We collect contingent valuation data from 524 student survey respondents over a 3-day, 72-hour period. Data analysis of a hypothetical campus referendum focuses on time-of-day effects on willingness to pay for a renewable energy project. We find that subjects responding to the survey during the night-time hours (i.e., between 12 a.m. and 6 a.m.) do not display the law of demand, offering theoretically invalid responses to questions with important policy implications. Results from this research may have serious implications for the contingent valuation method (CVM). In short, just like your father said, nothing good happens after midnight when using the CVM. (JEL Q51)
A guiding principle, consistent with the work of the CVM critics, is that a hypothetical valuation question, especially one used for major policy issues and natural resource damage assessments, should pass the most important theoretical validity test no matter what time of day the survey is administered.
I'll point out the funny parts if, like the folks we passed it around to for a quick read and the journal referees, you can't spot the humor (here's one: footnote 1 drops "cromulent" for the first time, I think, in the economics literature). And thanks to the editor for accepting the paper even when a referee said it should be rewritten as a real paper (and submitted where?). That was the original intention but we could never get motivated to do so. It was only during the hopeless to curious phase of my life that inspiration stuck.
*Dickinson, D. L. and Whitehead, J. C. (2014), DUBIOUS AND DUBIOUSER: CONTINGENT VALUATION AND THE TIME OF DAY. Economic Inquiry. doi: 10.1111/ecin.12161
In 1987, Lawrence Livermore National Lab physicist William G. Hoover had a paper on molecular dynamics rejected by two journals the Journal of Statistical Physics. So he added Stronzo Bestiale to the list of co-authors, changed the name, and resubmitted the paper. The Journal of Statistical Physics accepted it.
27 years later, Bestiale is still listed as co-author on several papers. He also has a Scopus profile that lists him as an active researcher at the Institute of Experimental Physics, University of Vienna. ...
Hilarious as these examples are, it does prove a point that’s a little less fun: The scientific community needs to be on its toes about who (or what) is writing the papers they publish, to help keep merde out of the literature.
Stephen Heard once wrote a paper about how pollen spreads among the flowers of a certain endangered plant. In it he speculated that the wind might play a role by shaking loose the pollen. To support his point, he cited "Hall et al., 1957"—a reference to the songwriters of the Jerry Lee Lewis hit "Whole Lotta Shakin’ Goin’ On." But a reviewer nixed Heard’s little joke. "Although I appreciated the levity of the reference," he wrote, "I think it is not appropriate for a scientific publication."
So is levity ever appropriate in a scientific publication? Mr. Heard, a professor of biology at the University of New Brunswick, thinks so, and inan essay titled "On whimsy, jokes, and beauty: can scientific writing be enjoyed?"—published in the always hilarious Ideas in Ecology and Evolution—he bemoans the buttoned-up super-seriousness of most published research, noting that amusing moments in the literature are "unusual enough that finding one is like sighting a glow-throated hummingbird or a Salt Creek tiger beetle: beautiful, but rare, tiny, and glimpsed in passing."
That is unfortunate, Mr. Heard believes, not because research papers can or should be laugh-a-minute, but because moments of lightness remind readers that this paper, like all papers, was written by an actual person, or several actual people, attempting to communicate an idea to other people. ...
I asked editors at several prominent journals what they thought of Mr. Heard’s thesis and whether there were any examples from their own fields. "The record is very sad," wrote Andrew Abbott, editor of theAmerican Journal of Sociology, via email. "Sociology is a largely humorless field, unfortunately." ...
You might imagine there'd be more humor in the humanities, but it's not so, according to Robert Caserio, an editor at the Journal of Modern Literature. "There aren't enough Mark Twains among us," Mr. Caserio complained.
I also contacted Penny Goldberg, a professor of economics at Yale University and editor of the American Economic Review, to ask if she could think of any joke, any tiny moment of amusement, one solitary witticism that has passed across her desk. Anything, even if it was rejected.
Could it have hurt Dr. Goldberg to point out Economic Inquiry (maybe no one at Yale knows the journal exists?)? Here is the comment that I left:
The well-respected Economic Inquiry journal has a "miscellany" section: "A 'Miscellany' section is available in Economic Inquiry and intended for humor and curiosities. Economic Inquiry has a venerable tradition in humor, dating at least to the publication of Axel Leijonhufvud’s 1973 “Life Among the Econ.” At most one paper per journal issue will be devoted to this section; please indicate on the pdf and in the cover letter when a submission is intended for this section."
3. Don’t pack up your things as the class is ending.
We get it. The minute hand is closing in on the end of class, there’s a shift in the instructor’s voice, and you hear something like “For next time …” That’s the cue for the students to start putting their stuff away. Once one person does it, it’s like an avalanche of notebooks slapping closed, backpack zippers zipping, and cell phones coming out.
Don’t do it.
Just wait 10 more seconds until the class is actually over. If you don’t, it makes it seem as if you are dying to get out of there and, hey, that hurts our feelings!
The departmental committee has met to decide on Dr. Henry "Indiana" Jones tenure, and the news is not good...
In his nine years with the department, Dr. Jones has failed to complete even one uninterrupted semester of instruction. In fact, he hasn’t been in attendance for more than four consecutive weeks since he was hired. Departmental records indicate Dr. Jones has taken more sabbaticals, sick time, personal days, conference allotments, and temporary leaves than all the other members of the department combined.
"This blog aims to look at more of the microeconomic ideas that can be used toward environmental ends. Bringing to bear a large quantity of external sources and articles, this blog presents a clear vision of what economic environmentalism can be."
Don't believe what they're saying
And allow me a quick moment to gush: ... The env-econ.net blog was more or less a lifeline in that period of my life, as it was one of the few ways I stayed plugged into the env. econ scene. -- Anonymous
... the Environmental Economics blog ... is now the default homepage on my browser (but then again, I guess I am a wonk -- a word I learned on the E.E. blog). That is a very nice service to the profession. -- Anonymous
"... I try and read the blog everyday and have pointed it out to other faculty who have their students read it for class. It is truly one of the best things in the blogosphere." -- Anonymous