Choose any paper from the PDFs, and write a referees report with a particular focus on critically examining the quantitative methodology employed. References must include three articles indicated at the bottom of the instruction.
Write Sections 1 and 2 in a way that supports your discussion in sections 3-5.
Structure of the report
You must use the following headings in your report
1. Introduction (50 words max)
Which research questions are addressed in the paper? Which literature does the paper connect to? What is the novelty in the paper and why is it a contribution to the literature? Dont waffle- come straight to the point.
2. The framework
What is the new theory / conceptual framework proposed in the paper? What are the main constructs / variables? What is hypothesized about them? Can you produce path diagrams of the hypothesized causal / moderating / mediating relationships between variables? If the paper offers many hypotheses, you dont need to be fully comprehensive. Which are the main hypotheses, the ones that make a real contribution to the literature? Dont just summarize but prioritize.
3. Data and empirical operationalization
What is the source of the data? How close are the data / measures to the concepts laid out in the theory section? What is the population of interest? Are there selection issues? What are the limitations of the data? Are the distributional properties of the data described well in summary statistics tables?
How is the conceptual framework translated into a model? How does the model relate to the theory? Rephrase the tested hypotheses in terms of claims about model parameters (their signs and significances) in the model equations. In a good paper (that has a good identification strategy) this can be done clearly enough such that empirical analysis will either reject or not reject the theory.
4. Empirical analysis
Discuss the results from a statistical point of view. Are the assumptions required by the statistical modelling technique plausible and reasonable?
Do the results support the hypotheses? Pick what you regard as the main hypotheses (or the hypothesis that is least well supported) and explain the connection between coefficient estimates in the results tables and the hypothesis. Is this connection made clear in the paper? Interpret the results first in the specific context related to the data and then in the more general context of the general hypothesis in the theory section. Are the results consistent with the theory? Is the leap from correlation to causation properly addressed?
5. Critique
Are there alternative explanations for some of the obtained regression results (omitted variables, reverse causality)? Have the authors made the limitations clear in the paper? Pick one important point of critique and be precise with your critique. Explain clearly why you are concerned, dont just say I am concerned about selection bias or a similar generic concern. laundry list of all issues, with none of them discussed with insight will not get credit. Explain why your concern is a problem in the specific context of the paper. You get extra credit if your critique is constructive in the sense that you propose extensions, modifications, further investigations, or alternative data that might help the authors deal with your concern.
Word count must be between 800-1000.
References must include three of these:
Edmondson, A. (1999) Psychological Safety and Learning Behaviour in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2): pp. 350-383
Zhang, Y. and Shaw, J. D. (2012) “Publishing in AMJ – Part 5: Crafting the Methods and Results.” Academy of Management Journal, 55(1): pp. 812
Sutton, R. I. and Staw, B. M. (1995) What Theory is Not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3): pp. 371-384
