The following is the outline of a referee report:

(1) Short summary of (the contribution of) the paper

(2) Main comments

(3) Minor comments

(4) Assessment and recommendation to the editor: should he or she "Reject" the paper; "Accept the paper,"; "Ask for a major revision,"; or "Ask for a minor revision."

In the summary part of the paper, identify its contribution as you see it. That is, you should summarize what you think the paper does, which may not necessarily coincide with what the author claims that it does. In your main comments, you identify the major strengths and weaknesses of the paper and assess its importance. This may also lead you to make an early assessment of the paper. Major comments regard questions such as:

· Are the results important and novel? Obviously, you must read and compare with other recent papers to assess this, in particular, read the papers it cites and build on.

· Are the results correct? I expect you to check all proofs and/ or the appropriateness of statistical methods used.

· Is additional analysis needed to support the main claims in the paper? A very good report would provide additional examples of the model, generalizations, new ideas or suggestions for alternative assumptions and results, and even sketches of proofs or (if it is an empirical paper) regression specifications.

· Does the paper explain the results and their importance appropriately? Is the paper well written? Is the length appropriate? Does it focus on its main contribution, or does it spend too much time on side results?

· Minor comments regard specific suggestions such as:

· rewriting a particular paragraph, explaining something better, mention missing or related literature.

· pointing out mistakes (e.g., in formulas) that must be fixed but can easily be fixed.

· Since you have checked all proofs in detail, this should be a by-product.

· As a referee, it is not your job to point out typos or provide a proofreading service. If high standards in this regard are not met, you may criticize that the author has not put enough effort into the submission. As mentioned above, mathematical mistakes and typos should be pointed out by a referee.

The assessment part can be short and will typically refer to your “Main comments.” You should also judge whether the paper fits the journal and whether the contribution is strong enough for the journal. For this assignment, you may assume that the paper has been submitted to The Journal of Finance. Typically, there will be pros and cons to a paper. You have to judge whether they are acceptable or whether a revision is worthwhile, or whether a revision is unexpected to lead to a publishable version of the paper. If you recommend a revision, you should summarize the most crucial points to be addressed. In that case, you should be very explicit so that the author is clear about what is expected from her/ him. If you are unfavorable to the paper and recommend rejection, this is clear enough. In that case, you may rather end with some encouraging suggestions.

pur-new-sol

Related Questions