Document Type : Original Article


Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran


INTRODUCTION: Reviewing articles are one of the most important methods for maintaining and
improving the scientific quality of research outputs, especially in the field of health and medicine,
and are often accompanied with various challenges.
AIM: The current study was carried out to Health Promotion in the Review Process of the Health
Scientific Journals according to Explanation of Experts.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study has a qualitative approach and was carried out using
the content analysis method. Data were gathered through semi‑structured interviews with experts
with direct and related experiences with health scientific journals including editors in chief, internal
managers, editorial boards, authors’ council and members of national journal commission with at
least 2 years of continuous related work experience in journals and review of at least 10 articles.
Sampling was carried out using purposeful snowball sampling, and data were analyzed using content
analysis method. Lincoln and Guba tests were used to determine the validity and reliability of the
analysis based on the following four criteria – credibility, transferability, certainty, and verifiability.
RESULTS: Experts’ opinions were categorized based on criteria for reviewer selection with three
dimensions of technical expertise, ethical behavior, and orientation and order; reviewer selection
methods including emphasis on others and emphasis on self; and review problems in the Iranian
Health Science and Research Journals including incentive system, reviewer characteristics, and
structural problems.
CONCLUSION: Findings of the current study are usable for all Iranian Health Scientific Journals,
editors, editors in chief, and internal managers as well as lawmakers in the area of scientific research.


  1. Manchikanti L, Kaye AD, Boswell MV, Hirsch JA. Medical journal
    peer review: Process and bias. Pain Physician 2015;18:E1‑E14.
    2. Shahabian M. Principles of Management and Editorial of Scientific
    Journals. Mashhad: Abanbartar; 2015.
    3. Olia MB, Shakiba M. How to judge research papers in a scientific
    and systematic way. J Shahid Sadoughi Univ Med Sci 2008;16:3‑8.
  2. 4. Ayyoubi Ardakan M, Mirza’i A. Judges and ethics of arbitration
    in Iranian scientific journals. J Ethics Sci Technol 2010;5:36‑47.
    5. Fatahi R. Referees to scientific articles: Approaches, Criteria
    and ChallengesPresented at the Workshop of the Regional
    Center for Information Science and Technology and the Library
    and Information Society of Iran – Fars Branch. Shiraz, Iran; 26
    December, 2015.
    6. Vettore MV. The peer review process in health journals. Cad
    Saude Publica 2009;25:2306‑7.
    7. Innvaer S, Vist G, Trommald M, Oxman A. Health policy‑makers’
    perceptions of their use of evidence: A systematic review. J Health
    Serv Res Policy 2002;7:239‑44.
    8. Ashrafi Razi H. Patient’s rights to access and use health
    information. J Health Manage 2017;20(70):7-9.
    9. Alipour Hafezi M. Problems and shortcomings of the arbitration
    process in scientific publications. Moon Book (general)
    10. Motallebifard A, Navehebrahim A, Mohabbat H, Sadin AA.
    Diagnosis and scientific framework development of peer review:
    A qualitative approach. Journal of Dentistry 2013;6(22):73-83.
    11. Lipworth WL, Kerridge IH, Carter SM, Little M. Journal peer
    review in context: A qualitative study of the social and subjective
    dimensions of manuscript review in biomedical publishing. Soc
    Sci Med 2011;72:1056‑63.
    12. Glujovsky D, Boggino C, Riestra B, Coscia A, Sueldo CE,
    Ciapponi A. Quality of reporting in infertility journals.
    Fertil Steril 2015;103:236‑41.
    13. Mirza’i A, Abubi Ardakan M, Gharakhani M, Sheikh Sha’ee F.
    Journal of sociology of Iran. Peer review in scientific journals: Acase
    study of Iranian journal of sociology. Iran J Sociol 2006;7:147‑79.
    14. Castelo‑Baz P, Leira‑Feijoo Y, Seoane‑Romero JM,
    Varela‑Centelles P, Seoane J. Accessibility to editorial information
    in oral and maxillofacial surgery journals: The authors’ point of
    view. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2015;43:1078‑81.
    15. Primack RB, Maron M, Campos‑Arceiz A. Who are our
    reviewers and how do they review? The profile and work of
    biological conservation reviewers. Biological Conservation
    2017;(211 part A):177-82.
    16. Alaedini F, Khoddam H, Kazemi Bajestani MR, Koshan F,
    Etemadi A, Keshtkar AA. Quality of published medical articles
    in approved medical journals by Islamic republic of Iran
    committee of medical journal (1983‑2005). J Gorgan Univ Med
    Sci 2010;12:77‑81.
    17. Hariri N. Principles and Methods of Qualitative Research. Tehran:
    Islamic Azad University; 2006.
    18. Abu Ardakan M, Mirzai A, Sheikh Sha’ee F. The process of
    reviewing articles in Iranian journals. J Sci Technol Res Inst Iran
    19. Rahimi Nejad N. Understanding the Barriers and Problems in
    Managing and Publishing the Journals of the University of Tehran
    Based on the Views of their Managers and Providing Appropriate
    Solutions to it. Tehran: University of Tehran; 2015.