OBJECTIVES: To investigate what aspects of real-world (RW)/health-economic (HE) studies and manuscripts most commonly receive positive feedback from peer reviewers. METHODS: Data were derived from industry-sponsored RW/HE manuscript submissions for which a complete submission history was available in our company’s project administration records as described previously (Hartog TE et al., ISPOR 2015). Following initial review of submission letters, a preliminary classification of positive feedback was made and 11 categories were specified. Positive feedback from peer reviewers was stratified into these categories independently by 4 researchers and collated into a final consensus score. One letter could contain feedback that matched multiple categories. RESULTS: Our dataset included 77 manuscripts, 140 submissions attempts, and 126 complete decision letters. Many decision letters included positive feedback (79/126; 63%). The most frequent positive comments were that "the topic or study is important, useful, or interesting" (35.4%), "the manuscript is well written" (19.7%), and "the study has rigorous methodology" (16.2%). Other comments included that "the manuscript adds to/confirms the literature or aids scientific understanding" (7.1%), "is useful for clinical practice" (7.1%), "is unique or innovative" (4.0%), that "the limitations are appropriately addressed" (3.0%), "the references used are recent or relevant" (2.5%), "the figures/tables are clear and well-presented" (2.0%), "the manuscript fills a gap in the literature" (1.5%), or other remarks (e.g. "well done", 1.5%).  CONCLUSIONS: Based on our analysis, peer reviewers are looking for RW/HE manuscripts that are interesting, well written, and derived from well-conducted studies. These findings should be confirmed by a larger study of non-industry-sponsored, non-agency-supported manuscripts but do support our previous research indicating that reviewers’ concerns about methodology and lack of novelty are common reasons for rejection. Our research could help authors to focus their efforts during the preparation of manuscripts and thereby improve their chances of a favorable journal response.