Peer Review Arrangements

For major projects undertaken as part of the Economic Research Programme, one or two external peer reviewers are invited to comment on the draft reports. The reviewer(s) are selected on the basis of relevant academic expertise and/or membership of the Government Economic Service in an appropriate Whitehall Department or Devolved Administration. The views of the external reviewer(s) and the Economic Research Unit may be reflected in the published report.

For smaller projects undertaken as part of the Economic Research Programme, a single reviewer is invited to comment on the draft report (the reviewer may be an appointed member of the Economic Research Advisory Panel). The views of the reviewer and the Economic Research Unit may be reflected in the published report.

Guidance

The purpose of the peer review is to provide the Welsh Government with a guide to the overall quality of the research and the robustness of the conclusions drawn from the research. Reviewers should therefore concentrate on the 'big picture', in particular on consistency with earlier results in the field and on the suitability of the chosen methodology. Reviewers should avoid detailed discussion of technical issues where these have few implications for overall reliability.

Examples are given below of some important issues that should be considered when reviewing the research:

General

• Have the objectives of the research been met?
• Does the research demonstrate a thorough understanding of the subject?
• When summarising what is already known, has any critical research in this area been missed?
• Does the researcher fairly reflect the mainstream economic view of the topic?
• Where the literature contains disagreements on a particular topic, are these handled in a balanced way?
• Is the research presented in a way that is accessible to a non-specialist reader?
• Does the research give due prominence to the main findings in the executive summary and conclusions?
• Has the research delivered value-for-money?

Methodology

• Where there are possible econometric or other technical imperfections, the reviewer should make it clear whether these are minor or whether they could undermine confidence in the research conclusions.
• Is the methodology consistent with previously published, high quality research in this area?
• Is the methodology based on mainstream economic principles, or where it is not, have the reasons for using a different approach been fully explained and justified?

Results and conclusions

• How robust are the results?
• Are the results and conclusions consistent with previous research in this area?