Skip to main content

Evaluation Summary and Metrics: "Legalizing Entrepreneurship"

Evaluation Summary and Metrics: "Legalizing Entrepreneurship" for The Unjournal. Evaluators: Anonymous (1), and Anonymous (2)

Published onJun 11, 2024
Evaluation Summary and Metrics: "Legalizing Entrepreneurship"
·

Abstract

We organized two evaluations of the paper: “Legalizing Entrepreneurship”[1]. To read these evaluations, please see the links below.

Evaluations

  1. Anonymous Evaluation 1

  2. Anonymous Evaluation 2

Overall ratings

We asked evaluators to provide overall assessments as well as ratings for a range of specific criteria.

I. Overall assessment:1 We asked them to rank this paper “heuristically” as a percentile “relative to all serious research in the same area that you have encountered in the last three years.” We requested they “consider all aspects of quality, credibility, importance to knowledge production, and importance to practice.”

II. Journal rank tier, normative rating (0-5): On a ‘scale of journals’, what ‘quality of journal’ should this be published in? (See ranking tiers discussed here. Note: 0= lowest/none, 5= highest/best.

Overall assessment (0-100)

Journal rank tier, normative rating (0-5)

Anon. Evaluator 1

60

2.5

Anon. Evaluator 2

90

4.7

See “Metrics” below for a more detailed breakdown of the evaluators’ ratings across several categories. To see these ratings in the context of all Unjournal ratings, with some analysis, see our data presentation here.2

See here for the current full evaluator guidelines, including further explanation of the requested ratings.3

Evaluation summaries

Anonymous evaluator 1

This paper studies how entrepreneurship in Colombia was affected by a nation wide policy that made almost half a million undocumented migrants from Venezuela eligible for a residents visas (PEPProgram). The authors find that having a visa increased the levels of entrepreneurship among this population. As written in the evaluation […] below, it has a lot of strengths. The contributions are clear and are both empirical (rarely studied outcome) and methodological (new empirical approach). In the suggestions and minor suggestions section, some possible extensions and critiques are specified).

Anonymous evaluator 2

The study analyzes the effect of changes in migratory status on entrepreneurship through a policy intervention that made Venezuelan migrants in Colombia eligible for a resident visa. Causality is established by using an extension of a regression discontinuity design. The study found a positive effect on economic activity. However, it might not be precise on the mechanisms that are driving the results (for example, expanded access to credit, or subsidies?).

Metrics

Ratings

See here for details on the categories below, and the guidance given to evaluators.

Evaluator 1

Anonymous

Evaluator 2

Anonymous

Rating category

Rating (0-100)

90% CI

(0-100)*

Comments

Rating (0-100)

90% CI

(0-100)*

Comments

Overall assessment4

60

(50, 70)

5

90

(85, 97)

Advancing knowledge and practice6

60

(50, 70)

96

(90, 100)

Methods: Justification, reasonableness, validity, robustness7

60

(50, 70)

92

(86, 97)

Logic & communication8

60

(50, 70)

98

(95, 100)

Open, collaborative, replicable9

50

(40, 60)

10

78

(72, 83)

11

Real-world relevance 12

80

(70, 90)

13

97

(93, 100)

Relevance to global priorities14

80

(70, 90)

94

(88, 100)

Journal ranking tiers

See here for more details on these tiers.

Evaluator 1

Anonymous

Evaluator 2

Anonymous

Judgment

Ranking tier (0-5)

90% CI

Ranking tier (0-5)

90% CI

On a ‘scale of journals’, what ‘quality of journal’ should this be published in?

2.5

(2.0, 3.0)

4.7

(4.0, 5.0)

What ‘quality journal’ do you expect this work will be published in?

2.5

(2.0, 3.0)

4.4

(4.0, 4.7)

See here for more details on these tiers.

We summarize these as:

  • 0.0: Marginally respectable/Little to no value

  • 1.0: OK/Somewhat valuable

  • 2.0: Marginal B-journal/Decent field journal

  • 3.0: Top B-journal/Strong field journal

  • 4.0: Marginal A-Journal/Top field journal

  • 5.0: A-journal/Top journal

Unjournal process notes (~optional)

Why we chose this paper

This paper was chosen because of its potential relevance in shaping immigration policy in the context of Colombia, a country that has recently implemented open policies amidst an international context following the opposite path. In addition, the paper relies on a methodological innovation that has the potential to help answer many other causal questions.

Further context

Suggester:

The paper makes an emphatic claim that receipt of immigrants visa by Venezuelans in Colombia increases their economic activity in the form of higher entrepreneurship by a factor as high as 12. Since this finding can be the basis to argue for an increase in visa for immigrants in Colombia and elsewhere, the paper has high potential for policymaking and policy advocacy.

Second opinion:

I don’t think the specific context (S. America) involves the poorest people in the world, but I suspect much immigration and immigrant entrepreneurship does involve and affect the extreme poor, so I’m inclined to see it as very important for learning about this.

How we chose the evaluators

We followed two criteria. The first one was to find applied economists well versed in causal inference, in particular with research discontinuity designs. The second one was to find people familiar with the context, to be able to understand the various institutional and cultural nuances of the policy. We were able to find two evaluators fitting both criteria. One with deep expertise in RDD and the other with deep expertise in the Colombian region. We find that both evaluators fundamentally agree.

Evaluation process

We shared the working paper with the evaluators and asked them to evaluate the strength of the findings. After the evaluators sent their reports, we asked them to revisit their evaluations for the focus of the Unjournal, since their evaluations were closer to the standard expectations in a “regular” peer-reviewed journal. In particular, we asked for a more direct evaluation of the strength of the claims of the paper. They both happily complied. Once the evaluations were completed, we shared them with the authors of the paper and asked them to respond. The authors were finishing their teaching, so they requested an extension. Finally, they sent a response. Overall, the process took around 3 months..

On the added value of the evaluation

Both evaluators agreed on the strength of the evaluation and suggested multiple ways to make the paper stronger, particularly in terms of further exploring the mechanisms behind the effect.

These ideas may lead to increased external validity.

Comments
0
comment
No comments here
Why not start the discussion?