Famine falsehoods and publication ethics: rejoinder to Daoud and the Journal of International Development

Peter Bowbrick

MPRA Paper from University Library of Munich, Germany

Abstract: My paper, ‘Falsehoods and Myths in Famine Research – The Bengal Famine and Daoud’ (2022a), refuted Daoud’s paper, ‘Synthesizing the Malthusian and Senian approaches on scarcity: a realist account’ (2018) which presented an empirical model of the Bengal famine of 1943 using his theory. I showed at length that most of his key factual statements were falsehoods, and most of these were contradicted by evidence in his sources. His analysis was wrong. In this rejoinder I show that his Response in the Journal of International Development has not attempted to challenge my criticisms. Instead, he wrote on a subject not relevant to them, diverting attention from them. He has also produced new falsehoods. There are multiple breaches of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines by the author and by the Journal. It is surprising that the Journal, knowing this, should have published this paper.

Keywords: Famine; Famine falsehoods; Bengal; Daoud; Publication ethics; Journal of International Development (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q13 Q18 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024-02-08
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-his
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/120082/1/MPRA_paper_120082.pdf original version (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:pra:mprapa:120082

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in MPRA Paper from University Library of Munich, Germany Ludwigstraße 33, D-80539 Munich, Germany. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Joachim Winter ().