Chetty, Saez and Sándor’s paper (2014) described reviewers assigned by chance to four policies at the Journal of Public Economics. Its main 2010–2011 comparison counted 2,423 invitations, including repeat reviewers. Policies included scheduled reminders. Among accepted invitations, the 28-day deadline policy accelerated reports versus the 45-day one; a $100 gift card for submission within 28 days accelerated them further. Timing started at invitation; the authors checked differences in who accepted. In the two 28-day groups, about 72 versus 64 per 100 invitations were accepted with versus without payment. Quality checks counted words and whether editors’ publication decisions matched reviewers’ advice. Paid reports were somewhat shorter; no clear agreement difference was detected. These checks do not independently measure scientific-error detection.