This has been posted as a discussion paper at the Economics E-journal. Here is the abstract and citation:
Desvousges, Mathews and Train (2015) find that their contingent valuation method (CVM) survey data does not pass the adding up test using a nonparametric estimate of mean willingnessto-pay. Their data suffers from non-monotocity, flat bid curve and fat tails problems, each of which can cause willingness-to-pay estimates to be sensitive to the approach chosen to measure the central tendency. Using additional parametric approaches that are standard in the literature, I find that willingness to pay for the whole is not statistically different from the sum of the parts in two of three additional estimates. In additional robustness checks, all six of the additional tests find that the WTP estimates do not reject the adding up hypothesis. The negative result in Desvousges, Mathews and Train (2015) is not robust to these alternative approaches to willingness-to-pay estimation.
John C. Whitehead (2017). A replication of willingness-to-pay estimates in ‘An adding up test on contingent valuations of river and lake quality’ (Land Economics, 2015). Economics Discussion Papers, No 2017-55, Kiel Institute for the World Economy. http://www.economics-ejournal.org/economics/discussionpapers/2017-55
The Economics E-Journal:
... is an online-only journal dedicated to publishing high quality original research across all areas of economics. It views academic publishing as a cooperative enterprise between authors, editors, referees, and readers.
The paper and the authors' reply has been posted in the Replication Section:
Replications are an important public good to the economics community, and as such, they tend to be under-valued. By opening a replications section in our open access, open assessment journal, we hope to make it easier for authors to provide this important public good.
The peer review process is open. My paper has passed through the first part of the first stage of the review process:
The author submits a paper, if possible with hyperlinks to the referenced literature. In addition to the paper, the author is encouraged to also provide mathematical derivations, underlying data sets and a list of researchers who may be interested in reviewing and rating the paper.
The assistant editors check formal and professional standards and pass the paper to a co-editor in the relevant research field.
The co-editor decides on whether to accept the paper for the further peer review process by answering two questions: (i) Whether the paper shows promise of making a significant contribution and (ii) whether it meets basic scientific standards. The co-editor is free to ask other experts in the field for a quick opinion.
If these questions are answered in the affirmative, the paper is promptly published on the platform of the Economics discussion Papers series. ...
In other words, I didn't get a "desk reject." The second part of the first stage of the review process is different from a regular journal in that it is open and anyone can participate (not just two to three plus anonymous referees like a regular journal):
The co-editor appoints at least two referees for reviewing the paper .... The referee reports are uploaded on the discussion paper platform within six weeks if possible. The referees’ comments may be anonymous, but referees are encouraged to allow their reports to be attributed. Referees are asked to provide short reports that focus on two questions: (i) Is the contribution of the paper potentially significant? (ii) Is the analysis correct? Referees are asked NOT to rewrite the paper or to change its focus. With their assignment thus circumscribed, the referees can be expected to provide reports before the six week deadline elapses.
While the referees are reviewing the paper, the corresponding public discussion platform is open for eight weeks (the "discussion period"). On this platform, registered readers (and invited readers) may review the paper by uploading comments (anonymously or with the name of the contributor published on the Web). In addition, the referees´ comments are posted on the Web site. Authors are asked to respond to these comments. All comments and responses are published and archived in the Economics Discussion Paper section. ...
During the discussion period, the editorial staff sends the paper to potentially interested researchers (invited readers) to encourage them to also post a comment on the discussion platform. The list of these researchers is compiled partly by the managing staff with the help of the Leibniz Information Centre for Economics and partly by the author. The author is free to respond to all comments.
The second stage of the review process begins with the "reject" vs "revised and resubmit" decision:
Based on the referee reports, the comments made by registered and invited readers and the author replies, the co-editor decides whether the paper is accepted or rejected for publication in Economics.
If the co-editor´s decision deviates from the views of the referees and the registered readers, the co-editor is free to justify it publicly through a statement in the paper’s discussion forum. In the case of acceptance, the co-editor prepares a short statement, e.g. containing suggestion for revisions.
If accepted, the discussion paper or its revised version is published as article in Economics. The discussion paper with all comments is permanently archived and remains accessible to the public for documenting the paper’s history.
I anticipate that this will be a fascinating process and I'm sure to learn a lot.
