Is the Authors' Gap Convincing?

Analysis due in class: 9/20/02

Authors must convince an editor and reviewers that their manuscripts make contributions "to the literature". Some authors do this very convincingly. Others do not. Those that make a convincing argument, tend to get published. How do convincing authors do it? Nothing's certain in the review process, but we'd like to know how well-published researchers tip the odds in their favor.

Let's start by finding out how successful authors do it by critically reading what published authors did. For this assignment, I'd like you to review the introduction to 1 published article. The objective is to "deconstruct" an author's claim to a contribution--to discover the structure and content of the authors argument.

An author makes the claim of a contribution in an article's introduction. Typically, this claim is composed of two main parts: (a) a description of a gap--a missing element--in the literature and (b) a suggestion that author's research approach fills the gap. A good author tries to show how the research literature leads specifically to the author's research approach.

In well-written article, the gap and approach are clear and specific. It's easy to figure out why the author chose the research and what article is going to do. As a reader-reviewere, you should find it possible to easily describe (a) the research gap in than 2 or 3 sentences and (b) the authors' approach in 1 or 2 sentences. Not all articles attain such clarity, but these latter articles are probably the ones that had substantial difficulty in the review process.

Assignment details:

1. Select an article. Select an article from the list below. The articles vary in quality and clarity. For this execise, a poorly written article may be more interesting than a well-written one.
   

   Aguiar, Danilo R. D., and Josana A. Santana, "Asymmetry in Farm Retail Price Transmission: Evidence from Brazil," Agribusiness, 18(1):37-48, 2002. Angulo, Ana Maria, Jose Maria Gil, and Azucena Graci, "The Demand for Alcoholic Beverages in Spain," Agricultural Economics, 26:71-83, 2001. Bjornson, Bruce, and Michael E. Sykuta, "Growth by Acquisition and the Performance of Large Food Retailers," Agribusiness, 18(3):263-281, 2002. Chavas, Jean-Paul, and Daniel Mullarkey, "On the Valuation of Uncertainty in Welfare Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 84(1):23-38, 2002. Easter, K. William, "Asia's Irrigation Management in Transition: A Paradigm Shift Faces High Transactions Costs," Review of Agricultural Economics, 22(2):370-388, 2001. Gould, Brian W., "Household Composition and Food Expenditures in China," Agribusiness, 18(3);387-407, 2002. Gutuerrez, Luciano, "Borrowing Constraints and the Agricultural Investment Decision, Agribusiness, 18(1):101-114, 2002. Hendrikse, George, and Jos Bijman, "Ownership Structure in Agrifood Chains: The Marketing Cooperative, " American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 84(1):104-119, February, 2001. Just, David R., Steven A. Wolf, Steve Wu, and David Zilberman, "Consumption of Economic Information in Agriculture," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 84(1):39-52, February, 2002. Kosarek, Jennifer L., Philip Garcia, and Michael L. Morris, "Factors Explaining the Diffusion of Hybrid Maize in Latin America and the Carribbean Region," Agricultural Economics, 26:267-280, 2001. Pennings, Joost M.E, Scott H. Irwin, and Darrel L. Good, "Surveying Farmers: A Case Study," Review of Agricultural Economics, 24(1):266-277, 2002. Robison, Lindon J., Robert J. Myers, and Marcelo E. Siles, "Social Capital and the Terms of Trade for Farmland," Review of Agricultural Economics, 24(1):44-58, 2002. Winters, Paul, Benjamin Davis, and Leonardo Corral, "Assets, Activities and Income Generation in Rural Mexico: Factoring in Social and Public Capital," Agricultural Economics, 27:139-156, 2002.

   
   
2. Read the title, abstract, and introduction. As a reviewer, does the article grab you attention with its contribution?
3. Outline the topic of each paragraph in the introduction. Is there a logical structure to the introduction? What is this logical structure?
4. Describe the gap addressed by the article in 2 or 3 sentences. Is the gap clear and convincing to you?
5. Describe the research finding in1 or 2 sentences. Does the finding fit the gap?
6. List the major headings for the other sections of the article
7. On the basis of 2 to 6, would you as a reviewer tend to accept or reject the article for publication? Why or why not?

Type up your analysis in 1 page or so. Give a ttle for the analysis, your name, and the date. Below the date, provide a standard bibliographic citation for the article you are going to evaluate. Divide the remainder of the page into sections for each of items 3 to 7 above and write out the evaluation. Make enough copies of the analysis so that you can share the analysis with seminar participants. The page should look something like the following:

 

Return home