To read these evaluations, please click the links above (or at the bottom).
Evaluators were asked to follow the general guidelines available here. For this paper, we did not give specific suggestions on ‘which aspects to evaluate’.
Metrics
Ratings
Eval. 1: Metzler
Eval. 2
Rating category
Rating (0-100)
Confidence
(0-5)
Rating (0-100)
90% CI (0-100)
Comments (Eval. 2)
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.
Generally good, some claims could be better supported.
Open, collaborative, replicable
70
5
50
(40, 80)
Data and code aren’t available but I think this is standard for unpublished papers so I downweight this category. There’s 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)
Predictions
Evaluator 1: Metzler
Evaluator 2
Prediction metric
Rating (0-5)
Confidence (0-5)
Comments
Rating (0-5)
90% CI
What ‘quality journal’ 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[ly] they weight novelty”
3
(2, 4)
On a ‘scale of journals’, what ‘quality of journal’ should this be published in?
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0)
