Overview
Peer Reviewer Report Article Options (Choose One)
- Black, B. S., & Gilson, R. J. (1998). Venture capital and the structure of capital markets: Banks versus stock markets. Journal of Financial Economics, 47(3), 243-277.
- Brau, J. C., & Fawcett, S. E. (2006). Initial public offerings: An analysis of theory and practice. The Journal of Finance, 61(1), 399-436.
- Chok, J., & Qian, J. (2013). Comparable stocks, boundedly rational stock markets and IPO entry rates. PLoS ONE, 8(5), e61474.
- Doidge, C., Karolyi, G. A., & Stulz, R. M. (2017). The U.S. listing gap. Journal of Financial Economics, 123(3), 464-487.
- Ewens, M., & Farre-Mensa, J. (2020). The deregulation of the private equity markets and the decline in IPOs. The Review of Financial Studies, 33(12), 5463-5509.
Assignment Instructions: Reviewer Report Written Assignment
For this assignment, you will select one of the articles above and prepare a detailed reviewer report. This assignment is designed to enhance your critical thinking and analytical skills as well as your ability to evaluate and provide constructive feedback on academic research.
Assignment Requirements
- Length: 4–5 pages, double-spaced.
- Formatting: Follow APA 7th edition format, including a title page and references if applicable.
- Submission: Submit your completed assignment in GAP as a Microsoft Word document.
What Makes a Good or Bad Reviewer Report?
- Good reviewer report: Briefly summarizes the paper, provides solid suggestions and criticisms, and supports them with evidence and reasoning.
- Bad reviewer report: Only summarizes the paper or focuses excessively on technicalities.
View a Sample Reviewer Report to see an exemplary model of this assignment.
Structure of Reviewer Report
Your report should be structured into the following key sections:
Summary (Length: Less than 1 page.)
In this section, provide a concise summary of the article. Your summary should address the following:
- Objectives: What is the paper trying to achieve?
- Approach: How do the authors plan to accomplish their objectives?
- Significance: Why is the paper’s objective interesting or important?
- Context: Where does this paper fit within the broader literature?
Assessment
This is the most critical section of your report.
Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the article based on the following:
- Analysis: Are there any conceptual or methodological issues with the paper?
- Evidence: Do you find the evidence compelling? Why or why not?
- Accomplishments: Does the paper achieve its stated objectives?
- Concerns: Are there key issues or concerns with the paper’s argument or strategy?
Be specific in your critiques and avoid relying on technical econometrics unless it directly supports your argument. Instead of deciding whether the paper should be published, focus on whether it accomplishes what it sets out to do. For example:
- “The paper effectively addresses question X by…”
- “The paper does not make a compelling case for X because…”
Additionally, include a discussion of any key institutional facts that are critical to evaluating the paper’s strategy.
Specific Comments
This section is for technical issues, detailed critiques, and suggestions for improvement.
- Focus on specific details rather than broad generalities.
- Highlight any technical concerns, such as issues with methodology, data analysis, or interpretation of results.
- Provide concrete suggestions that could improve the analysis or clarify the argument.
Extensions/Further Work
Conclude your report with suggestions for future work or potential extensions of the research.
- How could the paper be improved or expanded?
- If you were to write a follow-up to this paper, what would you focus on?
- What additional questions does the paper raise?
By following these guidelines, you will craft a comprehensive and constructive reviewer report. If you have any questions about the assignment, please reach out to your instructor.