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

Tom Jefferson and Vittorio Demicheli

Health Economics, 1995, vol. 4, issue 5, 383-388

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.

Date: 1995
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.4730040504

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:4:y:1995:i:5:p:383-388

Access Statistics for this article

Health Economics is currently edited by Alan Maynard, John Hutton and Andrew Jones

More articles in Health Economics from John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().