Our academic experts are ready and waiting to assist with any writing project you may have. From simple essay plans, through to full dissertations, you can guarantee we have a service perfectly matched to your needs.
In this paper I would like to focus on the methodology more. ( I attached the paper) Your Task: Read the paper in question carefully and critically. Your job is to make a recommendation to the editor as to whether the paper should be “rejected” or offered the opportunity for further revision. In either case, you will note specific points that led you to your recommendation – that is points where you found the paper compelling or not compelling – and, for those points, recommendations you would make to the authors if they were offered the opportunity to further revise. For this class, I am the “editor”, you are the “referee”. You will write one report per week (on either paper for the week—you choose!). You do not have to write one on the week that you are discussion leader. Format: – One paragraph (not a long paragraph either!) summarizing the basic points of the paper. – Then, on to your points. They can be bulleted points – in fact, I recommend it! It makes it easier to read the distinct points you are making. – For the sake of this class, keep it under 1-1.5 pages. I’d like you to write a SHORT (1ish page) evaluation of ONE of the papers from that week. You can choose which paper you write an evaluation of. View yourself as being in the role of a referee, critically evaluating the paper and providing anonymous feedback to the authors. In the evaluation, I want you to write: – A very short summary of the paper. (Don’t go overboard, I will have read the paper. I just want to see your understanding of the paper in your own words.) You should state the research question, state the empirical strategy used, and state the main result. You can do this in 3-5 sentences. – Briefly describe the threat to causality that requires the author to use a quasi-experimental approach. That is, why not just run a simple regression? Sometimes the authors spell this out, sometimes they don’t, but you should think about it anyway. – Were you convinced by the empirical strategy? Draw on what we’ve discussed in class around what an author needs to do to convince readers that their approach is valid. If so, why? If not, why not? Provide concrete suggestions regarding what you would like to see the author do in the paper to address you concerns. – This is the part I will care most about when grading these! This is where you can really show an understanding of the methods we’re learning. – No paper is perfect! You should be able to find some area where you are concerned. (You will get better at this as the semester progresses.) Your task is to evaluate whether the authors successful deal with that area of concern, or not.
So, you should find area in the methodology in sections involving empirical design and results.