Assignment II — Referee Report
Research in Finance
Overview
Due: 3 February 2026 via email. Submission format: one PDF, 2.5–3 pages, 11 pt Times New Roman, 1.5 spaced. Group size: up to 5 students. Weight: 50% of the final grade.
Attend the mandatory Brown Bag Seminar on 20 January 2026 (13:30–16:00) and select one doctoral presentation to critique, applying the writing, publishing, and refereeing tips from Lecture 4 to practice thesis-level analysis.
Submission rules
You must submit only one file:
- One 2.5–3 page report in academic referee style, focusing on the presentation’s contribution to the literature and your judgment of its empirical strategy.
- Include your name(s) and the title of the chosen presentation in the document.
Email the report as PDF to oliver.padmaperuma@uni-ulm.de, with andre.guettler@uni-ulm.de in CC. Subject / file pattern: RiF2025_RefereeReport_surname1_surname2_....
You will receive the PDF of each presentation and the corresponding working paper (when available). Sometimes there is no working paper; in that case base your report solely on the presentation.
Required content (the three-part referee structure)
1. Summary
A short summary of the paper / presentation in your own words, addressing:
- What is the question asked by the author?
- What is the identification strategy?
- What data is used?
- How is the hypothesis formulated and tested?
- What are the results?
The purpose of this section is to summarise the work for the editor in a way that lets her understand the essence and contribution without having to read the paper.
2. Major issues — 3 or 4 points
For each major positive or negative point, dig into one of the following dimensions:
- The question — clearly explained and motivated? Original? Reasonable scope?
- The identification strategy — source of variation, endogeneity, robustness, causal interpretation.
- The data — fit for purpose, replicable, measurement-error issues, summary statistics.
- The econometric analysis — appropriate techniques, estimator properties, alternative specifications, robustness.
- The results & conclusion — clearly stated, related back to the question, caveats, well-supported claims.
For a positive point: argue why the question / approach / techniques / identification / data is particularly important, novel, innovative, or unusual.
For a negative point: look for lack of correspondence between the idea and the model, the model and the empiricism, the empirical strategy and the conclusion. Another rejection-worthy argument: the paper has nothing wrong but is boring and not new — refer to other works to show why this is well known or already done.
3. Minor issues — optional
If you have major criticisms that lead you to recommend rejection, you don’t need a section on minor issues. Otherwise, include a few useful suggestions to improve the paper (clarity, structure, additional robustness checks, presentation).
Tasks summary
- Summarise the presentation’s main ideas.
- Evaluate novelty compared to existing literature.
- Assess the empirical methods (identification, robustness).
- Discuss implications, strengths, weaknesses, limitations, and suggestions for improvement.
Grading rubric
| Criterion | Weight |
|---|---|
| Depth of analysis (contribution and empirical aspects) | 40% |
| Writing quality (concise, organised, skim-friendly) | 30% |
| Originality of insights | 20% |
| Adherence to format (2.5–3 pages, 11 pt TNR, 1.5 spaced, structure) | 10% |
Honor code
By submitting this referee report, you confirm that the work is your group’s own and that any AI assistance has been disclosed.