I think a lot of this publishing game is style and packaging. It’s almost like a singer covering another persons song, if they sing it better or in a different way that appeals to a new audience the song gets played. If I covered another persons song or their statistical method I don’t think it would sound or read well but some people have a gift for it. They’ve got a certain talent to be sure.
Another King student follows in the footsteps of his master

there's nothing wrong with bringing useful work from other fields to the attention of readers, so long as it's cited of course...
I can agree the above. But again
when ivy league phds repackage somebody's methods as their own, they sail through the review processes with no problems.
when nonivy league phds make similar attempts, they are rejected on the ground of nothing new.
where is justice or fairness, hypocritical reviewers and editors, especially of PA?

It's worse than that, he sounds like he derives those results himself, and invents this type of EM approach. His replication data are here:
https://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/emIRT/emIRT.pdf
Now download the replication archive and go to his mIRT_misc_models.R file. You will see that he is using a canned package, the emIRT by Imai et al. This is the link to the package documentation:
https://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/emIRT/emIRT.pdf
Look at the package description: "EM Algorithms for Estimating Item Response Theory Models"
IMO the problem is the language in the first sentence, "create".
Otherwise, there's nothing wrong with bringing useful work from other fields to the attention of readers, so long as it's cited of course... 
It's worse than that, he sounds like he derives those results himself, and invents this type of EM approach. His replication data are here:
https://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/emIRT/emIRT.pdf
Now download the replication archive and go to his mIRT_misc_models.R file. You will see that he is using a canned package, the emIRT by Imai et al. This is the link to the package documentation:
https://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/emIRT/emIRT.pdf
Look at the package description: "EM Algorithms for Estimating Item Response Theory Models"
IMO the problem is the language in the first sentence, "create".
Otherwise, there's nothing wrong with bringing useful work from other fields to the attention of readers, so long as it's cited of course...Wow. Fraudulent

It's worse than that, he sounds like he derives those results himself, and invents this type of EM approach. His replication data are here:
https://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/emIRT/emIRT.pdf
Now download the replication archive and go to his mIRT_misc_models.R file. You will see that he is using a canned package, the emIRT by Imai et al. This is the link to the package documentation:
https://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/emIRT/emIRT.pdf
Look at the package description: "EM Algorithms for Estimating Item Response Theory Models"
IMO the problem is the language in the first sentence, "create".
Otherwise, there's nothing wrong with bringing useful work from other fields to the attention of readers, so long as it's cited of course...Wow. Fraudulent
Also the BayesLogit package by some of the computer science guys whose equations he copied. The wording suggests an original contribution:
"This paper addresses these problems and pushes this literature forward by creating a multinomial framework for ideal point estimation (mIRT). "
"One contribution of this paper is therefore to bring the fast and tractable estimation techniques to the existing work on multinomial ideal point models in political science"
Imagine if a LRM claimed to push the literature forward and bring fast estimation techniques by copying some equations and derivations from computer scientists and statisticians, and using some canned packages to analyze some ANES data.

It's worse than that, he sounds like he derives those results himself, and invents this type of EM approach. His replication data are here:
https://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/emIRT/emIRT.pdf
Now download the replication archive and go to his mIRT_misc_models.R file. You will see that he is using a canned package, the emIRT by Imai et al. This is the link to the package documentation:
https://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/emIRT/emIRT.pdf
Look at the package description: "EM Algorithms for Estimating Item Response Theory Models"
IMO the problem is the language in the first sentence, "create".
Otherwise, there's nothing wrong with bringing useful work from other fields to the attention of readers, so long as it's cited of course...
Wow. FraudulentAlso the BayesLogit package by some of the computer science guys whose equations he copied. The wording suggests an original contribution:
"This paper addresses these problems and pushes this literature forward by creating a multinomial framework for ideal point estimation (mIRT). "
"One contribution of this paper is therefore to bring the fast and tractable estimation techniques to the existing work on multinomial ideal point models in political science"
Imagine if a LRM claimed to push the literature forward and bring fast estimation techniques by copying some equations and derivations from computer scientists and statisticians, and using some canned packages to analyze some ANES data.keep talking. he is writing and publishing.

It's worse than that, he sounds like he derives those results himself, and invents this type of EM approach. His replication data are here:
https://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/emIRT/emIRT.pdf
Now download the replication archive and go to his mIRT_misc_models.R file. You will see that he is using a canned package, the emIRT by Imai et al. This is the link to the package documentation:
https://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/emIRT/emIRT.pdf
Look at the package description: "EM Algorithms for Estimating Item Response Theory Models"
IMO the problem is the language in the first sentence, "create".
Otherwise, there's nothing wrong with bringing useful work from other fields to the attention of readers, so long as it's cited of course...
Wow. Fraudulent
Also the BayesLogit package by some of the computer science guys whose equations he copied. The wording suggests an original contribution:
"This paper addresses these problems and pushes this literature forward by creating a multinomial framework for ideal point estimation (mIRT). "
"One contribution of this paper is therefore to bring the fast and tractable estimation techniques to the existing work on multinomial ideal point models in political science"
Imagine if a LRM claimed to push the literature forward and bring fast estimation techniques by copying some equations and derivations from computer scientists and statisticians, and using some canned packages to analyze some ANES data.keep talking. he is writing and publishing.
whose work?

You can tell by the way he writes that he's not mathematically inclined or knowledgeable about stats. That's the first red flag I notice when I get an article for review. 99% of the time the article turns out to be a ripoff of others' work, and naturally I recommend rejection.

You can tell by the way he writes that he's not mathematically inclined or knowledgeable about stats. That's the first red flag I notice when I get an article for review. 99% of the time the article turns out to be a ripoff of others' work, and naturally I recommend rejection.
of course you do.

Could you please provide the issue number where the editors of PA forced King to admit he had not invented MLE?
Why is it so hard for King students to come up with their own original ideas? Why do they feel the need to take credit for other people’s work, and claim they have “invented” a new method?
Look at this recent PA article by another apprentice of the infamous “magician” who wanted to claim he invented maximum likelihood estimation (until the editors forced him to give proper credit to Fisher).
This guy claims that is paper “creates a multinomial framework for ideal point estimation (mIRT)”. (abstract). Except MIRT models already existed, as did at least two R packages that implement them (mirt and BayesLogit). Also, the stickbreaking and PolyaGamma augmentation approach was already introduced in 2015 by a group of computer scientists at Harvard and MIT, and the EM algorithm that he uses is nearly identical to the EM algorithm used by Imai and coauthors in a 2016 APSR.
He does cite the relevant contributions, but he is not being honest about the fact that he basically does a copypaste job with slight notation changes. He also claims “I use their intuition and derive results” (p. 73) . But he doesn’t derive the results himself; he just reproduces other people’s derivations.
His paper here:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politicalanalysis/article/multinomialframeworkforidealpointestimation/47725BBF8BA9C980A27E5AE91FACA6AE
The papers he borrows heavily from are here:
Linderman, Johnson, and Adams (2015)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1506.05843.pdf
Polson, Scott, and Windle (2013)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.0310.pdf
Imai, Lo, and Olmsted (2016)
https://imai.fas.harvard.edu/research/files/fastideal.pdf
Here are some examples of equations taken straight from others’ work:
Eq 1 (p. 71), Eq 3 (p. 73): Eqs 1, 2, 3 (p. 2) in Linderman, Johnson, and Adams (2015)
Eq 8 (p. 75): Eq 2 (p. 2) in Polson, Scott, and Windle (2013)
Eqs in fn 15 (p. 75): Eqs on bottom of p. 5 and middle of p. 6 in Polson, Scott, and Windle (2013)
Eq 11 (p. 76): Eqs 5 and 6 (p. 634) in Imai, Lo, and Olmsted (2016)
Eqs 12, 13, 14 (p. 76): Eqs 7 and 8 (p. 634) in Imai, Lo, and Olmsted (2016)
Had he stated the truth, that he is simply reproducing equations and derivations from other people’s work, and simply applying techniques for which there already exist canned routines, what are the odds that this would have gotten accepted?
This is also a criticism of the PA reviewers and editor: why do they allow such dishonest garbage to be published?