The next is the define of a referee report:
(1) Quick abstract of (the contribution of) the paper
(2) Essential feedback
(three) Minor feedback
(four) Evaluation and suggestion to the editor: ought to she or he “Reject” the paper; “Settle for the paper,”; “Ask for a significant revision,”; or “Ask for a minor revision.”
Within the abstract a part of the paper, determine its contribution as you see it. That’s, it’s best to summarize what you assume the paper does, which can not essentially coincide with what the writer claims that it does. In your foremost feedback, you determine the most important strengths and weaknesses of the paper and assess its significance. This will likely additionally lead you to make an early evaluation of the paper. Main feedback regard questions similar to:
• Are the outcomes essential and novel? Clearly, you could learn and evaluate with different latest papers to evaluate this, particularly, learn the papers it cites and construct on.
• Are the outcomes right? I anticipate you to examine all proofs and/ or the appropriateness of statistical strategies used.
• Is further evaluation wanted to help the primary claims within the paper? An excellent report would supply further examples of the mannequin, generalizations, new concepts or recommendations for various assumptions and outcomes, and even sketches of proofs or (whether it is an empirical paper) regression specs.
• Does the paper clarify the outcomes and their significance appropriately? Is the paper properly written? Is the size applicable? Does it give attention to its foremost contribution, or does it spend an excessive amount of time on facet outcomes?
• Minor feedback regard particular recommendations similar to:
o rewriting a specific paragraph, explaining one thing higher, point out lacking or associated literature.
o stating errors (e.g., in formulation) that have to be fastened however can simply be fastened.
o Since you’ve gotten checked all proofs intimately, this must be a by-product.
• As a referee, it’s not your job to level out typos or present a proofreading service. If excessive requirements on this regard aren’t met, you could criticize that the writer has not put sufficient effort into the submission. As talked about above, mathematical errors and typos must be identified by a referee.
The evaluation half will be brief and can sometimes seek advice from your “Essential feedback.” You must also decide whether or not the paper matches the journal and whether or not the contribution is robust sufficient for the journal. For this project, you could assume that the paper has been submitted to The Journal of Finance. Usually, there will likely be execs and cons to a paper. You need to decide whether or not they’re acceptable or whether or not a revision is worth it, or whether or not a revision is sudden to result in a publishable model of the paper. In case you advocate a revision, it’s best to summarize probably the most essential factors to be addressed. In that case, try to be very specific in order that the writer is obvious about what is predicted from her/ him. If you’re unfavorable to the paper and advocate rejection, that is clear sufficient. In that case, you could reasonably finish with some encouraging recommendations.