OBJECTIVES: Spurred by proliferation of data sources, research methods, and published guidelines supporting the conduct of rigorous real-world evidence (RWE) studies, the past decade has seen increasing submissions of RWE studies to peer-reviewed journals. Historically, there has been the perception among traditional biomedical researchers, clinicians, and others that observational studies produce less credible evidence than randomized trials. This perception may impact the review and acceptance of observational RWE studies for publication and therefore dissemination. The purpose of this study is to obtain peer-reviewed journal editors’ views on the value and barriers to RWE publications. METHODS: Journals representing general medicine, specialty care, health policy, and health services research were identified based on journal impact factor and topic area covered (e.g., specialty). Editors were contacted by email and telephone and invited to participate in a telephone interview, in-person roundtable discussion, and survey. Qualitative data analysis was conducted using NVivo software. RESULTS: In total, 77 journals (16 health policy, 46 specialty medicine, 15 general medicine) were approached, resulting in 15 telephone interviews. Factors associated with RWE publication included: rigor of methodology, novelty and relevance of the research question, suitability of data source to the research question, and extent to which merits of real-world data sources are realized (e.g., generalizability, sample size). The process for evaluation of RWE is similar to clinical trials.  Journals generally do not provide guidance, assistance, or training to reviewers about RWE studies, however standard guidelines for review of RWE studies may improve quality. CONCLUSIONS: Widespread perceptions that RWE studies are viewed less favorably by journal editors may be incorrect, provided RWE studies are methodologically rigorous and examine important questions. Interviewed journal editors evaluate studies using the same critical approach whether the findings stem from observational or interventional evidence. These findings, however, may be biased due to editor’s willingness to participate in this study.