Reviewing the work of others

1. Reviewing the work of others Referee reports

2. Components of a referee report • Summary of the paper • Overall evaluation • Comments about content • Comments about style

3. The Summary • A brief summary of the paper • Do not copy the abstract; use your own words • Purpose of the summary • Makes the report self-contained • If you review a subsequent version, it helps you remember the original version. • Makes it clear to author and editors that you have actually read the paper • Part of writing as a process • Isolates points of discussion for your review • Helps you to formulate an opinion

4. The Overall Evaluation • Discuss the place of the paper in the literature • Appropriateness for the specific journal (review the aims and scope of the journal if you are not familiar with them). • Originality • Appropriateness of the model and methods • Accuracy of the results • Usefulness of implications and conclusions • Always try to find something positive in the paper, even in rejecting it. Kindness is a virtue, meanness is not.

5. Comments about content • Provide both general and specific comments • Often it is useful to follow the organization of the paper • Discuss if all sections are really needed • Discuss if the organization makes sense and follows logically • Provide specific comments by the organization of the paper • Comment if the paper is well-motivated, by the literature or something else. • Discuss whether the theory or context supports the empirical analysis.

6. Comments about content, continued • If you don’t check the proofs, say so • Evaluate the implications and conclusions, clearly and in a separate section of your report • Be very clear about anything you think is incorrect or raises questions • If you question math , show the alternative steps • If you question technique or assumptions • Explain why • Provide alternatives • If a result is predicated on an unstated assumption, make sure to point that out

7. Commenting on Style • Consider all elements of style • Organization • Grammar • Spelling • Paragraph structure • Flow • If the paper is unreadable, return it to the editor and say so. Papers rarely get refereed if they are this bad.

8. Finally offer some hints, even if suggesting the paper be rejected • Do NOT put your recommendation in the referee report, it goes in the letter to the editor • Suggest changes that you think will improve the paper • Number your comments, and relate them to paragraphs and page numbers • Group your comments by sections • Your responsibility is to the journal, the discipline and accuracy • Never be condescending or rude.

9. Cover letter • This is where you make your recommendation • You can be sharper here, but still remember, niceness is a virtue • Be specific about why you think a paper should be rejected, if that is your recommendation • If you recommend a revise and resubmit, give specific ideas about what you think needs to be done • Be concise, do not rewrite the full report

10. Should you do a referee report if asked? • It is a good way to learn, so lean towards doing them • It is important service to the discipline • It ingratiates you with editors, especially if you do a good job • Turn down for the following reasons • You lack expertise or interest • You have a conflict of interest (for example, you are writing a similar paper, or know the author and are writing with him/her) • You can’t meet the deadline • If you have reviewed the paper for a different journal, let the editor know, and let him/her make the decision

11. What journals expect go to websites and work through examples.