I had no trouble accessing the paper using the PDF link on the page (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.6059v4.pdf)
Having now read the article, I stand by my original point. There seems to be no verification that the proposed method does indeed identify (in some cases) cases of elections that were independently known, as a point of fact, to have been fraudulent.
They seem to be claiming two things, but you cannot have it both ways :
a) This method can identify fraudulent elections and we proved it by analysing elections in Russia
b) These elections in Russia that we analysed using this method were fraudulent - as proved by the method.
I would expect to see a control that takes data from elections that were already known to be fraudulent. e.g. by confession, video evidence or some other reliable means to show that the effect was observable in some of those demonstrably fraudulent elections.
Not "as proved by the method", but "as proved by the science of statistics". So let me fix it for you:
a) This method can identify fraudulent elections, because it's scientifically correct.
b) These elections in Russia that we analysed using this method were fraudulent - as proved by the science of statistics.
FYI, the paper was published in "Annals of Applied Statistics", which is a peer-reviewed journal.
I have asked this question in different ways, but to my (admittedly limited) understanding, the question has not been answered by you or anyone else here.
Surely there would have been a better set of test data than one for which politicians are still actively serving.
Unfortunately the science is somewhat tainted by the politics here since it is very unlikely they'll get independent confirmation of fraud for the test set.