review-paper

Review Paper

Simulate peer review of the "Sewage in Our Waters" manuscript by running two independent referee reviews and an editorial synthesis.

Input: $ARGUMENTS — path to .tex file, section number (e.g. 01), or all. Defaults to reviewing all sections in docs/overleaf/.

---

Project-Specific Context

Manuscript Location

• Main document: docs/overleaf/_main.tex
• Sections: docs/overleaf/01_introduction.tex through docs/overleaf/05_research_question.tex
• Appendices: docs/overleaf/100_appendix_*.tex
• Bibliography: docs/overleaf/refs.bib

Key Aspects for Referee Scrutiny

• Identification: Do hedonic, repeat sales, long diff, DiD, upstream/downstream, dry spill approaches yield consistent results?
• External validity: England-specific EDM data — how generalisable?
• Data quality: EDM monitoring started 2021 — short panel concerns
• Treatment measurement: Spill count vs hours, 12/24-hour counting methodology
• Spatial matching: 10km maximum radius — appropriate?
• Sorting: Do households sort based on sewage spill information?

Supporting Evidence

• Regression output: output/tables/*.tex
• Figures: output/figures/
• Analysis scripts: scripts/R/09_analysis/
• Quarto book: book/*.qmd

---

Workflow

Step 1: Context Gathering

1. Read the manuscript sections from docs/overleaf/
2. Read docs/overleaf/refs.bib for citation verification
3. Scan output/tables/ for available regression output
4. Scan output/figures/ for available figures
5. Read relevant analysis scripts for methodology verification

Step 2: Referee 1 Review

Launch an Agent to conduct the first blind review:

Focus: Identification strategy and econometric rigour

Score across 5 dimensions:

• Contribution (25%): Novelty, importance, gap filled in hedonic pricing / environmental disamenity literature
• Identification (30%): Design validity, assumptions, threats across all 6 approaches
• Data (20%): EDM data quality, Land Registry coverage, spatial matching methodology
• Writing (15%): Clarity, structure, notation consistency
• Journal Fit (10%): Appropriate for environmental/urban economics journals

Produce: summary, detailed comments by section, recommendation (Accept/Minor/Major/Reject).

Step 3: Referee 2 Review

Launch an Agent (in parallel with Referee 1) for the second blind review:

Focus: External validity, robustness, and alternative explanations

Emphasis on:

• Are results robust across radii (250m-10km)?
• Can sorting explain the findings?
• Do results differ for sales vs rentals — and why?
• Is the dry spill identification convincing?
• How does the upstream/downstream analysis strengthen or weaken the story?

Same 5-dimension scoring, independent of Referee 1.

Step 4: Editorial Synthesis

After both referee reviews complete:

• Read both reports
• Identify areas of agreement and disagreement
• Weigh referee recommendations
• Specify which concerns are mandatory vs optional to address
• Make recommendation: Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject

Step 5: Present Results

# Peer Review Report: Sewage in Our Waters
**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD

## Editorial Decision: [Accept / Minor / Major / Reject]

## Referee 1 Summary
- **Overall score:** XX/100
- **Recommendation:** [Accept/Minor/Major/Reject]
- **Key strengths:** [2-3 points]
- **Key concerns:** [2-3 points]

## Referee 2 Summary
- **Overall score:** XX/100
- **Recommendation:** [Accept/Minor/Major/Reject]
- **Key strengths:** [2-3 points]
- **Key concerns:** [2-3 points]

## Editor's Assessment
- **Referee agreement:** [Where they agree, where they disagree]
- **Mandatory revisions:** [List]
- **Optional improvements:** [List]

## Full Reports
- Referee 1: output/log/referee_1_report.md
- Referee 2: output/log/referee_2_report.md
- Editor: output/log/editorial_decision.md

Save all reports to output/log/.

---

Principles

• Independence. Referees do not see each other's reports. Run in parallel.
• Constructive criticism. The goal is to improve the paper, not tear it down.
• Specific feedback. Every concern must cite exact sections, equations, or tables.
• Calibrated severity. A working draft gets developmental feedback. A near-final manuscript gets referee-level scrutiny.
• Cross-reference against actual output. Verify numbers against output/tables/.
• Editor synthesizes. The Editor resolves referee disagreements and prioritizes revisions.