How to Prepare a Referee Report

Start by reading the paper quickly so as to get the key ideas. Take notes about what the authors are trying to convey to the reader and the literature context of the paper. Consider how successful the authors are at their approach. Write down any major concerns that you had on this first reading.

Then, read the paper carefully and prepare the report. Reports should be written in a neutral and polite tone, one you might use if one of the senior professors asked your opinion of their latest book or working paper.

Reports have three sections:

Summary:

All reports should begin with a brief statement of the author’s central thesis and should place it in the correct context. Write neutrally as you might if you were recording information for a senior professor.  Answer the question, “what did the authors of this paper view themselves as doing?” Your summary of the paper is a way of establishing your credibility with the authors who want to know if you have carefully studied the paper. This section is generally a paragraph or two in length.

Evaluation:

In this section you should answer the question, “has this paper made an important contribution to the literature?”  Comparisons with similar papers are an appropriate way to place the contribution of the paper in context.  You should describe any critical problems with the paper including places where the logical argument is not tight, the econometric tools are inappropriate, the conclusions are incorrect, or the contribution is inaccurately described.  Consider if there is an alternative theory that is better suited that the author has ignored.  If the work is empirical, comment on whether you found it convincing.  You should not include a recommendation about whether the editor should reject the paper in the referee report.  This is done in a letter to the editor not provided to the authors.  This section is generally less than a page in length.

Information for the Author:

The author should benefit from the referee report.  You should comment on areas where the paper was hard to follow, derivations were obscure, or empirical work was incompletely described.  Most referees divide this into two subsections.  In the first, describe larger issues and what could be done to resolve them.  In the second, list smaller problems (typos, spelling errors, grammatical issues) by page number.  Look for references to the literature that are incorrect.  Your writing should be polite; your goal is to provide helpful advice which would make the paper easier to understand.