English Podcast starts at 00:00:00

Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:14:38

Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:31:24

Danish Podcast Starts at 00:45:38

Reference

Annabell, T., Fieseler, C., Goanta, C., & Wildhaber, I. (Eds.). (2025). The Hashtag Hustle. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035332816

‌Book Review Essays

Mukhopadhyay, M. (2026). The hashtag hustle: law and policy perspectives on working in the influencer economy: edited by Taylor Annabell, Christian Fieseler, Catalina Goanta, and Isabelle Wildhaber, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK, 2025, 220 pp., £100.00 (hardcover), ISBN 978-1-035-33280-9. Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2025.2599025

Youtube channel link

https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher

Connect on linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

Welcome to Revise and Resubmit, and this is our Weekend Book Review 📚✨

Today I am diving into a book that lives right where your screen time turns into someone else’s full time job. The title is as punchy as the world it studies: “The Hashtag Hustle: Law and Policy Perspectives on Working in the Influencer Economy” 🔥

This is not just another book about influencers looking pretty on camera. It is about influencers as workers 💼
It is about labour you rarely see, contracts you never read, and algorithms that can make or break a career overnight. It takes us behind the ring lights and into the messy intersection of law, money, culture and that restless thing we call the creator economy 🎥📱

What I love about this volume is how seriously it treats influencer labour. It digs into:

• invisible effort and “visibility labour” 👀

• composite careers and platform precarity 🎯

• disclosure rules in Germany, consumer laws in the UK and France, governance and censorship in China 🌍

• datafication of children, “sharenting”, and the shadow of generative AI over privacy 🤖🧒

And holding all of this together are four editors whose backgrounds almost feel like a dream team for a book like this.

We have Taylor Annabell, a researcher at the Faculty of Law, Economics and Governance at Utrecht University, who thinks at the crossroads of doctrine and digital practice. We have Christian Fieseler, professor at the Department of Communication and Culture at the Norwegian Business School, bringing in the communication and platform governance lens. Then Catalina Goanta, associate professor at Utrecht University, connects law, platforms and consumer protection in a way that feels razor sharp and very current. And finally Isabelle Wildhaber, professor of Private and Business Law at the University of St. Gallen, adds deep expertise in work and employment research ⚖️📊

Together they stitch law, media studies, marketing, management and communication into one thick tapestry of the influencer economy. Reading them, you feel the tension between hustle and exploitation, between entrepreneurial freedom and legal abandonment. It is academic, yes, but it is also uncomfortably real for anyone who has ever posted content and wondered who really holds the power: the creator or the platform 💡📲

In this episode, I am going to walk you through how The Hashtag Hustle shows that our laws are still crawling while digital capitalism is sprinting, and what that gap means for every creator trying to turn attention into income.

🙏 A huge thanks to the editors Taylor Annabell, Christian Fieseler, Catalina Goanta and Isabelle Wildhaber, and to Edward Elgar Publishing for bringing this book into the world.

If you enjoy this kind of deep dive into the creator economy, please subscribe to this podcast on Spotify, and check out our YouTube channel: Weekend Researcher 🎧📺
You can also listen on Amazon Prime Music and Apple Podcast so you can carry the conversation wherever you go.

So as we open “The Hashtag Hustle”, here is the question I want to leave you with at the start:
👉 In a world where every post is work and every scroll is data, who is really hustling whom? 🤔

English Podcast starts at 00:00:00

Bengali Podcast starts at 00:14:20

Hindi Podcast starts at 00:28:02

Danish Podcast starts at 00:41:26

Reference

Filipović, Z. M., & Wagner, A. F. (2025). The Intangibles Song in Takeover Announcements: Good Tempo, Hollow Tune. The Review of Financial Studies. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhaf116

‌Youtube Channel

⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠

Connect over linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

Welcome to Revise and Resubmit 🎙️✨

Today we are tuning our ears to a very different kind of music in finance. Not the ringing of the opening bell, not the closing buzz of the trading floor, but a quieter track hidden in corporate speeches. The lyrics of takeovers. The rhythm of promises. The melody of intangibles.

The paper on our playlist is

“The Intangibles Song in Takeover Announcements: Good Tempo, Hollow Tune” 🎵

Written by Zoran M Filipović and Alexander F Wagner, and published in The Review of Financial Studies 🎓📊

Yes, that Review of Financial Studies. A prestigious, top tier outlet on the FT50 journal list, where only the sharpest, hardest tested ideas in finance get to perform on the main stage. This is not background music. This is headliner theory.

In this episode, we step into the world of mergers and acquisitions 💼💥
Executives announce a takeover.
They talk about synergies, innovation, customer relationships, human capital.
On the surface, it sounds inspiring. Uplifting. Almost poetic.

Filipović and Wagner ask a deceptively simple question:
When managers sing loudly about intangibles, is that a sign of hidden value, or is it a beautiful cover for a broken deal? 🎭

To find out, they build a special word list for intangibles and apply it to takeover announcements. Then they listen carefully. Count the words. Measure the tone. Track the market.

Here is what they find:
When there is one standard deviation more of “intangibles talk” in a takeover announcement, the acquirer’s stock reacts worse. Announcement returns drop by about 0.53 percentage points 📉
And it does not stop there. Those deals tend to deliver weaker operating performance later on. The tune sounds sweet on day one, but the song ages badly. The tempo is good, but the tune is hollow.

Yet the managers do not seem to hear the problem. They still believe in these deals:

• They trade more in their own stock 🧾

• They lean into cash payments 💵

• The deals are more likely to complete and complete faster ⏱️

So markets hear warning noise, while managers hear victory music. This gap between language, belief, and outcome is where the paper lives. The humble takeover announcement becomes a psychological mirror, reflecting managerial overoptimism and behavioral bias hiding inside polished corporate disclosure.

What looks like a sophisticated story about intangible value often reveals something much starker: a pattern of value destruction for shareholders, written not in numbers, but in words.

In other words, if you know how to listen, the text of the deal is already humming the future of the firm 🎧

As we dive into this FT50 powerhouse article from The Review of Financial Studies, ask yourself:

🎼 The next time you hear executives sing about intangibles in a takeover, are you listening to the sound of hidden value, or the soundtrack of overconfidence? 🤔

A big thank you to Zoran M Filipović, Alexander F Wagner, and the publishers, the Society for Financial Studies and Oxford University Press, for this insightful and thought provoking research 🙏📚

If you enjoy explorations like this into top tier academic work, remember to subscribe to “Revise and Resubmit” on Spotify, follow us on Amazon Prime and Apple Podcast, and check out our YouTube channel “Weekend Researcher” for more research deep dives, one study at a time 🎧✨📺

English Podcast starts at 00:00:00

Bengali Podcast starts at 00:13:31

Hindi Podcast starts at 00:28:56

Danish Podcast starts at 00:41:56

Reference

Eklund, J. C., & Mannor, M. J. (2026). Curious and analytical: How analysts evaluate and respond to executive communications about firm strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.70063

‌Youtube Channel

⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠

Connect over linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

Welcome to Revise and Resubmit 🎙️✨

Today, we are cracking open a paper with a title that reads almost like a personality test for Wall Street:

“Curious and analytical: How analysts evaluate and respond to executive communications about firm strategy”

Written by John C. Eklund and Michael J. Mannor, and published in the Strategic Management Journal 🧠📈
Yes, that Strategic Management Journal – a prestigious, field‑defining outlet on the FT50 list that sits at the top tier of management research. This is the kind of journal where ideas do not just appear, they arrive and then quietly change how everyone else thinks.

In this episode, we are stepping into the tense, caffeinated world of earnings calls ☕📞
You know the scene:
Executives talk about strategy.
Analysts listen, type, frown, nod.
Markets move. Screens glow. Silence, then questions.

But this paper asks a deceptively simple, deeply provocative question:
When executives talk strategy, especially growth strategy, what actually shifts inside the minds of analysts?

Eklund and Mannor show that when leaders lean into growth narratives, analysts do not just react with numbers. They react with cognition. Their language becomes:

• more curious ❓

• more formal 🧾

• more logical and analytical 🔍

Using linguistic analysis tools, the authors trace how analysts become more inquisitive when a firm’s strategy violates their expectations. Internal growth, bold organic moves, unfamiliar twists in the story of the firm, all seem to light up this state of situational curiosity. The analysts start to probe. They write differently. They think differently.

Here is the twist:
That surge in curiosity and analytical depth partly explains why evaluations move. The way analysts think, not just what they hear, becomes the bridge between executive talk and market judgment. And yet, when it comes to acquisitions and mergers, the street still tends to reward them more generously with higher ratings and rosier price forecasts 💹

So, behind the forecasts and target prices, behind buy, hold, and sell, this article uncovers a quieter drama:
The constant negotiation between expectations and violations, between what analysts thought a firm would do and what executives now claim the firm will do.

In some S&P 500 firms, the same kind of strategy sounds safe, familiar, expected. In others, it feels like a plot twist. The strategy is similar, but the cognitive reaction is not. The evaluative frame shifts, and with it, the story of the company’s future.

This is not just about finance. It is a window into how framing, language, and surprise sculpt the mental models of powerful information intermediaries. It is about how curiosity itself becomes a strategic variable.

So as we dive into this FT50 powerhouse article from Strategic Management Journal, ask yourself:

🎧 When executives tell their strategy stories, are analysts really pricing cash flows, or are they quietly pricing how much their own expectations just got disrupted?

A huge thank you to John C. Eklund, Michael J. Mannor, and the publisher John Wiley & Sons Ltd. for this fascinating contribution to the literature 🙏📚

If you enjoy journeys like this into cutting‑edge research, remember to subscribe to “Revise and Resubmit” on Spotify, follow us on Amazon Prime and Apple Podcast, and check out our YouTube channel “Weekend Researcher” for more deep dives into academic work that actually changes how you think.

English Podcast starts at 00:00:00

Bengali Podcast starts at 00:15:08

Hindi Podcast starts at 00:31:41

Danish Podcast starts at 00:43:59

Reference

Hepfer, B. F., Wilde, J. H., & Wilson, R. J. (2025). Nontax Use of Tax Havens: Evidence From Captive Insurance. Contemporary Accounting Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.70023

‌Youtube Channel

⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠

Connect over linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

Welcome to Revise and Resubmit! 🚀 The podcast where we dissect cutting-edge academic papers, revise our assumptions, and resubmit bolder ideas to the world. I'm your host, Mayukh, diving deep into the papers that shape economics, finance, and policy. Today? A bombshell from Contemporary Accounting Research – a prestigious FT50 journal! 🏆 Published by Wiley and the Canadian Academic Accounting Association, this gem dropped online December 9, 2025.

Picture this. Tax havens. 😈 Everyone screams "tax dodging!" Multinationals flock there, right? Headlines blast it. Policymakers rage. But wait. What if... some are there for zero tax perks? Short sentence. Punchy truth. Now breathe.

Authors Bradford F. Hepfer, Jaron H. Wilde, and Ryan J. Wilson drop the mic. 📈 Their paper, "Nontax Use of Tax Havens: Evidence From Captive Insurance," reveals the hidden game. Captive insurance subsidiaries. Firms "self-insure" in havens for risk management and regs. No federal tax goodies. Yet, 11% of nonfinancial firm-years use them across nearly all Fama-French 49 industries! 🌍

The rhythm builds. Conventional measures lump captives with shady income-shifting. Result? Tax savings look puny. Strip out captives... boom! Threefold jump in real haven tax grabs. 💥 They build a killer determinants model – high predictive power, out-of-sample wins – so future researchers can spot captives and nail true avoidance. Nuanced? Game-changing.

This FT50 powerhouse urges us: Rethink tax haven tropes. 10% of "haven users" are just insuring smartly. Policy? Media? Research? All need the fix.

Subscribe now to Revise and Resubmit on Spotify! 🎧 Hit up Weekend Researcher on YouTube! 📺 Catch us on Amazon Prime and Apple Podcasts too. Don't miss the revisions!

Thanks to authors Bradford F. Hepfer, Jaron H. Wilde, Ryan J. Wilson, Wiley, and the Canadian Academic Accounting Association for this FT50 gold. 🙏

So, here's the curious kicker: If tax havens hide more "self-insurance" than we thought, what other "nontax" secrets are multinationals burying there? 🤔

English Podcast starts at 00:00:00

Bengali Podcast starts at 00:12:08

Hindi Podcast starts at 00:28:09

Danish Podcast starts at 00:42:30

Reference

Dietz, J. (2025). Building actionable theories: The role of causal constructs. The Leadership Quarterly, 37(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2025.101929

‌Youtube Channel

⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠

Connect over linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

Welcome! 🎉 Step right into Revise and Resubmit—the podcast where we dissect cutting-edge research, revise our thinking, and resubmit bolder ideas to the world! 🚀 Today, we dive into a powerhouse paper from The Leadership Quarterly—a prestige beast, an ABDC A* journal that's the gold standard for leadership minds! 🏆 Published by Elsevier, this gem dropped online December 22, 2025, slated for Volume 37, Issue 1, February 2026's Special Issue on Theory in Leadership and Management. 🔥

Picture this: Theories that don't just sit on shelves gathering dust. No! Theories that leaders grab, twist, and wield like superpowers. 💥 Joerg Dietz drops the mic with "Building Actionable Theories: The Role of Causal Constructs." He slices through the fog: What makes a theory practical? It's when you, the manager, can enact that cause (X) to effect (Y) magic. Boom. Short. Punchy. But wait...

He builds it out beautifully. Three types of theories, each with a practitioner twist. First, manipulate(X) theories—your levers for action! 🌟 Set the levels yourself, like dialing up charismatic signals in leadership: more flair, more fire! 🔥 Then select(X): Pick the right level, like hiring for top traits in job performance. 💼 And observe(X): Just measure it, like clocking employee trust levels—no tweaking allowed. 📊

Dietz zooms in on manipulate(X)—the actionable kings! 👑 Rigorous. Real. But beware the pitfalls! 😈 The simplification fallacy crushes complex beasts like culture into one sloppy construct. The endogenous-cause trap treats inside jobs like outside forces. And construct conflation? Lumping wild ideas under one lazy label. Avoid these, researchers, and bridge science to street-smart practice! 🌉

This isn't fluffy theory. It's a framework to craft knowledge that moves the needle—from lab to boardroom, rigor to results. 📈

Hit subscribe on Revise and Resubmit on Spotify 🎧, YouTube's Weekend Researcher 📺 (also on Amazon Prime and Apple Podcasts 🛒🍎)—never miss the revise! 👍

Thanks, Joerg Dietz, for this brilliance, and Elsevier for publishing in The Leadership Quarterly—ABDC A* excellence! 🙌

But here's the curious question to chew on: In your next leadership move, will you manipulate the cause... or just observe the chaos? 🤔

English Podcast Starts at 00:00:00

Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:13:29

Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:28:54

Danish Podcast Starts at 00:42:59

Reference

Parker, S. C. (2026). Entrepreneurship and Physical Health: A Natural Experiment Based on the 1956 British Clean Air Act. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587251400220

‌Youtube Channel

⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠

Connect over linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

🎙️ Welcome to Revise and Resubmit, the show that sits where curiosity meets scholarship, where great ideas don’t just publish. They evolve. 🌱

Today, we’re diving into a paper that breathes new life into the study of entrepreneurship:
“Entrepreneurship and Physical Health: A Natural Experiment Based on the 1956 British Clean Air Act,” authored by Simon C. Parker and published in the FT50 journal Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, under SAGE Publications. 🏛️

✨ Picture this: Britain, 1956. The skies are gray. The smog is heavy. Lungs ache from decades of industrial soot. Then lawmakers step in. The Clean Air Act passes. It sets in motion one of the most powerful natural experiments in modern economic history. From those cleaner skies came more than blue horizons. They sparked something unexpected: a rise in entrepreneurship.

Gary Provost once said every sentence should sing with rhythm. Some long, some short, some sharp like a match strike. So here’s the rhythm of today’s story: breath. Enterprise. Health. Policy. Each connected with invisible threads of cause and consequence.

📊 Using a fuzzy regression discontinuity design (yes, it’s as clever as it sounds), Professor Parker investigates how improving respiratory health shaped the odds of someone becoming more than self-employed. He explores becoming an employer entrepreneur. What emerges is remarkable: when people breathe easier, they dream bigger. Clean air didn’t just clear lungs. It cleared the path to leadership, to job creation, to risk-taking.

🫁 But here’s where the melody deepens. The study finds that while better health boosts the probability of managing and hiring others, it doesn’t significantly affect solo entrepreneurship. In other words, the energy to lead teams, to bear responsibility, to juggle challenges might depend as much on physical vitality as on ambition or skill.

That’s a profound insight for policymakers in today’s emerging economies, where clean air remains a luxury and entrepreneurship a stubborn challenge. If improving health can nurture job creators, environmental reform isn’t just ecological. It’s economic. 🌍

Now, think about this: we often credit innovation to capital, education, or technology. But what if oxygen itself is part of the equation? What if the air we inhale determines the futures we can exhale? 💭

As you let that thought settle, take a moment to appreciate the scholarship behind this work. A heartfelt thank-you to Professor Simon C. Parker and the team at SAGE Publications for publishing this study in the prestigious Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice journal, one of the elite FT50 journals shaping our understanding of business and society. 🙌

🎧 And before you go catching your next good idea, don’t forget to subscribe to this show, Revise and Resubmit, on Spotify, Amazon Prime, and Apple Podcast. For deeper dives and visual explorations, head over to our YouTube channel Weekend Researcher. That’s where we turn great academic ideas into conversations worth having. 📚✨

So here’s today’s curious question to leave you thinking:
🤔 If clean air can inspire entrepreneurship, what other invisible forces might be shaping the way we build, lead, and create?

English Podcast starts at 00:00:00

Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:14:27

Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:30:15

Danish Podcast Starts at 00:45:21

Reference

Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X

‌

Youtube channel link

https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher

Connect on linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

🎙️ Welcome to "Revise and Resubmit", and this is your Weekend Classics episode! 🌟

Today, I am ridiculously excited to dust off one of the true OGs of modern corporate finance and firm theory. We are traveling back to October 1976 📚, into the pages of the Journal of Financial Economics (yes, an FT50 big league journal), published by North Holland Publishing Company and now hosted by Elsevier.

The paper on our reading table today is:
👉 "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure"
✍️ By Michael C. Jensen and William H. Meckling

Now, let me slow this down.
Sometimes I speak in long, rolling sentences, like a lecture hall that never seems to empty.
Then I cut it short.
One beat.
Two beats.
Because somewhere between those beats sits the real question:
What actually is a firm? 🤔

Jensen and Meckling do not treat the firm as a black box. They treat it as a nexus of contracts 💼📜. In their world, every relationship is a deal, every deal has a cost, and every cost has a story. Agency costs. Monitoring costs. Bonding costs. And that subtle, sneaky loss that creeps in when managers and owners do not quite want the same thing.

Think of the classic problem Adam Smith warned us about:
People managing other people’s money rarely watch it the way they watch their own. They get a little comfortable. A little careless. Negligence and profusion begin to whisper through the corridors of the joint stock company.

Jensen and Meckling grab that old intuition and wire it into modern finance ⚡.
They show how debt and equity are not just funding choices, but incentive technologies. They ask:
Who really bears the cost when managers chase perks instead of profits?
Why would rational people still sign up for a world full of agency problems?
And how can this messy, conflict-ridden reality still be Pareto optimal in its own strange way?

In this episode of Weekend Classics, I want to walk with you through their bold move: redefining the firm, not as a building, not as a logo, but as a shifting web of contracts, discipline, temptation, and trade-offs. 🕸️

So as you listen, I want you to keep one question simmering in the back of your mind:

👉 If the firm is just a nexus of contracts, then where exactly does responsibility live when things go wrong – in the contract, in the manager, or in the owners who chose the structure in the first place? 🧩

A huge thank you to Michael C. Jensen, William H. Meckling, and the original publisher North Holland Publishing Company (now under Elsevier) for this iconic contribution to how we think about firms, finance, and power inside organizations. 🙏

If you enjoy these deep dives into classic research, please subscribe to this podcast on Spotify and follow our YouTube channel: Weekend Researcher 📺. You can also find Revise and Resubmit on Amazon Prime Music and Apple Podcast.

So, are you ready to rethink what a firm really is? 🎧✨

English Podcast starts at 00:00:00

Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:12:06

Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:27:36

Danish Podcast Starts at 00:39:25

Reference

Ditlev Tamm (2020). The Carlsberg Story: Founders, Foundations, and Fortunes. Springer Cham. 240 pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52670-2

Youtube channel link

https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher

Connect on linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

Welcome to Revise and Resubmit and to this episode of Weekend Book Review 📚✨ Today we are cracking open a story that smells of malt, money, and microscopes. The book on my desk is “The Carlsberg Story: Founders, Foundations, and Fortunes” by Professor Ditlev Tamm, published by Springer Cham in softcover back in August 2020. 🍺📖

This is not just a beer book. It is a story of a family, a foundation, and a fortune that decided it would rather fund science and the arts than simply chase the next quarterly high. We start in 1847, with J. C. Jacobsen building a modern Danish brewery, and we end with Carlsberg as the third largest brewery in the world, still shadowed and shaped by a foundation run by professors. Along the way we get pure yeast, boardroom tensions, wartime occupation, mergers with Tuborg, missed chances in the 80s and 90s, and a late surge of global ambition that feels almost cinematic. 🎬

To tell a story like this, you need someone who can read archives like other people read crime novels. And that is where Ditlev Tamm comes in. He is not just a historian of beer. He is a doctor of law, a doctor of philosophy, and a lifelong professor of legal history at the University of Copenhagen. He has spent decades tracing how institutions, laws, churches, and universities evolve, how power hides in footnotes, and how culture and law quietly shape each other. 🌍⚖️

So when Tamm looks at Carlsberg, he is not just counting bottles. He is watching how a brewery becomes a managing foundation, probably the oldest of its kind in Europe, how the Royal Danish Academy ends up steering a multinational, and how this strange “dominion of professors” tries to keep faith with heritage while playing in a ruthless, capital hungry global market. That is the tension that makes this book hum: idealism versus expansion, science versus sales targets, family legacy versus corporate logic. 💼🧪

In this episode, I want to walk you through that tension: from J. C. Jacobsen to Carl Jacobsen, from the creation of the Carlsberg Foundation in 1876 to the takeover of Tuborg in 1970, from missed international chances to the aggressive acquisition of Scottish and Newcastle with Heineken in 2008. Along the way, we will ask a simple but unsettling question: can a company owned by a foundation devoted to science and culture survive in a world obsessed with scale, speed, and shareholder value? Or does the very structure that gave Carlsberg its soul now put pressure on its future? 🤔

So stay with me, grab your metaphorical pint, and let us see whether this unusual marriage of beer, professors, and big business is a model for the future or a beautiful anomaly on borrowed time. And tell me, as you listen: can a foundation really protect a brand’s heritage while meeting the brutal capital demands of modern global markets, or is that balance ultimately impossible? 🍺❓

A huge thank you to Professor Ditlev Tamm for this meticulous, absorbing history, and to Springer Cham for publishing it. 🙏

If you enjoy this conversation, please subscribe to the podcast on Spotify, Amazon Prime Music, and Apple Podcast, and check out my YouTube channel “Weekend Researcher” for more deep dives into books, ideas, and the people behind them. 🌟🎧📺

English Podcast Starts at 00:00:00

Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:14:59

Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:29:13

Danish Podcast Starts at 00:41:45

Reference

Hardisty, D. J. (2025). Impatience for negative experiences. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 00, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.70017

‌Youtube Channel

⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠

Connect over linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

Welcome aboard, sharp minds and curious souls! 🚀

This is Revise and Resubmit—your front-row seat to the cutting-edge papers reshaping academia. 📚✨ Today, we dive into a mind-bender from the Journal of Consumer Psychology—a prestigious FT50 journal, the gold standard in the field, published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of the Society for Consumer Psychology. 🏆 Published online December 22, 2025.

Imagine this.
You wait for a reward.
Sweet anticipation bubbles up.
But flip it.
A bill looms.
A dentist drill whirs closer.
That knot in your gut tightens.
Impatience explodes—not for joy, but for dread. 😤💥

David J. Hardisty's commentary, "Impatience for Negative Experiences", flips the script on consumer behavior. Forget dry econ models. Impatience? It's raw emotion. Patience? Sheer regulation. 🔄 Hardisty unpacks why we rush to slay bad vibes—like paying that pesky bill NOW or speed-running a flu shot. He ties up "anomalies": why losses hit harder than gains, why tiny tasks get frantic urgency. Marketers, take note—this predicts your next impulse buy (or bail). 🌪️💡

Fresh insights for fintech frenzy, policy puzzles, or just surviving life's drags. Who knew hating the wait could rewrite your choices? 🤔

Subscribe to Revise and Resubmit on Spotify, our YouTube channel Weekend Researcher, Amazon Prime, and Apple Podcasts—fuel your brain anywhere! 📱🔥

A huge thanks to author David J. Hardisty and the Wiley team at Journal of Consumer Psychology for this gem. 🙌

So, tell me: When's the last time impatience for a "bad" wait hijacked your wallet? Curious yet? Hit play! 🎧

English Podcast Starts at 00:00:00

Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:15:02

Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:31:09

Danish Podcast Starts at 00:44:45

Reference

Jason Bennett Thatcher (2025). Rules for Writing Elite Information Systems Papers: Field Notes for my PhD Students. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5993034

Linkedin Post

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jason-thatcher-0329764_rules-for-writing-elite-information-systems-activity-7412052161993347072-fw33

‌Youtube Channel

⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠

Connect over linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

Revise and Resubmit 🎙️✨
Welcome aboard, researchers, rebels, and revise-resubmitters! 🚀

This is Revise and Resubmit—your no-BS cockpit for decoding academic publishing's black box. 📚💥 One sentence. That's all it takes to hook a reviewer. Or lose them forever.

Today? We dive into a goldmine: "Rules for Writing Elite Information Systems Papers: Field Notes for my PhD Students" by Jason Bennett Thatcher. 📖🔥 Published online December 31, 2025, in the Elsevier SSRN Electronic Journal—this isn't some dusty preprint. It's a living, breathing academic Editorial Guide handbook, uploaded fresh to SSRN, never headed for a journal. A work-in-progress treasure trove! 🗝️💎

Jason distills decades of MISQ and ISR wins, PhD mentoring, and brutal reviews into 17 battle-tested rules. Forget Strunk's style fluff—these are heuristics for theoretically grounded, construct-centered, mid-range empirical bangers. 🎯 Bold intros that grab. Consistent terms that stick. Self-contained visuals that teach. Rationale. Action steps. Real-paper examples. Tables mapping rules to sections—intro, theory, methods, results, conclusion. Even a diagnostics box for editing workflows! 🛠️📊

Built on Bem, Starbuck, Cochrane, Davis's outlining magic, and Pinker's clarity ninja moves. It clarifies arguments. Structures persuasion. Models exemplars. Communicates transparently. Plus, mentor wisdom from Business and Humanities: discipline, respect, voice. Your roadmap to elite IS pubs! 🌟

PhD warriors, this handbook screams: Level up your game. 🔥

Huge thanks to author Jason Bennett Thatcher and Elsevier for this SSRN gem! 🙌

Subscribe now: "Revise and Resubmit" on Spotify, YouTube's "Weekend Researcher", plus Amazon Prime and Apple Podcasts! Hit play, join the squad. ⬆️🎧

But here's the hook that’ll keep you up at night: What if one rule from Jason’s playbook could turn your next revise-and-resubmit into an unconditional accept? 🤔💭

Stay tuned!

English Podcast Starts at 00:00:00

Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:13:37

Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:28:43

Chinese Podcast Starts at 00:44:06

Reference

Wang, H. (2025). Decoding Momentum Spillover Effects. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002210902510238X

‌Youtube Channel

⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠

Connect over linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

🎙️✨ Welcome back to Revise and Resubmit — the show where ideas meet insight, and research rewrites reality.

Today, we’re diving deep into the subconscious rhythm of financial markets — not the loud clang of opening bells, but the quiet tug between day and night, the push and pull of investor psychology.

📈 The paper we’re exploring is titled “Decoding Momentum Spillover Effects” — written by Huaixin Wang, and published in the Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, one of the prestigious journals from the FT50 list, proudly brought to us by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Michael G. Foster School of Business, University of Washington. That’s right, we’re not just talking numbers here — we’re standing in the front row of academic finance.

Now picture this 🧠💡— every night, as some traders drift into sleep, their portfolios whisper to others across the market. When one stock’s overnight return twitches, its peers respond — as if a hidden thread connects them. But wait... by morning, that reaction doesn’t last. The price jolts awake, only to settle back, like a tide that rushed too far. And when the day begins anew, another rhythm takes over — this time, a more deliberate one, orchestrated by professionals and arbitrageurs who move with calculation, not impulse.

Huaixin Wang describes this drama as a cross-firm tug-of-war: a contest between persistent retail behavior and slow, corrective institution-driven rationality. In simpler terms — your midnight hunch meets someone else’s measured algorithm. The result? A fascinating cycle of temporary overreaction and gradual correction, revealing a hidden choreography between human bias and professional reasoning.

🤝 The study goes further — tracing how mutual funds and hedge fund flows weave into this dance, each group pulling markets in its own direction. What unfolds isn’t mere noise — it’s organized chaos that shapes how predictability seeps through financial networks.

And that’s what makes this research special: it doesn’t just quantify momentum. It decodes how emotions, structure, and strategy intermingle across firms, across time zones, across minds.

So the next time you see a sudden price bump before breakfast — ask yourself: is this a signal or just another echo from the night before? 🌒📊

🧩 What if every stock you track is actually responding to an unseen chorus — not just market forces, but the psychology of everyone around it?

That’s the mystery we explore today — because in the grand marketplace of ideas and investments, momentum doesn’t just spill over in data... it spills over in belief.

🎧 Stay tuned as we unpack this journey — and remember to subscribe to Revise and Resubmit on Spotify, follow our YouTube channel “Weekend Research”, and catch us on Amazon Prime Music and Apple Podcasts.

A massive thank you 🙏 to Huaixin Wang, to the Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, and to Cambridge University Press for publishing this outstanding piece of scholarship. This one reminds us that good research doesn’t just report the market — it rethinks it.

🎙️ So, dear listener — how many of your own market moves are truly yours… and how many are just momentum, spilling over?

English Podcast Starts at 00:00:00

Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:16:28

Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:30:25

Danish Podcast Starts at 00:45:31

Reference

Keyser, B. D., & Koen Vandenbempt. (2025). Shaping the System Through Turbulence: Strategic Leadership and the Micro‐Foundations of Ecosystem Orchestration in Times of Disruption. Journal of Management Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.70054

‌Youtube Channel

⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠

Connect over linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

Welcome back to 🎙 Revise and Resubmit — the podcast where big, messy research problems get a second life, one idea at a time.

Today, we’re not just talking strategy. We’re walking into the eye of the storm. 🌪️💎

Imagine this: the world’s oldest diamond trading ecosystem, the Antwerp Square Mile, built on centuries of trust, ritual, and sparkling stones… suddenly confronted by a cool, precise, lab machine that can grow diamonds on demand. No history. No heritage. Just disruption. ⚙️✨

Most people ask, “How does the system react?”
This paper flips it: “Who dares to guide the system when everything is shaking?”

The article we’re unpacking is titled:
“Shaping the System Through Turbulence: Strategic Leadership and the Micro-Foundations of Ecosystem Orchestration in Times of Disruption”
by Bart De Keyser and Koen Vandenbempt.

Published online on 12 December 2025 in the Journal of Management Studies — yes, that JMS, a prestigious FT50 journal 🏛️📈 — and brought to you by the Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

In this episode, we go small to think big.
We’ll follow three invisible pathways that leaders use when the ground is moving:

🧠 Cognitive – how they frame the disruption and rewrite what the ecosystem believes about itself.
🤝 Social – how they mend, stretch, and reweave relationships across rivals, brokers, and allies.
💓 Emotional – how they hold the fear, the pride, the fatigue, and still keep people engaged and resilient.

This is leadership without a throne, power without a script — orchestration through stories, ties, and feelings instead of commands. It’s about how everyday acts of interpretation, connection, and emotion can quietly steer an entire ecosystem through turbulence.

If that’s the kind of management thinking you want in your weekend toolkit, make sure you subscribe to:
👉 “Revise and Resubmit” on Spotify, Amazon Prime, and Apple Podcast
and hit that subscribe on our YouTube channel “Weekend Researcher” 🔔📺

A big thank you to the authors Bart De Keyser and Koen Vandenbempt, and to the Journal of Management Studies, Society for the Advancement of Management Studies, and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. for this powerful piece of research. 🙏📚

So, as lab-grown shocks collide with centuries-old stones, and leaders pull on cognitive, social, and emotional threads to keep the ecosystem intact…
are we watching a market defend its past, or witnessing the birth of an entirely new way to lead through disruption? 🤔💎🌍

English Podcast Starts at 00:00:00

Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:13:55

Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:29:16

Danish Podcast Starts at 00:43:17

Reference

Oo, P.P., Thomas, H., Allison et al. The Dark Side of Source Credibility: Differential Effectiveness of Credibility Cues in Fraudulent Versus Legitimate Crowdfunding Campaigns. J Bus Ethics (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-025-06229-w

‌Youtube Channel

⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠

Connect over linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

Welcome to Revise and Resubmit 🎙️📚—the show where serious research meets sharp questions, and every claim has to earn its place.

Picture this.
A crowdfunding page.
A smiling founder.
A confident story.
A campaign that feels right. 😌✨

Now the twist.
What if that feeling is exactly what scammers are selling? 🕵️‍♂️💸

Today’s episode unpacks a chilling new study titled:
🧠 “The Dark Side of Source Credibility: Differential Effectiveness of Credibility Cues in Fraudulent Versus Legitimate Crowdfunding Campaigns”
by Pyayt P. Oo, H. Thomas, Allison, and Keith M. Hmieleski.

It’s published in the Journal of Business Ethics—a prestigious FT50 journal 🏆—and it went online on 24 December 2025, published by Springer Nature.

This paper asks a deceptively simple question:
How do fraudulent crowdfunding campaigns persuade people… and win?

The authors take source credibility theory and break credibility into three cues:
Trustworthiness.
Welcome to Revise and Resubmit 🎙️—where we take big academic ideas, strip out the fluff, and keep the bite.

Today’s episode starts with a simple scene.
A crowdfunding page. A friendly face. A confident pitch. A shiny promise. ✨
You scroll. You smile. You trust. You pledge. 💸

But what if that’s exactly the problem?

We’re unpacking a striking new paper:
“The Dark Side of Source Credibility: Differential Effectiveness of Credibility Cues in Fraudulent Versus Legitimate Crowdfunding Campaigns” 🕶️
by Pyayt P. Oo, H. Thomas, Allison, and Keith M. Hmieleski.

It’s published in the Journal of Business Ethics—a prestigious FT50 journal 🏆📚—and it went online on 24 December 2025 via Springer Nature.

Here’s the hook.
Credibility should protect us.
It should guide us.
It should separate the real from the fake. ✅❌

But this research asks a sharper question:
Which credibility cues work better for scammers than for honest creators?

Using source credibility theory, the authors focus on three cues:
Trustworthiness 🤝
Attractiveness 😎
Expertise 🧠

Then they test the idea with a matched-pairs sample of 204 Kickstarter campaigns. Not vibes. Data.

And the results are unsettling.

Subjective signals—how trustworthy someone seems, how attractive they appear—turn out to be especially persuasive in fraudulent campaigns. These cues hit fast. They feel right. They bypass the slow, skeptical part of the brain. ⚡🧠

Meanwhile, objective signals—functional expertise, the proof of real competence—matter more when the campaign is legitimate. Because expertise survives scrutiny. Charm just needs to survive the scroll. 📲

This flips a comforting assumption on its head.
Sometimes the cues we treat as moral indicators are just tools.
And in the wrong hands, they become weapons. 🎭🧨

If you like episodes that challenge how you judge people online, you’re in the right place.

Subscribe to “Revise and Resubmit” on Spotify 🎧, and join the conversation on YouTube at “Weekend Researcher” 📺. You can also listen on Amazon Prime Music and Apple Podcast 🍎🎶—so you’re covered wherever you learn.

And with that, sincere thanks to the authors—Pyayt P. Oo, H. Thomas, Allison, and Keith M. Hmieleski—and to Springer Nature and the Journal of Business Ethics for publishing this important work. 🙏📄

Now tell me—if trustworthiness can be performed, and credibility can be engineered, how do we spot the real thing before we click “Back this project”? 🤔

English Podcast starts at 00:00:00

Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:12:54

Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:25:35

Danish Podcast Starts at 00:39:21

Before we go deeper, an important note: any depiction of smoking in this book is for representational purposes only. Our podcast channel does not promote or endorse tobacco use. Tobacco is injurious to health and causes cancer. 🚭

Reference

Arundhati Roy (2025). Mother Mary Comes to Me. Scribner. 352 pp. https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Mother-Mary-Comes-to-Me/Arundhati-Roy/9781668094716

Youtube channel link

https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher

Connect on linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

Welcome to “Revise and Resubmit” and this episode of “Weekend Book Review” 🎧📚 I am so glad you are here, because today I am holding a book that feels like a live wire in my hands. It is called Mother Mary Comes to Me by Arundhati Roy, published in hardcover on 2 September 2025 by Scribner. This is not quiet reading. This is a heart walking through a memory minefield, tripping, exploding, laughing, crying, and somehow still finding its way home.

Arundhati Roy is not a stranger in our literary universe. She is the Booker Prize winning author of The God of Small Things, translated into more than forty languages, and the creator of The Ministry of Utmost Happiness. She has written fierce non fiction like Field Notes on Democracy and Capitalism: A Ghost Story, circling war, injustice, capitalism, and freedom with the precision of an architect and the fury of a poet. 📝🔥 In this first memoir, though, the revolution is domestic and devastating. She turns toward her mother, Mary Roy, the woman she calls “my shelter and my storm,” and lets us watch as love and anger wrestle on the page.

This book was born out of grief. After Mary Roy’s death in September 2022, Arundhati finds herself “heart smashed” and strangely ashamed of the depth of her grief. So she writes her way through it. We move with her from a charged childhood in Kerala, where her single mother starts a school and a battle for women’s rights, to an escape at eighteen, to architecture in Delhi, to the creation of her prizewinning novels and essays, to the public figure we now think we know. Along the way, the memoir becomes an ode to freedom, to thorny love, to savage grace, to that complicated parent who is both wound and weapon, cage and key. 🌪️❤️

What I love is how this book refuses neatness. It is intimate, disturbing, funny, political, and deeply tender. It feels like late night conversation with someone who finally decides to tell you the truth. No costume. No PR. Just a daughter trying to understand the woman who shaped her as a writer, an activist, a critic of power, and a witness to her own country.

Thank you to Arundhati Roy for writing Mother Mary Comes to Me and to Scribner for bringing this powerful memoir into our hands 🙏✨ If you enjoy these deep dives into books and ideas, please subscribe to this podcast on Spotify, Amazon Prime Music, and Apple Podcast, and also hit subscribe on my YouTube channel “Weekend Researcher” for more bookish breakdowns and research fueled conversations 🎙️📺

So as we open this memoir and step into the charged space between mother and daughter, here is the question I want to leave you with at the start: when you tell the story of your own life, are you really writing about yourself, or are you secretly writing the biography of the person who taught you what love and freedom feel like? 🤔📖

English Podcast Start at 00:00:00

Bengali Podcast Start at 00:15:03

Hindi Podcast Start at 00:30:32

Danish Podcast Start at 00:42:32

Reference

Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating Something from Nothing: Resource Construction through Entrepreneurial Bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329-366. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.329

Related AOM Conference Proceedings

TED BAKER and REED E. NELSON, 2003: MAKING DO WITH WHAT'S AT HAND: BRICOLAGE IN TWO CONTEXTS.. Proceedings, 2003, D1–D6, https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2003.13792428

Youtube channel link

https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher

Connect on linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

🎙️ Welcome back to “Revise and Resubmit” and to this special episode of “Weekend Classics” — where we dust off the papers that changed how we think, and hold them up to the light like intellectual vinyl records spinning at 33⅓ RPM. 🌈📻

Today’s classic is titled “Creating Something from Nothing: Resource Construction through Entrepreneurial Bricolage” by Ted Baker and Reed E. Nelson, published in Administrative Science Quarterly, a top-tier FT50 journal from the Johnson Graduate School at Cornell and SAGE Publications, way back in September 2005, Volume 50, Issue 3.​

This is a story about 29 scrappy, resource-constrained firms that looked at the same harsh environment as everyone else… and somehow heard music where others heard noise. Instead of waiting for perfect investors, pristine tools, or textbook conditions, these entrepreneurs practiced what Claude Lévi-Strauss called bricolage — “making do” with whatever is at hand and recombining it into something startlingly new.​

In this episode, we explore how:

• Firms “create something from nothing” by exploiting physical, social, and institutional inputs that other companies reject or ignore.​

• Resources are not fixed objects but socially constructed, meaning your “constraints” may just be someone else’s unquestioned assumptions.​

• Some entrepreneurs live in parallel bricolage, constantly hacking and patching everything, while others use selective bricolage as a strategic booster rocket toward more standardized, professional markets.​

So, if you’ve ever stared at your empty bank account, your tiny network, your “nothing-special” skills and thought, “I don’t have enough to start” — this paper gently, and firmly, says: maybe you’re looking at your environment the wrong way. Maybe the real entrepreneurial alertness is not just spotting shiny new opportunities out there, but seeing hidden value in the junk pile everyone else walks past.​

Before we dive in, smash that ⭐ and ❤️ wherever you’re listening —

• Subscribe to “Revise and Resubmit” on Spotify, Amazon Prime, and Apple Podcast so you never miss a classic.​

• And hop over to YouTube and subscribe to “Weekend Researcher” for deep-dive videos, breakdowns, and behind-the-mic nerdiness.​

Huge thanks to the authors Ted Baker and Reed E. Nelson for giving us this timeless framework for turning scarcity into a playground.​

So tonight, as we unpack entrepreneurial bricolage — firms that refuse to accept the limits of their resource environments, and founders who build identities out of scraps and leftovers — ask yourself:

👉 If your constraints are partly a social construction, then what “nothing” in your world is quietly waiting to become your next “something”? 💡✨

English Podcast Starts at 00:00:00

Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:16:48

Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:31:17

German Podcast Starts at 00:46:33

Reference

Annabell, T., & Rasmussen, N. V. (2025). An algorithmic event: The celebration and critique of Spotify Wrapped. New Media & Society, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448251391301

Youtube Channel

⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠

Connect over linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

Welcome into the podcast, Revise and Resubmit 🎙️✨

Today, we are diving into an algorithmic ritual you probably screenshotted, shared, and maybe even side–eyed a little: Spotify Wrapped.
Every December, your listening history turns into a colourful confession: top artists, guilty-pleasure tracks, and that one song you played at 2 AM a few too many times. Wrapped looks like a party, feels like a personality quiz, and behaves like a data-hungry machine. 🎧📊

In the article “An algorithmic event: The celebration and critique of Spotify Wrapped”, published on November 24, 2025 in the prestigious Scopus Q1 journal New Media & Society (SAGE Publications) 🏛️, scholars Taylor Annabell and Nina Vindum Rasmussen peel back the neon gradients and show us the machinery behind the magic.

They call Wrapped an “algorithmic event”: a moment when millions of users stop, look at their data, and ask, “Is this really me?”
Through five creative workshops with university students, they explore “wrappification” – that slick process where data extraction is rebranded as fun, identity, and memory work. 🎭

From their analysis, four themes emerge like tracks on a playlist:

• 🎵 The resonance of Wrapped – why this recap hits so emotionally.

• 🧍‍♀️ The limits of the Wrapped self – how your “data self” both mirrors and distorts who you are.

• 🌫️ The ambience of music – where mood, place, and bodies escape neat categories.

• 🏗️ Contestations of Spotify’s governance – the quiet ways users push back against platform power.

Participants celebrate personalization, yet they also see the strings: classification systems that flatten messy lives, commercial logics that turn intimacy into metrics, and strategic listening where people game the system just to get a cooler Wrapped. Still, their relationship with music often overflows the app, reminding us that songs carry memories, atmospheres, and affect that no chart can fully pin down. 💿💚

So today on Revise and Resubmit, we’ll sit with this tension: the joy of being seen by an algorithm, and the discomfort of being sorted, sold, and surveilled by it. We’ll ask what it means when a platform tells you who you’ve been all year, and why that story feels both seductively right and stubbornly incomplete.

🙏 A big thank you to Taylor Annabell, Nina Vindum Rasmussen, and the team at New Media & Society (Scopus Q1, SAGE Publications) for this thought-provoking work and for letting us think with their research today.

If you enjoy deep dives like this, don’t forget to subscribe to “Revise and Resubmit” on Spotify, Amazon Prime Music, and Apple Podcasts 🎧, and check out our YouTube channel “Weekend Researcher” for more academic storytelling 📺. Hit follow, hit subscribe, hit play again.

Because when Spotify tells you, “This is your year in music”…
🧐 How do you know where your true self ends and the algorithmic self begins?

Would you like a shorter variant of this intro as well, for use on YouTube Shorts or Reels?

🎙️✨ Welcome to Revise and Resubmit — the podcast where brilliant research meets real conversation! 🌍💡

Today’s episode is a 🎄 Christmas Special 🎄 — and we’re switching things up with a person-to-person interview format. Because what better way to unwrap ideas than by hearing them straight from the mind that created them?

📚 Now, if you’ve been following our journey, you’ll remember that we previously covered the groundbreaking Nature Biotechnology paper on Circulatronics from Dr. Deblina Sarkar’s Lab at the MIT Media Lab. (🔗 Link to that episode will be in our show notes below!)

Spotify Episode link

A non-surgical Brain implant (Sarkar et al 2025)

https://open.spotify.com/episode/6NN93f3n7Q76gFK5uSYt8m?si=cb312d83597946ab

‌Youtube Channel

⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠

Connect over linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

But today… we’re diving deeper — straight into the heart of the discovery itself. ❤️‍🔥

🎧 Hosted by our very own producer — Mayukh Mukhopadhyay — this episode, titled “Circulatronics and the Curious Case of SWEDs,” brings us an extraordinary guest: Dr. Shubham Yadav — the first author of that Nature Biotech paper, a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Institute of Neuroinformatics, University and ETH Zurich. 🧠🇨🇭

Let’s get to know him a bit.
Dr. Yadav is a researcher whose curiosity doesn’t just light up the lab — it builds new worlds of possibility. A dual-degree graduate in Electrical Engineering from IIT Kanpur, an S.M. in Media Arts and Sciences from MIT, and a recent PhD from the MIT Media Lab, he’s pioneering ways to make electronics circulate naturally through the body — no surgery, no wires, just innovation flowing with life itself.

His creation — Circulatronics — uses wireless, subcellular-scale photovoltaic devices that travel through the bloodstream, find neural inflammation, and settle right where treatment is needed. 🌐✨ Think of it as science fiction turning into biological poetry.

Now at ETH Zurich, he’s pushing this technology toward real-world neurotherapeutic applications — bridging brain, biology, and bytes.

🎙️ So today, we will take on a journey through Circulatronics, the intriguing universe of SWEDs, and the deeper question hiding beneath this invention.

💭 What happens when technology stops being implanted — and starts becoming alive within us?

🌟 A huge thank you to Dr. Shubham Yadav, Dr. Deblina Sarkar, and the Nature Biotechnology team for their remarkable contribution to science — published in one of the most prestigious Nature Portfolio academic journals in the world.

And before we let curiosity take over — don’t forget to ✨ subscribe ✨ to Revise and Resubmit on Spotify, follow our YouTube channel “Weekend Researcher”, and tune in on Amazon Prime or Apple Podcast for more caffeine-fueled deep dives into ideas that move the world. ☕🚀

Because every discovery has a story — and every story deserves to be… revised and resubmitted. 🧩

Reference

Yadav, S., Lee, R. X., Kajale, S. N., Joy, B., Saha, M., Patel, P., Bull, L., Cao, S., Mitragotri, S., Bono, D., & Sarkar, D. (2025). A nonsurgical brain implant enabled through a cell–electronics hybrid for focal neuromodulation. Nature Biotechnology. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-025-02809-3

English Podcast Starts at 00:00:00

Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:13:46

Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:28:11

German Podcast Starts at 00:39:34

Reference

Fan, Y., Litov, L., Yang, M.-J., & Zenger, T. (2025). The technological uniqueness paradox. Strategic Management Journal, 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.70043

‌Youtube Channel

⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠

Connect over linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

Welcome to "Revise and Resubmit" 🎙️✨—where breakthrough research pulses with rhythm, starts with a spark, builds to a blaze, and leaves you questioning everything! 🚀

Today, we crack open a mind-bending paradox from the prestigious Strategic Management Journal—an elite FT50 powerhouse that defines cutting-edge strategy science. 🏆📚 Published online December 15, 2025, by John Wiley & Sons Ltd., the paper "The Technological Uniqueness Paradox" by Yang Fan, Lubomir Litov, Mu-Jeung Yang, and Todd Zenger reveals how a firm's wildly unique patents build an unbeatable moat against rivals... yet isolate it from others' breakthroughs, confuse analysts, and spike capital costs. 💡🔒 One edge protects. The same edge imprisons. Average firms thrive on uniqueness. But the bill comes due in spillovers lost and mysteries unsolved.

Subscribe now to "Revise and Resubmit" on Spotify 🔔, binge visuals on YouTube's "Weekend Researcher" 🎥, and catch us on Amazon Prime and Apple Podcasts 🎧—your front-row seat to research remixed!

Huge thanks to authors Yang Fan, Lubomir Litov, Mu-Jeung Yang, and Todd Zenger, and to John Wiley & Sons Ltd., for this FT50 gem that flips innovation on its head. 🙏

But here's the curious question: if technological uniqueness is both sword and shield, when does standing apart start costing you more than it saves? 🤔⚖️

English Podcast Starts at 00:00:00

Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:18:48

Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:36:12

German Podcast Starts at 00:50:09

Reference

Rosaia, N. (2025). Competing Platforms and Transport Equilibrium. Econometrica, 93(6), 2235–2271. https://doi.org/10.3982/ecta21773

Supplement and Replication Package: https://www.econometricsociety.org/publications/econometrica/2025/11/01/Competing-Platforms-and-Transport-Equilibrium

‌Youtube Channel

⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠

Connect over linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

Welcome to “Revise and Resubmit” 🎙️📚 — where heavyweight theory puts on headphones, gets in a cab, and rides through the real world with you.

Tonight, we’re not just hailing a ride. We’re hailing a market. 🚕📱
Two apps. One city. Millions of tiny decisions: tap here, wait there, surge now, cancel later.
On your screen, it’s a simple map with a moving car.
Underneath, it’s a battle of platforms, traffic flows, and social welfare measured in millions. 💸🌆

Our paper for this episode is
👉 “Competing Platforms and Transport Equilibrium”
by Nicola Rosaia, published in Econometrica — a prestigious FT50 journal — Volume 93, Issue 6, November 2025, from The Econometric Society and Wiley. 🏛️✨

Here’s the puzzle:
When Uber and Lyft (or any big platforms) compete, do we get efficiency… or waste?
Are we seeing smart competition, or just two half-empty networks clogging the same streets? 🚗🚗💨

Nicola Rosaia builds a spatial model of the ride-hailing market in New York City, powered by detailed data from two major platforms. Then comes the twist: by running counterfactual worlds, the paper asks, “What if we changed the rules?” 🧪

The results hit hard:

• Fragmented platforms and market power together burn 176176 million dollars of social welfare every year and waste 21% of driver-generated traffic.

• A platform merger would pool everyone into one big network, cutting traffic by 8%, but at a cost: prices up 4%, consumer surplus down 7777 million per year.

• Interoperability regulation — letting networks talk and drivers multi-home — captures most of the efficiency: wasteful traffic down 6%, while consumer surplus rises by 6363 million a year. 📉🚦📈

So one simple tap on a ride-hailing app turns out to be anything but simple.
It’s a choice shaped by algorithms, pricing power, and who is allowed to work for whom.
Competition gives you options. Fragmentation gives you traffic. Regulation reshapes the game. ⚖️

A huge thank you to Nicola Rosaia, to The Econometric Society, to Wiley, and to the prestigious FT50 journal Econometrica for this sharp, data-rich look at how platforms move people—and money—through our cities. 🙏📖

If you enjoy this kind of deep dive into cutting-edge research, hit subscribe to
🎧 “Revise and Resubmit” on Spotify, Amazon Prime, and Apple Podcast,
and don’t forget our 🎥 YouTube channel “Weekend Researcher” for more geeky-yet-fun explorations of academic work.

So as we roll into this episode, here’s the question I want to leave circling in your mind like a car around the block:
🤔 When you open a ride-hailing app, are you just choosing a ride—or are you quietly choosing what kind of city, what kind of market, and what kind of equilibrium you want to live in? 🚕📱🌃

English Podcast Starts at 00:00:00

Bengali Podcast Starts at 00:16:52

Hindi Podcast Starts at 00:32:14

German Podcast Starts at 00:45:18

Reference

Li, M. (2025). Newsvendors with Customer Referrals. Production and Operations Management, 35(1), 122-128. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.13807

‌Youtube Channel

⁠https://www.youtube.com/@weekendresearcher⁠

Connect over linkedin

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mayukhpsm/

Welcome to “Revise and Resubmit” 🎙️📚 — the show where dense academic PDFs turn into ideas you can actually use.

Today, we’re stepping into a world where inventory decisions and word-of-mouth marketing quietly shake hands behind the scenes. 🧠📦 Imagine you’re a retailer, standing in front of your stockroom door. You’re not just asking, “How much should I order?” — you’re also asking, “If my customers love this today… how many new customers will they bring me tomorrow?” 👀🛒

Our featured paper is titled
👉 “Newsvendors with Customer Referrals”
by Meng Li, published in the prestigious, FT50-listed journal Production and Operations Management, from SAGE Publications, online on 12 December 2025. 🌍✨

In classic newsvendor models, you choose inventory for a single period and hope you guessed right. But this paper does something smarter. It says: every unit you sell today is not just revenue — it’s a seed. 🌱 Because when customers talk, demand in the next period grows with your previous sales. Suddenly, inventory is no longer just a safety buffer against uncertainty; it becomes a growth engine for tomorrow’s customers. 🚀

Meng Li builds a two-period analytical model where referrals link today’s sales to tomorrow’s demand, and the result is powerful:

• Firms should often stock more initially than traditional models recommend.

• Referral programs are especially valuable for nonperishable products, where leftover inventory can roll forward and feed that new referral-driven demand.

• The paper shows how a basestock policy can elegantly weave together social customer acquisition and operations decisions into one coherent framework. 🔗📈

So the humble question, “How many units should I order?” becomes a deeper, sharper one:
💡 “How much am I willing to invest in future word-of-mouth today?”

As we unpack this paper, we’ll ask: if your warehouse could talk, what would it tell you about your referral strategy, your risk appetite, and your hidden growth potential? And in your own research or practice, are you still treating inventory as a cost… when it might actually be marketing in disguise? 🤯

A huge thank you to Meng Li and to SAGE Publications, and to the prestigious FT50 journal Production and Operations Management, for making this research possible and accessible. 🙏📖

If you enjoy diving into ideas like this, don’t forget to subscribe to
🎧 “Revise and Resubmit” on Spotify, Amazon Prime, and Apple Podcast,
and check out our 🎥 YouTube channel “Weekend Researcher” for more deep dives into cutting-edge papers.

So as you listen today, here’s the question I want to leave you with:
🤔 If every extra unit you stocked today could bring you an extra customer tomorrow, how radically would that change the way you manage your operations—and the way you think about growth itself?