scientific journals

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.

The purpose of this study was to develop a scale for measuring the service quality in sport scientific journals. A mixed approach was conducted to fulfill the research objectives. In qualitative phase 15 sport paper writer were interviewed and in quantitative phase, 357 sport researchers were studied through systematic random sampling. The face and content validity of the scale was confirmed by 15 experts and the final questionnaire of the scientific journals service quality was provided to 29 subjects. 26 items were ranked in five factors (accountability speed, executive structure, trustworthiness, employees and updating) based on exploratory factor analysis with orthogonal rotation. Cronbach's alpha, KMO, Bartlett Test and confirmatory factor analysis were used by SPSS and LISREL for data analysis. It is worth noting that the results of confirmatory factor analysis and Cronbach's alpha coefficient (0.91) supported the five-factor structure of JourQual scale and confirmed its validity and reliability.

The present study investigates Peer Review Ethics (PRE) in scientific journals in Iran, with a specific focus on compiling the PRE statement for the Journal of Information Processing and Management (JIPM). Moreover, qualitative analysis was conducted on the PRE statements of the journals published by the Ministry of Science, Research, and Technology (MSRT). The review process and documents of the JIPM were then analyzed. This evidence-based case study was conducted using a mixed-method approach, which included three research methods: researcher-based, data-based, and research-based. A focus group discussion (FGD) was also conducted to validate the research findings. The findings showed that PRE elements were classified such as "timeliness," "confidentiality," "bias," "conflict of interest," "research misconduct," "respectful and fair expressions," "constructive and objective feedback," and "accountability and responsibility." The analysis of ethical statements in MSRT journals found that only half of the journals published PRE statements. In addition, 102 instances of violations of PRE, accounting for 15% of each review, were identified in documents submitted for review in JIPM.