Skip to main content

Evaluation Summary and Metrics: "The Governance Of Non-Profits And Their Social Impact: Evidence From A Randomized Program In Healthcare In DRC”

Evaluation Summary and Metrics: "The Governance Of Non-Profits And Their Social Impact: Evidence From A Randomized Program In Healthcare In DRC”

Published onMay 29, 2023
Evaluation Summary and Metrics: "The Governance Of Non-Profits And Their Social Impact: Evidence From A Randomized Program In Healthcare In DRC”
·
history

You're viewing an older Release (#3) of this Pub.

  • This Release (#3) was created on May 29, 2023 ()
  • The latest Release (#7) was created on Mar 27, 2024 ().

Preamble

Paper: "The Governance Of Non-Profits And Their Social Impact: Evidence From A Randomized Program In Healthcare In DRC”(Fangwa, Flammer, Huysentruyt, & Quelin, 2022)

Authors: Anicet Fangwa, Caroline Flammer, Marieke Huysentruyt & Bertrand Quelin

We organized one evaluation of this paper. To read the evaluation, please click the link at the bottom.

Evaluation manager’s notes

We chose to evaluate this NBER paper because it addresses a question of critical importance to global priorities, which is: how can non-profit organisations improve their governance to increase their social impact? Effective governance underpins the successful implementation of policies and interventions across a range of areas, including health, development, education and environment, and as the paper finds, increases the beneficial social impacts of these interventions. By using a rigorous, counterfactual design, the study authors contribute to this important question in the context of health centers in the DRC.

We organized one evaluation of the paper.  This latest version (as of February 2023) of the research paper can be found HERE. However, the evaluation was based on the earlier NBER working paper version (dated: August 2022), available HERE

During the process of seeking a second evaluator, we noted that one of the co-authors’ webpages (HERE, accessed May 2023) listed/linked the later version of the paper as “forthcoming” in Management Science.  Although we are open to doing  ‘post-publication evaluation, in this case, we chose to not pursue further evaluations.

The evaluator was asked to follow the general guidelines available here. In addition to written evaluations (similar to journal peer review), we ask evaluators to provide quantitative metrics on several aspects of each article. These are put together below. For this paper, we did not give specific suggestions on ‘which aspects to evaluate’.  

As a final note, although the authors did not engage with the Unjournal’s evaluation of this paper, we hope this evaluation may be useful to other researchers working on similar topics.

Metrics (all evaluators)

Ratings

Rating category

Rating (0-100)

Anonymous

90% CI for this rating (0-100)* 

Additional comments (optional)

Overall assessment

65

(55, 74)

Advancing knowledge and practice 

70

(55, 75)

Methods: Justification, reasonableness, validity, robustness

60

(55, 70)

Logic & communication

55

(50, 65)

Open, collaborative, replicable

45

(30, 60)

1

Engaging with real-world, impact quantification; practice, realism, and relevance 

55

(45, 75)

Relevance to global priorities

80

(70, 90)

Predictions

Prediction metric

Rating (0-5)

90% CI for this rating (0-5)

What ‘quality journal’ do you expect this work will be published in?

3.6

(2.8, 4.0)

On a ‘scale of journals’, what tier journal should this be published in?

3.8

(3.0, 4.1)


Comments
0
comment
No comments here
Why not start the discussion?