tax concessions for US tech giants including Alphabet, Amazon and Meta, in the hope of securing a deal with Donald Trump to drop some tariffs. www.ft.com/content/e5f3...

I'm excited to report that "Digital Interdependence and Power Politics" has been conditionally accepted at BJPS. I learned how to be a political scientist by iterating versions of this paper. The next thing this paper will teach me is how to use natbib.

Bild