Methodology & Neutrality
AER's research outputs are governed by explicit editorial and methodological standards. This page sets out those standards in full.
AER's Neutrality Commitment
All AER outputs must be analytically independent. This means the following rules apply to every output published under the AER name, whether produced by a volunteer team, a funded grantee or the coordination team directly.
Evidence-based conclusions
Analysis must follow the evidence. Conclusions cannot be determined by the preferences of funders, partners, volunteers or the coordination team.
No undisclosed interests
Authors and reviewers must declare any professional interests that could create a bias in the research topic.
Partners cannot veto findings
No partner, funder or sponsor can block or materially alter the conclusions or recommendations of an AER output.
Explicit uncertainty
Where data is weak or conflicting, outputs must say so. AER does not present uncertain data as settled fact.
No advocacy packaging
Outputs are research documents. They do not include calls to action, petitions or campaign messaging.
Attribution is mandatory
Every output identifies its authors and reviewers. Anonymous outputs are not permitted.
Research Methods
AER primarily uses desk-based research methods given the distributed nature of the volunteer network. The default methods for most outputs are listed below. Where outputs deviate from these defaults, they state the methods used and why.
Primary Methods
- Document review — Regulatory filings, company reports, project announcements, academic papers, government statistics and development bank publications.
- Data compilation — Drawing from sources including IEA, IRENA, World Bank, EIA, OPEC, national regulatory agencies and national statistics offices.
- Expert interviews — Used selectively for country and project profiles where direct knowledge fills gaps in public data.
- Comparative analysis — Structured comparisons across countries or periods using consistent definitions and units.
Data Quality Standards
- Source citation — Every quantitative claim in AER outputs must be traceable to a named, accessible source.
- Conflict disclosure — Where sources have known commercial or political interests that could bias figures, this is noted.
- Currency and recency — Data is dated. Where recent data is unavailable, outputs use the most recent available data and state the reference period.
- Triangulation — For key figures, AER prefers data confirmed by at least two independent sources.
Editorial Process
Every AER output passes through the following stages before publication. The coordination team maintains overall editorial authority and is accountable for the published record.
A structured brief is agreed before research begins, setting the question, scope, sources, format and timeline.
Research teams submit a draft to the coordination team on the agreed date.
The coordination team checks factual accuracy, source citation and adherence to the brief.
For quantitative outputs, an independent technical reviewer checks methods and conclusions.
Language is reviewed for clarity, accessibility and compliance with AER tone standards.
Authors review the final version before publication. Factual corrections are accepted; editorial interventions that alter conclusions are escalated.
Outputs are published with full contributor list, date and methods note.
AER's research is produced by a distributed volunteer network. It is not resourced at the level of a funded research institution. Some outputs will have gaps or limitations that a better-resourced team would address. AER's commitment is to be transparent about what is and is not known, and to document limitations rather than suppress them.