"Peer-reviewed" does not mean correct, or vice versa. The study they are talking about was done by the Research Council of Norway. I am assuming the goal was to inform the public, not to get published in a scientific journal. It was not an academic exercise. I, for one, am very happy that the Economist included this study in their survey.
The primary advantage to being peer reviewed is to avoid stupid mistakes. That's not to say it's correct, but it's like saying here is my book I did not have anyone proofread it. It could be a great book, but I just had a few red flags pop up.
Now, if the goal is to inform the public you base it on some peer reviewed research and repackage that instead of releasing original research in that fashion. All I am saying is the way the economist presented it was odd. I was assuming they where looking for something to create a little controversy to keep things interesting, but it just seemed odd to use something as a reference and then make it seem less credible at the same time.
> I was assuming they where looking for something to create a little controversy to keep things interesting, but it just seemed odd to use something as a reference and then make it seem less credible at the same time.
If a report like that is well written, it will provide a decent introduction to the ideas, and also have an exhaustive list of references. In that sense it makes a better reference for a journalist or layman than the original papers, which can be hard to interpret! And you can still go and look at the original sources if you like.
