Canadian
Journal of
Economics
 
Revue
canadienne
d'économique

Advice to Referees

The Canadian Journal of Economics relies heavily on the conscientious efforts of referees. The following questions and answers might be helpful in guiding those efforts.

1. Are referees compensated in any way?

   Yes. Referees who submit reports on time receive a free one-year membership in the Canadian Economics Association (CEA), which includes a subscription to the Journal, and means that these referees can submit papers without paying a membership fee. The time allowed for a report is 8 weeks. (See question 4 for more on timing.) For referees who already belong to the CEA, a year will be added to their memberships. There will be some limit on the amount of credit a referee can accumulate, probably something like two years beyond the current year. This compensation applies only to the "first round" on a paper. Free membership is small compensation for the effort involved, but it does provide some tangible recognition of referees' contributions.

2. What is the CJE looking for in a paper?

   A potentially publishable paper should meet the following criteria. Failure to meet any one of these criteria might be sufficient to recommend rejection.

   1. The motivation for the paper should be clear and compelling. Typically the motivation will include a clearly specified research question and a statement as to why this question is interesting. However, a paper whose primary motivation is to synthesize or even survey earlier work might also be publishable.

   2. The analysis in the paper should be correct and should be appropriately rigorous given the research question.

   3. The paper must be sufficiently original to warrant publication. Typically, this originality arises from new theoretical results or new empirical findings, but it may arise from new interpretation or synthesis of known material.

   4. The paper should be well written. In particular, the logical structure of the paper should be clear, and the paper should be relatively free from errors of grammar and usage. A skillful author can usually make an intrinsically difficult argument reasonably easy to follow, while poor writing can make even minor or trivial points hard to understand.

   5. The paper should be potentially interesting to a reasonably broad group of potential readers. These readers might be confined to a particular field within economics, but the ideal paper is one that would capture the interest of other readers as well.

3. How much time should a referee spend on a paper?

   The amount of time taken with a paper can vary enormously - anything from a couple of hours to a couple of days of full-time effort. A typical report should probably take 3 or 4 hours. Keep in mind that the CJE rejects about 80% of papers received. If you quickly form the opinion that the paper is not likely to "make the cut", you do not need to spend much time with it. Constructive thoughtful criticism is always helpful to authors, but if all you have time for is a short report, and you can provide it quickly, the editors would encourage you to do so. Do not delay a report just because you are having difficulty thinking of constructive suggestions.

4. How quickly does the editor expect my report?

   The CJE is trying to reduce turn-around time. We ask referees to handle papers within about 8 weeks of receipt, allowing turn-around time of about 3 months from the author's point of view. We would suggest the following approach:

   1. When the paper first arrives (i.e. within the first week) take a quick look at it. You might be able to quickly form an opinion that the paper should be rejected, based perhaps on similarity to existing work or on lack of overall significance.

   2. If you can come to a quick decision of this type, take an hour or so to write up a short report, briefly explaining your concerns, then send it to the editor by e-mail. The e-mail can be sent to journals@economics.ca.

   3. If, on the other hand, the paper looks interesting and well-done, then you will probably want to put the paper away until you have time to read it more thoroughly.

5. When can I reasonably decline a request to referee a paper?

   Referees are under a lot of time pressure and might sometimes need to send papers back without refereeing them. Please keep the following points in mind

   1. If you have recently had a paper published, accepted for publication, or even just advanced to the invited revision stage at the CJE, the editors will expect you to do a reasonable amount of refereeing. People who use the resources of the Journal without contributing to the refereeing process are free riders.

   2. If you must decline, let the editor know quickly (within a few days of receiving the paper), by FAX or e-mail. The paper can be returned by regular mail.

   3. It is helpful to provide the names of alternative referees. However, names of obvious prominent scholars are not much help, as the editor has probably thought of them already. Ideal suggestions are young active scholars who might not be overburdened with other duties and with whom the editor might not be familiar.

   4. If you are not competent to referee a paper in a particular area, you should return the paper and explain the reason, indicating a willingness to handle papers in your area, which you should specify clearly. Keep in mind, however, that the editor might have asked you precisely because you can provide perspective. It is helpful to the editor if you make comments appropriate to your background, even if you cannot appreciate all aspects of a paper.

6. Do I need to check the algebra or the empirical analysis?

   Only rarely would a referee be in a position to check empirical results. Often the referee has neither sufficient time nor access to the necessary data to replicate the empirical analysis in a paper. Usually the best you can do is to convince yourself that the results seem plausible, given your knowledge of the area, and are internally consistent. The editors are, however, encouraging authors to make their data and (where relevant) estimation algorithms available to referees and potentially to other interested parties. Checking algebra is much more feasible than checking empirical analysis, but even so it may often not be necessary. In particular, if you are recommending rejection for some reason other than concerns about the correctness of the analysis, there is no need to check the algebraic details of the paper. Even if you are favourably disposed toward a paper, it will often be impossible to check everything. One useful approach is to check some items, particularly the initial model development, and then to make sure that you can at least understand why the other results make sense. If it is very hard to follow the algebraic development in a paper, that is in itself a serious flaw in the paper.

7. What should I do if I have refereed the paper for another journal?

   Even if you have refereed the paper for another journal, the editor will be interested in your view. Some referees adopt a blanket rule not to review the same paper twice, taking the view that authors should not have to face "double jeopardy". This is, of course, their decision to make. However, we would prefer that you let the editor know that you have refereed the paper before and indicate your current view of the paper. For example, you might have recommended rejecting the paper at a very top journal but might view it as a reasonable publication for the CJE. The editor will be particularly interested in whether the authors have made any effort to deal with your earlier comments. We would prefer you to let the editor make th call about the "double jeopardy" issue. If your concerns are mainly matters of "taste" the editor will get sufficient other opinions to make a reasonable decision. In many cases, however, a previous referee is an ideal referee for the paper and it seems a shame to waste the effort already expanded on the paper by asking someone else to duplicate that effort.

8. What kind of comments are most helpful?

   If you are recommending rejection, you should specify the primary reason for the negative recommendation. If you think the paper is competent but just not interesting enough or not important enough for the CJE, you should say that. You do not need to find "errors" in the analysis or "flaws" in the model structure to justify a rejection. For papers where you recommend acceptance or a revision it is helpful to say what you think the key contribution of the paper is. It is also very helpful to consider what kinds of condensation might be desirable. Often a good paper contains some sections and or some pieces of analysis that are less valuable than others. Ask yourself what parts of the paper are worth publishing. Basically, the Journal is seeking high value-added per page and this can sometimes be pursued by selecting only some parts of papers for publication. If a 30 page paper contains a "nugget" of high value material that can be converted to a 10 page note, it is useful to pass that information along to the editor. Write a report that will be forwarded to the author and a separate letter that is just for the editor. You may or may not wish to make your recommendation clear in the report. However, you should be clear in your letter to the editor as to the nature of your recommendation (reject, revise, accept). If you are neutral or "close to the margin" on a paper, that is fine. Just let the editor know where you stand, even if you are standing on the fence.

© 2002-2010 Canadian Economics Association (URL: http://cje.economics.ca/). The CJE web pages are maintained by Werner Antweiler at UBC. Pages created by James Brander, Monica Zhang, and Werner Antweiler. French translations by Isabelle Desroches and Olivier Lebert. E-mail: journals@economics.ca.