Get the daily email that makes reading the news actually enjoyable. Stay informed and entertained, for free.
Your information is secure and your privacy is protected. By opting in you agree to receive emails from us. Remember that you can opt-out any time, we hate spam too!
HomeEconomyMy comment on the Desvousges, Mathews and Train (2015) adding-up test article has been published at Ecological Economics

My comment on the Desvousges, Mathews and Train (2015) adding-up test article has been published at Ecological Economics

I first wrote about this in September 2016. I then submitted the comment to Land Economics. The editor sent me the results of an internal review and I revised it accordingly. Then he sent it out for external review and it received a favorable review in February 2017. But, the referee took issue with the reply to my comment. Apparently, the referee suggested that s/he would write a comment on the reply if it was published. The editor decided to reject the comment/reply because he said it is Land Economic‘s policy to only publish comments AND replies. That policy seems strange to me as I think it creates an incentive to write an objectionable reply to comments at Land Economics.

Next I sent it to the Economics: The Open Access, Open Assessment E-journal replication section in 2017. Again, I revised the comment before it was sent out for review. Once it was sent out for review I received three supportive reviews (based on my experience, I’m fairly sure they all supported a revision based on tone and suggestions). I revised and resubmited the paper several times from December 2018 through 2019 in response to referees and a few rounds of editor comments. Finally, I felt that the editor, who was “unconvinced by [my] argument as [I] were presenting it, was pushing me in directions that I didn’t want to take the comment and I withdrew it from review in November 2019.

I next submitted the paper to Ecological Economics in December 2019. I received three reviews, each of which were thorough and supportive of publication (again, if my experience reading reviews is correct). I revised the paper and it was accepted for publication. Then, the editors sent it to Desvousges et al. for their reply. I have not yet read the reply. I imagine I’ll have more to say when I have read it. 

This has been a very frustrating process. It is difficult to get a comment published, especially after it was rejected at the journal where the original article was published. But, I’m glad that the paper is published since I don’t think the Desvousges et al. data supports their conclusions. 

The link to the paper is