Document Type : Original Article
Authors
Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
Abstract
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.
Keywords
- 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. - 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)
2012;177:38‑43.
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
2012;28:305‑46.
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.
)