Are guidelines for peer‐reviewing economic evaluations necessary? A survey of current editorial practice

Abstract

We report the results of a postal survey of 150 editors of medical journals aimed at assessing editorial policy on peer-review of economic studies. 70 editors (47%) responded to the anonymous questionnaire which contained six questions. 16 (23% or respondents) claimed to have an editorial policy, most claiming acceptance of 'good evaluations'. Few (36%) had trained economists as referees and none had criteria or guidelines for peer-reviewing economic studies. This situation helps to explain the variable quality of international economic literature. There is an urgent need to produce internationally accepted sets of guidelines for authors, editors and peer-reviewers.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 26 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.