Guidelines for referees at Theoretical Economics

Typical Ph.D. programs don’t cover the practicalities of writing a good referee report. Here are some guidelines for the young economist. Many people have their own styles. We aim to cover the common principles on which almost everyone agrees.

The primary purpose of the report is to help the Editor make a decision. If a revision is requested, it should then provide sufficient conditions for publication. The referee should show restraint when asking for new material and, indeed, make suggestions for how the paper can be made shorter and more focused. It is important that the report be polite and professional while providing an honest assessment; treat others as you would like them to treat you. A report typically has the following sections.

1. Summary
   • A referee report typically summarizes the paper in a couple of paragraphs. This lets the Editor know how you interpret the paper, and puts later comments in context.
   • The summary also clarifies whether everyone is on the same page. If the paper is unclear, the referee may have missed some key element.
2. The opinion
   • This section should explain the strengths and weaknesses of the paper. Length should be used as a criterion in the assessment.
   • The report should include a clear appraisal and an explicit recommendation. The bottom line recommendation may be in the report or in the cover letter. In the letter, one has more freedom to explain nuance.
   • If you are recommending a revise & resubmit (or are close to the fence), you should explain what is necessary to meet the bar. The more precise the better. This should be thought of as a contract: if the author meets these requests, then you will recommend the paper be published.
   • If there is no way the author can satisfy your requirements, the paper should be rejected, no matter how much you like it. Giving a revise & resubmit is a means to an end, not a prize in itself.
   • At Theoretical Economics we seek to make up/down decisions on the second round, so the requests should be reasonable. If you recommend the paper be rejected, you should clearly explain why, both for the benefit of the Editor and the authors.
3. Substantive comments
   • This section should elaborate on the above opinion. Try to be as clear as possible about which issues are necessary for the revision, and which are desirable.
   • These comments should be numbered so the author can refer to them in any revision. They should also be structured, so each comment gets a separate number, rather than having comments flow into other comments.
   • The report should suggest only extensions that are essential for the paper at hand. Any additional request can lead the paper to become bloated, and waste the author’s time. In particular, suggestions to add material in the form of extra appendices (especially supplementary online ones) should be avoided.
   • You should state if (and how) the paper can be made shorter. Which results should be prioritized, and which should be cut? Can the paper be made more succinct, and the proofs shorter, if the results are less general?
4. Smaller/Presentational comments
   • These are best separated from the more substantial comments.
   • Explain which results should be prioritized, and which should be cut.
   • The referee need not point out every typo, but should point out general problem areas.
   • Please refrain from suggesting material be transferred to supplementary appendices that disguise the true length of the paper. At TE, supplementary appendices are generally restricted to mechanical or incidental material (e.g. algebraic derivations, or purely mathematical material that is presented as a service to the reader).