Evaluation Summary and Metrics: "The Governance Of Non-Profits And Their Social Impact: Evidence From A Randomized Program In Healthcare In DRC”
This summarizes and links to the evaluations of the paper "The Governance Of Non-Profits And Their Social Impact: Evidence From A Randomized Program In Healthcare In DRC” (2022). We chose to evaluate this NBER paper because it addresses a question of critical importance to global priorities, which is: how can non-profit organizations improve their governance to increase their social impact?
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.
We chose to evaluate this NBER paper because it addresses a question of critical importance to global priorities, which is: how can non-profit organizations 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.
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) |
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) |
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0)
