Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

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. Copyright © 1995 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Original publication




Journal article


Health Economics

Publication Date





383 - 388