Writing reviews

1
Writing reviews

• - some remarks based on the evaluation of your
  reviews

2
Outline

• General comments
• Abstract
• Structure
• Literature review
• Critical part
• Extensions
• Linguistic comments

3
Abstract

• Serves to describe what you want to do
• we KNOW that you review the paper and which paper
  it is
• we DO NOT KNOW what is your point and how you
  perceive the paper
• Should be short 150 words maximum
• Should not repeat the abstract of the reviewed
  paper
• Should make us interested in reading further

4
Structure

• There is only ONE thing you say, so reflect that
  in your structure
• Steps
• Find a theme that you find interesting/puzzling/wr
  ong/rigth/etc
• Make your point (in terms of notes)
• Read more about it in the literature, to find
  others who perhaps share your criticism/enthusiasm
  
• Reflect that in the literature selection for your
  literature review section
• Describe that in detail in your critical section
• Suggest cures in your extensions section
• This should be like a one line (of thinking)

5
Introduction

• Explain your motivation
• Yes
• The aim of this review is to criticise/praise a
  particular aspect of the discussion paper by X
  and Y (2010), i.e....
• No
• The reviewed paper is about (...)
• Make sure you actually understand the paper you
  review
• What was the main point?
• Is your criticism fundamental (undermining) or
  minor?

6
Literature review

• Compare the problems, methods and results gt do
  not describe other papers in details.
• YES
• The related literature of this discussion paper
  can be roughly divided in two main
• categories ().
• Simmilar results were obtained by Roberto and
  Chang (2001) .
• In contarary, Roberto and Chang (2001) suggest
  that ()
• NO
• Roberto Cardarelli (2007) presents () .
• Ren Ruoen (1995) explains (.).
• Alan J. Auerbach (2001) reports ()

7
Literature review - continued

• Literature review in the original paper is a
  good START but not the endpoint
• Use ScholarGoogle, but do not forget to think
  first!
• No
• insufficient search for literature
• Basing only or mostly on non-scholarly literature
• Unfocused literature review
• Yes
• Clearly specify the field and the evolution of
  ideas in this field
• Locate the paper in the field
• Explain why these papers are important for your
  review

8
Critical part

• Be prepared to criticise the paper
• Your own country/personal experience is a good
  START, but not endpoint
• Read the paper before the seminar,
• ask your questions, perhaps more ideas will come
• Share your ideas with others, discuss we
  evaluate your work, not how you got there
• Be innovative.

9
Extensions

• You can always make a different research you
  are supposed to provide extensions to this one!
• There is point in this excercise - explain why
  relevant
• No
• sketchy or clearly infeasible "extensions
• Yes
• New test, new variable, new model
• Same stuff but a different sample
• Remember there should be more than one
• Remember it should adress your main criticism
• Explain them well and in detail

10
Writing tips

• Typical problems
• smith and jones (1994) report or find or claim
  better than smith and jones say
• overly informal and personal style ("I totally
  agree" etc.)
• researchers or authors better than scientists or
  economists
• Wrong grammar (if you are not native, put your
  effort)
• Wrong spelling (use spell checker)

11
Final comments

• Use our advice even if you dont agree, we are
  the evaluators ?
• This is for you to learn make use of this
• Being mistaken once is excusable twice is
  understandable thrice is annoying gt you have
  to do five.
• You will have to write in the future now is the
  time to learn how
• You will have to jump start many debates,
  projects, etc now is the time to learn on how
  to fast acquire the minimum required knowledge