this is the instruction what the professor said : you have to follow what the professor told me . and answer his qustions about juan's paper

Your second assigned peer review is of Juan's draft, enclosed.

The specific assignment is as follows:

• Explain, in your own words, the research question and hypothesis.
• Explain in your own words the key dependent variable, corruption. What does Juan mean by corruption? What kinds of actions count as corruption? How will he be able to know it when he sees it? (That is, how will he "operationalize" this variable?) In particular, Juan will need to be able to compare cases, and show how there is a more or less corruption in one case versus another case. What is a good way for him to do that, systematically, so that he is fairly using the same measure across many different cases?
• Consider the cases Juan says he will be comparing in the paper (he hasn't completed all of these yet but that's okay for this draft). Are these cases good ones to compare, given his hypothesis? That is, do they give him good variation on the independent variable? Are these cases that are "fair" tests of the hypothesis, or are there other factors that might be skew his analysis, that might make this sample of countries in some way biased? If you think he needs additional cases to compare, how should he go about adding additional cases?
• Are there any other suggestions for improvement you can think of?