how to discuss a paper ? 如何讨论介绍学术文章和写审稿人报告

是 否 +2 论坛币

k人 参与回答

经管之家送您一份

应届毕业生专属福利!

求职就业群

赵安豆老师微信：zhaoandou666

经管之家联合CDA

送您一个全额奖学金名额~ !

立即领取

感谢您参与论坛问题回答

经管之家送您两个论坛币！

+2 论坛币

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?

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明：姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格，未注明则拒绝

分享0 收藏3 回帖

关键词：discuss DISC 学术文章 How scu 审稿

When discussing a paper, try to open with brief comments about what worked in the paper, being as specific as possible. While glowing praise is nice, constructive feedback and critique are important to the author. That said, we must all be professional and polite. Try to avoid explicit statements such as "I disagree with..." or "You are wrong about..." It helps if you can pick out 3-4 ideas with which you take issue or about which you think clarification is needed. Your job as discussant is to start the conversation and get the others in the room thinking about the paper.

The discussant is the person whose familiarity of the paper is going to be second to the author. Please read your assigned paper carefully. You may also want to address questions to the author before the conference.

The below framework can guide you to construct your discussion. Given the 5-minute time constraint, please address the below points to the extent they are relevant.

Research Question or Puzzle: Does the author develop and present an interesting theoretical question or an empirical puzzle to be solved? What are they? What is his or her proposed solution or argument?

Theoretical Debate or Historical Context: What broader theoretical or historical debates do the question, puzzle and proposed argument address? What literature does the author refer to? What does the author seek to add to this literature?

Hypothesis Formation and Predictions: Does the author develop a set of alternative or competing hypotheses to explain the proposed question or puzzle? What are the author's primary independent and dependent variables? Does the author specify what he or she expects to find based on his or her theory? What are his or her hypotheses? Are the hypotheses falsifiable? How will the reader know when the proposed hypotheses are wrong?

Operationalization of the Hypotheses: How does the author operationalize the competing hypotheses? Are the variables that he or she chooses reliable? Are they valid? Are there other variables that may better reflect your interpretation of the competing hypotheses?

Data Collection and Case Selection: What criteria did the author use to collect his or her data? Do the data represent a population or a sample? If they are taken from a sample, is the sample selected randomly? If a comparative case study method or small n study technique is used instead, are the cases comparable? Can the impact of competing causal variables be controlled for? Are the cases representative of a broader set of cases or phenomena? Is the case selection process biased in any way? If so, what effect is this likely to have on the results?

Data Analysis and Presentation of the Results: What techniques does the author use to analyze the data? Are these techniques appropriate given the research question, the nature of the data, and the case selection process used? Are the results presented in a useful manner? Are the written summaries of data presented in tables, charts, and graphs accurate? What are the author's results? Are the findings suggested by the author supported by his or her research? Are the results robust?

Implications of the Results: So What? What are the implications of these results for the question or puzzle that the author presented? What are the implications of the results for the theoretical debates that the author is addressing? What additional analysis could be done to bolster the author's findings? What does the author's research or findings add to the field? What avenues for future research do the author’s results suggest would be fruitful?

Thanks,help me alot

Notes on Presenting a Paper
Social Sciences 212a, Fall 1998, Matthew O. Jackson
This provides an outline of things you should be thinking about in organizing your presentations for class. As your presentations will provide
practice for your second year presentations, job market papers, and future
seminars, I have directed the outline towards seminar presentations, and at
points mention you might adjust presentations for changes in circumstance
and audience. What appears below represents my own tastes and experience,
and is meant only as a guide to preparing a seminar-style presentation.

附件中是斯坦福大学的一位教授写的关于如何present a paper的要点。

不愧为版主，support you！

特别支持版主，好人一枚

great!thanks!

A good idea

A good idea

谢谢，不错。