From the inbox in response to this post:
Regarding the recent post on env-econ about time to publication, another factor affecting the difference could be the skill set of the authors attempting the methods.
In my experience as a referee, CE papers are written almost exclusively by economists or statisticians with a lot of technical training. The learning curve for CM involves design as well as estimation, both of which require specialized software. So, people don’t just jump into CE willy-nilly. CVM seems much more likely to be attempted by people who don’t really know what they’re doing. They think that all they have to do is ask a WTP question, collect demographic information and report the results. As a result, a lot of CVM papers are marginal, and may take a long time to get through the review process. The meta analysis did not look at the background/discipline of the authors, which might shed light on this.
This is so true, but I don't know if it has a big influence on the data in this paper. The sample is from papers published in Resource and Energy Economics, Ecological Economics and Environmental and Resource Economics. My experience is that the CVM hobbiests aim for journals a bit lower either at first or after they are rejected from these three journals. But, including a Google Scholar score for the authors might take care of that omitted variable.