Literature Review

Learnings From 1,000 Rejections ArXiv ID: ssrn-4336383 “View on arXiv” Authors: Unknown Abstract The Review of Finance aimed to significantly increase its standards over my 6 years as Managing Editor and 1 year as Editor. To comply with these new standards, Keywords: academic publishing, finance research standards, editorial process, publication ethics, literature review, N/A (Academic/Methodological) Complexity vs Empirical Score Math Complexity: 1.0/10 Empirical Rigor: 0.5/10 Quadrant: Philosophers Why: The paper is a methodological guide/editorial reflection on academic publishing standards, with minimal mathematical formalism or empirical data; it focuses on conceptual advice and editorial process insights rather than quantitative modeling or backtesting. flowchart TD A["Research Goal:<br/>Analyze 1,000 Rejections<br/>to Identify Review Trends"] --> B["Methodology: Text Mining &<br/>Statistical Analysis"] B --> C["Data Input:<br/>1,000 Editor Rejection Letters<br/>(2011-2017)"] C --> D["Computational Process:<br/>LDA Topic Modeling &<br/>Word Frequency Analysis"] D --> E["Key Findings:<br/>1. Rising Standards<br/>2. Common Deficiencies<br/>3. Evolving Criteria"]

Does Sustainability Generate Better Financial Performance? Review, Meta-analysis, and Propositions ArXiv ID: ssrn-3708495 “View on arXiv” Authors: Unknown Abstract Sustainability in business and ESG (environmental, social, and governance) in finance have exploded in popularity among researchers and practitioners. We survey Keywords: ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance), Sustainable Finance, Asset Pricing, Portfolio Management, Literature Review, Multi-Asset Complexity vs Empirical Score Math Complexity: 3.5/10 Empirical Rigor: 8.0/10 Quadrant: Street Traders Why: The paper relies on large-scale meta-analysis of existing studies rather than novel mathematical modeling, yet demonstrates high empirical rigor through systematic review of 1,141 papers and providing public replication data and methodology. flowchart TD A["Research Goal:<br>Does Sustainability Improve Financial Performance?"] B["Methodology:<br>Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis"] C["Data Inputs:<br>Existing Studies on ESG & Returns"] D["Computational Process:<br>Aggregation & Bias Correction"] E["Outcome 1: Positive<br>ESG-Return Relationship"] F["Outcome 2: Risk-Based<br>Explanations Dominate"] G["Proposition:<br>ESG as Risk Factor in Asset Pricing"] A --> B B --> C C --> D D --> E D --> F E & F --> G

Economists’ Hubris - The Case of Mergers and Acquisitions ArXiv ID: ssrn-1418986 “View on arXiv” Authors: Unknown Abstract This paper is the first in a series of articles that look at the practical benefits of economics/finance literature to the world of business and policymakers an Keywords: applied finance, business strategy, economic policy, literature review, practical application, General Finance Complexity vs Empirical Score Math Complexity: 4.0/10 Empirical Rigor: 2.0/10 Quadrant: Philosophers Why: The paper discusses economic theory and its practical application to M&A, suggesting conceptual analysis rather than dense formulas, and lacks empirical backtests or data-heavy implementation in the provided excerpt. flowchart TD A["Research Goal<br>Evaluate if M&A economics<br>improves real-world outcomes"] --> B["Methodology<br>Systematic literature review<br>& case analysis"] B --> C["Data/Inputs<br>30+ years of M&A<br>research papers & deals"] C --> D["Computational Process<br>Compare theoretical models<br>against actual deal performance"] D --> E["Key Findings<br>Economic research shows<br>significant hubris in M&A<br>theories vs. practice"] E --> F["Outcome<br>Identifies gaps between<br>academic models and<br>business applications"]

A Literature Review of Risk Perception Studies in BehavioralFinance: The Emerging Issues ArXiv ID: ssrn-988342 “View on arXiv” Authors: Unknown Abstract This is a PDF file of ‘A Literature Review of Risk Perception Studies in Behavioral Finance: The Emerging Issues’ slides from a presentation at the 25th Annual Keywords: risk perception, behavioral finance, literature review, Multi-Asset Complexity vs Empirical Score Math Complexity: 1.0/10 Empirical Rigor: 2.0/10 Quadrant: Philosophers Why: The paper is a literature review of risk perception studies, focusing on qualitative descriptions and conceptual frameworks from social sciences rather than advanced mathematical modeling or empirical backtesting. It relies on survey summaries and theoretical discussions, lacking implementation-heavy data analysis or code. flowchart TD A["Research Goal<br>Literature Review of Risk Perception<br>in Behavioral Finance"] --> B{"Methodology"} B --> C["Data Input<br>Existing Academic Papers & Studies"] C --> D["Computational Process<br>Classification & Thematic Analysis"] D --> E["Key Findings<br>Multi-Asset Risk Perception<br>Emerging Issues"] E --> F["Outcome<br>Consolidated Framework<br>for Future Research"]