Preparing a discussion

Guidelines

Presenters may select papers to present from this list of papers. All papers in this list lie in the general area of Economics and Management of Science and Innovation and were published recently in reputable journals (or working paper series). If you want to present a paper that is not on this list, please reach out to your country representative and ask whether an exception is possible.

The session runs as follows:
1. About yourself and your research (3 minutes maximum)
2. About the paper (30–35 minutes, including clarifying questions)
3. Group discussion (20–30 minutes), led by the country representative

How to present the paper?

The presentation should be composed of two parts: a factual overview of the paper and your own view of the paper. Presenters should prepare slides to stimulate the discussion among participants. Presentations should be drafted following some common guidelines. Please bear in mind that participants may not have had the opportunity to read the paper. 

In the first part of the talk, presenters should provide a concise and clear summary of the paper by addressing, among others, the following questions:

1. 1. What is the research question, and why is it interesting, e.g., how does it improve our understanding of some significant issues?

   2. What theory does the paper build on/exploit/develop?

   3. What is the method, and what are the data?

   4. Is causality the emphasis of the paper? If yes, what are the main threats to causality, and what do the authors do about them?

   5. What are the main findings?

In the second part of the talk, the presenter should provide her/his own personal view on some of the main aspects covered in the paper. Typical questions that should be answered include, but are not limited to:

1. 1. What is truly exciting/new/original about the paper?

   2. Why was the paper published: what elements sold it to the journal (e.g., theory contribution, framing, methods, data, phenomenon)?

   3. How did the paper evolve from the working paper version (if available) to the final published version (i.e., what changes were introduced and what improvements were made)?

   4. What are the main limitations/shortcomings of the paper?

   5. How could we answer the same question differently?

   6. What would be the ideal experiment to answer the data?

   7. What are your ideas for follow-up papers?

Some students have contacted the authors of the paper to ask for the referee reports. If the authors agree to share them with you, this provides a unique glimpse into the review process and the evolution of the paper from the draft to the published version.

Please send a draft of your slides to your country representative no later than one week prior to the seminar. This will allow her or him to review your slides and ensure that they meet REGIS' quality standards.