The Peer-Review Process for Articles in Iran's Scientific Journals

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to study the peer-review process for articles in Iran's accredited scientific journals. The study considered the types of refereeing currently practised, the decision-making methods and criteria for acceptance of articles, the major decision makers, and the current norms in the peer-review process. The method used was a survey, and the data-collecting tool was a questionnaire. The statistical population of this research included 245 scientific journals. The results of the study show that, currently, the predominant type of refereeing for articles submitted to these journals is ‘double blind’ and the prevailing method of informing authors about the results of manuscript evaluation is ‘commenting on the manuscript after refereeing it and after consideration in an editorial board meeting.’ The findings also indicate that two criteria—‘Originality and creativity of the research’ and ‘Being within the journal's scope’—play the most important role in article acceptance. Of the five main parties cooperating in the peer-review process for these journals, the editorial board plays the most fundamental role.

Debating the scientific credibility of industrial and organisational psychology: A rebuttal

“…The rise in computational power allows us to investigate the ever-increasing complexity of the human phenomenon. However, the competence of those who evaluate, review or make decisions on papers also plays a major role in the publishing process (Ardakan, Mirzaie, & Sheikhshoaei, 2011;Bussin, 2019). It is clear that reviewers and/or section editors in SAJIP also might not always have the required competence to understand the latest analytical methods and, therefore, skip over such methods 3 .…”

Peer Review in Scholarly Biomedical Journals: a Few Things that Make a Big Difference

“…The language in which the science is written and the size of the scientific community are additional sources of diversity. Furthermore, numerous limitations of peer review and resultant scientific corruption have been reported by editors of small journals around the world (1-3). …”

Best peer reviewers and the quality of peer review in biomedical journals

“…Poor research environment and infrastructure, lack of adherence to high-standard editorial policies, restricted access to information sources, and communication difficulties with the reviewers impede the peer review in these countries (28,29). To use an extreme example, a recent survey of 245 Iranian scientific journals suggested that their editors struggle with external peer review and make decisions largely based on in-house comments (30). …”