学会读文章是研究的第一步，特此开贴，希望大家开卷有益！


——————版主

Discussing and refereeing a paper
by Manuela La Fauci, Department of Economics, University of Fribourg, manuela.lafauci@unifr.ch
Most of you who followed the PhD course on “Scientific Writing and Scholarly Publication” will
notice that discussing a paper is exactly the same process as writing a referee report. The only
thing you need to know now is how to present your report. Instead of writing two papers you
have to prepare about 4(-6) PowerPoint slides. Remember: You have only a max of 10min to
discuss the paper, 4 slides should be sufficient!!
How to discuss a paper:
− About 2(-3) slides: Summery of the paper in your own words, focus on the essential parts.
− About 1 slide: General remarks. Give appraisal. What has been done well?What is the new
contribution and/or the essential conclusion? What are the most interesting points that the
author makes?
− About 1(-2) slides: Comments (Ideas and extensions). Give constructive feedback and
criticize. Stress the shortcomings and give suggestions for future research or point out what
could or should still be done (better).
How to write a referee report:
1. Read the paper
− (tip: before you start reading it, a brainstorming regarding the title might help to get ideas
before you are already to much “brain washed” by the author’s arguments, max 15min, but
since we already heard the presentation you may skip that point)
− 1 round reading: take the following notes on
o Main Argument: Is this an important topic in the field? Does the author identify an
innovative and important contribution? Or is this one of many papers addressing
the same topic in a similar fashion?
o Structure Æ logically structured?
o Used data Æ do they fit?
o Results Æ do they fit to the middle part?
o Conclusion on the motivation of the paper
− 2 round (best after 3 days): analysing the method more closely (strength and weaknesses of
the methodology/model/theory). In order to write this portion of your review, you may need
to read some other articles in the same subject matter to understand whether the paper is an
important and innovative contribution.
− Tip: if you’re not quite sure ask friends if they agree with your critics.
2. Report: writing consists of four parts
1. Summary: What does the author want to say? Reflect the text with your own words. What is
his/her major contribution (strong parts of the paper)
2. Background and significance of the paper (see main argument above).
3. Strength and weakness of the methodology/model/theory: structure: two chapter:: major
critics on methodological part (theory or empiric), then minor mistakes.
4. Suggestions on the critics in part 2 and 3 of how to improve the paper.
3. How to read the report when you get it back:
− Look for inconsistencies. Why is that so?