27 Apr
2010
27 Apr
'10
4:18 p.m.
Hi all,
Gary will have additional advice on this, but the point of the assignment is
to get you to something publishable. So if your paper could be publishable
as a direct refutation/critique of the paper you are replicating, then maybe
you should spend more time on discussing the previous paper (without going
overboard, of course -- two pages seems totally reasonable to me). If you're
thinking that the paper you've replicated is serving as more of a
springboard to a bigger topic, then maybe you'd want to spend less time
discussing it. My sense is that you should think of it how a reviewer at a
journal would see it and devote space accordingly.
As for how long, there are no firm guidelines -- as long as you think is
necessary to discuss what you need to discuss (and not too short and not too
long for the average journal). 20-30 pages would seem about right for most
of these papers.
Iain and Gary might have more suggestions on this --
Maya
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Lin, Eric <elin at hbs.edu> wrote:
Iain, Maya,
Wondering how much this paper should be able to "stand alone", vs. require
that the reader be familiar with the paper we are replicating. this impacts
how much of our paper is going to be taken up with background explaining
what the original paper did. For now, we're keeping it short, with just ~ 2
pages on background of the original paper, keeping the bulk about how we
evaluated it and augmented it. Does that seem right? Also, is there a
general guideline on how long this should be?
Thanks!!
EXL
--
ERIC LIN
Technology and Operations Management
Harvard Business School
Boston, MA 02163
elin at hbs.edu
_______________________________________________
gov2001-l mailing list
gov2001-l at lists.fas.harvard.edu
http://lists.fas.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/gov2001-l