Hello, dear friend, you can consult us at any time if you have any questions, add WeChat: daixieit


EC338: Econometrics 2: Microeconometrics

 

Guide to Writing a Referee Report

 

 

This document provides brief overview on how to prepare for and write a referee report. By now, you should be familiar with the term “peer review”. The peer review process involves a back-and-forth between authors, editors, and referees. Central to this process is the initial “referee report”.

Most academic papers start their life as working papers. Some academic and research institutions –

e.g. NBER, CESifo, IZA, World Bank, etc – will publish their own working paper series. These series do not generally incorporate a peer review process, but instead ensure that the manuscript is sufficiently polished for distribution. Manuscripts of papers are then submitted to journals, with or without a published working paper version.1

The journal editors provide the first assessment of the paper. Their assessment will focus more on the overall contribution of the paper to see if it meets the calibre of the journal. If they believe it might be a good fit, they will then send it out to referees.2 Typically, the paper will be reviewed by 2-3 peers.

The referees are generally chosen based on their own expertise in the topic of paper. The reviewers provide a recommendation of whether to publish to article, based on their knowledge of the literature and understanding of the methodologies employed.3 The referees can also list any requirements needed to publish the final paper. Amongst others, these may include:

1. Edits to the written manuscript, including changes to the overall argument, rewriting of sentences/paragraphs, and tone.

2. Edits to the analysis. A referee can question the paper’s research design and request additional results, changes to the methodology and a re-estimation of results, as well as a clearer discussion on certain methodological concerns. For example, it is common to request a clarification of identifying assumptions behind a particular model within the particular context of the paper.

3. Clarification of any points that are unclear in the discussion.

4. Suggestions on the structure of the paper: abstract, introduction, results, etc.

5. Corrections to citations or notes on missing references. For example, a referee may feel that the authors have misrepresented the contribution of another paper or forgotten to reference a paper in part of their discussion.

6. Changes to the presentation of the results. This may be in order to make any tables or figures easier to understand.

7. Major and minor errors in mathematical notation.

 

 

1 We have given you a set of working papers to review because non-working-paper manuscripts are much harder to come by.

2 Generally a journal will request that an academic referee a paper. The academic may always reject the offer. 3 In reality, this recommendation will also take into account the quality and reputation of the journal. As you do not know the journal for which you are reviewing the article in this assignment, you can ignore this aspect of the review process and instead focus on the overall contribution and methodology elements.


Essentially, there is nothing that the referee cannot comment on. Moreover, the referee is permitted to ask any number of clarifying questions. However, in the end, the referee must provide a suggestion to the editor as to whether the paper should be,

· Rejected

· Accept with conditions, including a list of conditions

· Accepted as is

It is extremely rare for a paper to be accepted as is and if it is rejected it should be clear on which grounds. Note, even when rejecting a paper the reviewer should still provide practical guidance on how to improve the paper before future submissions. That is, they should still include major and minor comments.

Upon receiving the referee reports, the editors will decide whether or not to proceed. If they do not reject the manuscript it moves on to the “revise and resubmit” stage, at which point the authors are given an opportunity to address each of the questions, requests, suggestions, and criticisms in the referee reports. If the authors cannot address any of these, they must provide a reason for having not done so. This may result in the paper being rejected. Some journals will require multiple rounds of peer review.

 

 

Structure of a Referee Report:

These reports generally follow a set structure:

· Part 1: Summary of the paper

o Referee reports begin with the referee’s own summary of the paper. This summary places the main contribution of the paper within the literature and highlights the key results. It also discusses any methodological challenges and how the authors address these.

o This is not simply a copy of the authors own discussion (i.e. their introduction). Instead, it should demonstrate the reviewer’s own interpretation of the results and literature, which may differ from the authors’. This discussion may also identify areas in which the referee disagrees with the authors’ conclusion.

o The purpose of this summary is to help the journal understand the value of the contribution that has been made in the paper. Consider, the journal editors are not experts in every field. It also helps the authors understand the referee’s overall understanding of the paper upon receipt of the report and therefore gives context to their conditions.

 

· Part 2: Conclusion

o The referee must provide a clearly justified decision. This decision is generally made based on the overall contribution and quality of the paper relative to any changes needed prior to publication. If the referee feels that the changes needed to bring the quality up to the standard of the publishing journal are too involved then it will likely be rejected.

o The authors will generally collect any comments, suggestions, clarifying questions, and requests into a list of major and minor comments. This is literally a numbered list that the authors can then reference in their response to each referee. Note, the reasoning behind the conclusion will typically incorporate some of the issues included


among the major comments. These points should appear in the list of comments too so that the reviewer knows to respond to them.

 

· Part 3: Major comments

o Questions or criticisms regarding the overall argument, conclusion, and interpretation of results.

o Issues related to the methodology and analysis that impact the validity of the results.

o Requests to complete new analyses or revise existing results with changes to the methodology.

o Concerns related to plagiarism.

 

· Part 4: Minor comments

o Issues related to language, grammar, formatting, and tone.

o Issues related to mathematical notation and the presentation of results.

o Missing citations.

 

 

Things to keep in mind:

1. The review process is anonymous. The referees will not know the names of the authors and vice versa. Thus, the referee will always referee to “the authors” in their report and not reference them by name. The referee’s name should also not appear on the report.

2. Make sure that the list of major and minor comments is well organized to help the authors respond to each issue.

3. There is no set formatting for a referee report.

4. If you reference a paper that is not included in the manuscript, you need to provide the reference in a footnote or additional bibliography. Otherwise, you can simply use in-text, author-date citations without a bibliography.

 

 

Comments:

It is evident that the referee must have a thorough knowledge of both the paper and its surrounding literature. For applied research, they must also have an excellent knowledge of the methodologies that have been employed. It is for this reason that referee must read the paper in detail and attempt to understand each component. This includes footnotes, table and figure captions, and appendices.

Referee reports are a good opportunity to practice constructive criticism. There will inevitably be a component the paper that you do not agree. You may also feel that the authors’ argument was not convincing. Try to remember that researchers all face constraints: for example, they may not have access to the ideal dataset or the natural experiment they are exploiting may have flaws. Almost all the time, researchers are doing the best they can under the constraints they have. Try your best to be critical, while also constructive and complimentary.