General guidance for peer reviewers

LJPC peer reviewers do not have to fill in standard appraisal forms. But we do ask all of them to consider this general guidance:

The LJPC now has a system of blind refereeing. In order to preserve anonymity we do not normally disclose the identity of the author(s) and we would ask that you do not sign your report, though you may do so if you feel strongly about it.

As a reviewer you will be advising the editors, who make the final decision (aided by an editorial "hanging committee" for some papers). We will let you know our decision. We will pass on your signed report to the author; please do not make any comments that you do not wish the author to see. Even if we do not accept a paper we would like to pass on constructive comments that might help the author to improve it.

Please give detailed comments (with references, whenever possible) that will both help the editors to make a decision on the paper and the authors to improve it.

For all papers:

Is the paper important? Will the paper add enough to existing knowledge? Does the paper read well and make sense?

For research papers please comment on:

• Originality — does the work add enough to what is already in the published literature? If so, what does it add? If not, please cite relevant references
• Importance of the work to general readers — does this work matter to clinicians, patients, teachers, or policymakers? Is a general journal the right place for it?
• Scientific reliability
• Research question — clearly defined and appropriately answered?
• Overall design of study — adequate?
• Participants studied — adequately described and their conditions defined?
• Methods — adequately described? For randomised trials: CONSORT style? Ethical?
• Results — answer the research question? Credible? Well presented?
• Interpretation and conclusions — warranted by and sufficiently derived from/focused on the data? Message clear?
• References — up to date and relevant? Any glaring omissions?
• Abstract/summary/key messages/This Week in LJPC — reflect accurately what the paper says

Authors must provide a completed checklist, indicating on which page of the paper each item is dealt with:

Study design
1. The research question is stated
2. The economic importance of the research question is stated
3. The viewpoint(s) of the analysis are clearly stated and justified
4. The rationale for choosing the alternative programmes or interventions compared is stated
5. The alternatives being compared are clearly described
6. The form of economic evaluation used is stated
7. The choice of form of economic evaluation is justified in relation to the questions addressed


Data collection
8. The source(s) of effectiveness estimates used are stated
9. Details of the design and results of effectiveness study are given (if based on a single study)
10. Details of the method of synthesis or meta-analysis of estimates are given (if based on an overview of a number of effectiveness studies)
11. The primary outcome measure(s) for the economic evaluation are clearly stated
12. Methods to value health states and other benefits are stated
13. Details of the subjects from whom valuations were obtained are given
14. Productivity changes (if included) are reported separately
15. The relevance of productivity changes to the study question is discussed
16. Quantities of resources are reported separately from their unit costs
17. Methods for the estimation of quantities and unit costs are described
18. Currency and price data are recorded
19. Details of currency of price adjustments for inflation or currency conversion are given
20. Details of any model used are given
21. The choice of model used and the key parameters on which it is based are justified


Analysis and interpretation of results
22. Time horizon of costs and benefits is stated
23. The discount rate(s) is stated
24. The choice of rate(s) is justified
25. An explanation is given if costs or benefits are not discounted
26. Details of statistical tests and confidence intervals are given for stochastic data
27. The approach to sensitivity analysis is given
28. The choice of variables for sensitivity analysis is justified
29. The ranges over which the variables are varied are stated
30. Relevant alternatives are compared
31. Incremental analysis is reported
32. Major outcomes are presented in a disaggregated as well as aggregated form
33. The answer to the study question is given
34. Conclusions follow from the data reported
35. Conclusions are accompanied by the appropriate caveats

Authors may enter N/A if an item on the checklist is not appropriate, but this is only acceptable for items 9, 10, 12-15, 20, 21, 23-29 and 31