Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. 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

DOI

10.1002/hec.4730040504

Type

Journal article

Journal

Health Economics

Publication Date

01/01/1995

Volume

4

Pages

383 - 388