title: 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.
authors.affiliation: Ministry of Defence, Army Medical Directorate, UK.
authors.forename: T
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Jefferson
authors.forename: V
authors.initials: V
authors.lastname: Demicheli
mesh_terms: D003365:Costs and Cost Analysis; D004470:Economics, Medical; D005060:Europe; D017408:Guidelines as Topic; D006302:Health Services Research / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D009656:North America; D016134:Organizational Policy; D017712:Peer Review, Research / Q000592:standards*; D010506:Periodicals as Topic; D012107:Research Design / Q000592:standards; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires