daaronr/haushofer_et_al_evals.csv

## haushofer_et_al_evals.csv

          
            Title
            Eval_1
            Eval_2
            Category
            Rating_1
            Confidence_range_1
            Comments_1
            Rating_2
            Confidence_range_2
            Comments_2

            
              The Comparative Impact of Cash Transfers and a Psychotherapy Program on Psychological and Economic Well-being
              anonymous
              anonymous
              Overall assessment
              90
              3
              
              75
              (65, 85)

            
              
              
              
              Advancing knowledge and practice
              90
              2
              
              70
              (60, 90)
              It provides useful evidence on the (in)effectiveness of CBT for general populations and was well-designed to investigate other important questions.

            
              
              
              
              Methods: Justification, reasonableness, validity, robustness
              90
              3
              
              90
              (85, 95)
              A well-executed RCT with effort to avoid bias.

            
              
              
              
              Logic & communication
              80
              4
              
              75
              (70, 90)
              Generally good, some claims could be better supported.

            
              
              
              
              Open, collaborative, replicable
              70
              5
              
              50
              (40, 80)
              Data and code arenÕt available but I think this is standard for unpublished papers so I downweight this category. ThereÕs some small discrepancies between the numbers reported in section III.B and the actual numbers in Table 1. Pre-analysis plan is available.

            
              
              
              
              Engaging with real-world, impact quantification; practice, realism, and relevance
              100
              5
              
              75
              (60, 90)
              There is cost-effectiveness analysis and good nontechnical communication.

            
              
              
              
              Relevance to global priorities
              100
              5
              
              90
              (80, 100)

            
              
              
              
              What âquality journalâ do you expect this work will be published in? Note: 0= lowest/none, 5= highest/best
              4
              3
              Not very familiar with economic journals and their standards, how strong they weight novelty
              3
              (2, 4)

            
              
              
              
              On a âscale of journalsâ, what âquality of journalâ should this be published in? Note: 0= lowest/none, 5= highest/best
              5
              5
              
              4
              (3, 4)
Title	Eval_1	Eval_2	Category	Rating_1	Confidence_range_1	Comments_1	Rating_2	Confidence_range_2	Comments_2
The Comparative Impact of Cash Transfers and a Psychotherapy Program on Psychological and Economic Well-being	anonymous	anonymous	Overall assessment	90	3		75	(65, 85)
			Advancing knowledge and practice	90	2		70	(60, 90)	It provides useful evidence on the (in)effectiveness of CBT for general populations and was well-designed to investigate other important questions.
			Methods: Justification, reasonableness, validity, robustness	90	3		90	(85, 95)	A well-executed RCT with effort to avoid bias.
			Logic & communication	80	4		75	(70, 90)	Generally good, some claims could be better supported.
			Open, collaborative, replicable	70	5		50	(40, 80)	Data and code arenÕt available but I think this is standard for unpublished papers so I downweight this category. ThereÕs some small discrepancies between the numbers reported in section III.B and the actual numbers in Table 1. Pre-analysis plan is available.
			Engaging with real-world, impact quantification; practice, realism, and relevance	100	5		75	(60, 90)	There is cost-effectiveness analysis and good nontechnical communication.
			Relevance to global priorities	100	5		90	(80, 100)
			What âquality journalâ do you expect this work will be published in? Note: 0= lowest/none, 5= highest/best	4	3	Not very familiar with economic journals and their standards, how strong they weight novelty	3	(2, 4)
			On a âscale of journalsâ, what âquality of journalâ should this be published in? Note: 0= lowest/none, 5= highest/best	5	5		4	(3, 4)