Write a “referee’s report” on Jing Zhou paper “When Job dissatisfaction leads to creativity” with a particular focus on critically examining the quantitative methodology employed.
(max. 1,000-words)

Structure of the report (with indicative weights for lengths and assessment)

You must use the following headings in your report

1. Introduction (10%)
Which research questions are addressed in the paper? Which literature does the paper
connect to? What is the novelty in the paper and why is it a contribution to the literature?
Don’t waffle- come straight to the point.

2. The framework (20%)
What is the new theory / conceptual framework proposed in the paper? What are the
main constructs / variables? What is hypothesized about them? Can you produce path
diagrams of the hypothesized causal / moderating / mediating relationships between
variables? If the paper offers many hypotheses, you don’t need to be fully
comprehensive. Which are the main hypotheses, the ones that make a real contribution to the literature? Don’t just summarize but prioritize.

3. Data and empirical operationalization (20%)
What is the source of the data? How close are the data / measures to the concepts laid
out in the theory section? What is the population of interest? Are there selection issues?
What are the limitations of the data? Are the distributional properties of the data
described well in summary statistics tables?

How is the conceptual framework translated into a model? How does the model relate
to the theory? Rephrase the tested hypotheses in terms of claims about model
parameters (their signs and significance) in the model equations. In a good paper (that
has a good identification strategy) this can be done clearly enough such that empirical
analysis will either reject or not reject the theory.

4. Empirical analysis (20%)
Discuss the results from a statistical point of view. Are the assumptions required by the statistical modelling technique plausible and reasonable?
Do the results support the hypotheses? Pick what you regard as the main hypotheses (or
the hypothesis that is least well supported) and explain the connection between

coefficient estimates in the results tables and the hypothesis. Is this connection made
clear in the paper? Interpret the results first in the specific context related to the data
and then in the more general context of the general hypothesis in the theory section.
Are the results consistent with the theory? Is the leap from correlation to causation
properly addressed?

5. Critique (30%)
Are there alternative explanations for some of the obtained regression results (omitted
variables, reverse causality)? Have the authors made the limitations clear in the paper?
Pick one important point of critique and be precise with your critique. Explain clearly
why you are concerned, don’t just say “I am concerned about selection bias” or a similar
generic concern. laundry list of all issues, with none of them discussed with insight will
not get credit. Explain why your concern is a problem in the specific context of the
paper. You get extra credit if your critique is constructive in the sense that you propose
extensions, modifications, further investigations, or alternative data that might help the
authors deal with your concern.

Organisation and length of the report
– Write Sections 1 and 2 in a way that supports your discussion in sections 3-5. Overall the report must not exceed 1000 words.
– Double-spacing and a 12 point font is preferred.