Diagnosis and Scientific Framework Development of Peer Review: A Qualitative Approach

Subject Areas : Journal of Knowledge Studies

Alireza Motallebifard ¹ , Abdolrahim Navehebrahim ² , Hedieh mohabbat ³ , ali akbar sadin ⁴

1 - A member of The National Research Institute for Science Policy, and Ph.D. student in Educational Administration, Kharazmi University
2 - Associate professor, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Kharazmi University
3 - Ph.D. student in Educational Administration, azad university science research brench
4 - Ph.D. student in Educational Administration, Kharazmi University

Received: 2013-01-07 Accepted : 2013-07-01 Published : 2013-11-22

Keywords: Diagnosis, Review, Review Framework, Journals,

Abstract :

Objective: the present paper aims at exploring the diagnosis of papers review process and also presenting a common framework. Methodology: To conduct the study, qualitative approaches and content analysis were taken. The research population is composed of all faculty members of faculties of psychology and education in the Tehran’s universities. A sample of 15 professors from Kharazmi and Shahid Beheshti universities were selected as researcher informers using purposive sampling. To collect data, semi structured interview was applied and open coding as well as selective coding were used for analysis. Findings: The findings indicate that scientific papers review should be made on the basis of 5 criteria: scientific, academic moral, article content consistency, writing techniques, and journal-article match. The results also show that there are some problems in reviewing papers such as non professional journals, lack of match between reviewers-articles, information and software weaknesses, reviews prolong, bias and neglect of quality, lack of acceptable criteria for review, and moral slide of reviewers.   Conclusion: research in the various aspects impacts on the scientific community and used for academic promotion, admit to higher levels and to obtain better employment condition. So identification of damage and develop acceptable formwork, can have significant impact in this area and could be used to reduce the bias of review domain and provide a common framework for papers review.

References:

Charry, A. A.; Murray,  R. ; Parton, K. A.(2004). The process of standardized refereeing of professional publications: a reference framework for the panel of referees of AFBM journal.  AFBM Journal, 5(1), 6-13.

Gharamaleki, A. (2011). Scientific peer review of ethics. Journal of Strategy for Culture,8(9),1-20. [In Persian]

Gosden H. (2003). ‘Why not give us the full story: functions of referees’ comments in peer reviews of scientific research papers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 87-101. www. sciencedirect. Com.

Khaleghi, N. (2012). Ethic of Research and Writing. Tehran: ketabdar publication. [In Persian].

Gharamaleki,  A. (1389). Ethic of scientific refereeing. Journal  of culture strategy, 3(8,9), 7-19.[ In Persian]. 

Mirzaie, S. A.; Ayobi  Ardakani, M.; Gharakhani, M.; Sheikh Shaie, F.(2007). Par reading of scientific journals, Case Study Iranian Journal of Sociology.  Iranian Journal of Sociology, 7(4), 147-180.[ In Persian].

Motallebifard, A.;  Arasteh, H. R.; Mohebbat, H.; Dasta, M. (2012). Research ethics in higher education: Individual characteristics and professional responsibilities of researchers.  Quartery Journal of Epistemology,5(19). [In Persian.]

Mansoriyan, Yazdan(2012). Moral judgment in evaluating the scientific product, in Ethic of Research and Writing, in Narges Khaleghi, Tehran, ketabdar publication. [In Persian].

Parberry L.(1990). A guide for now referees in theoretical computer science, Department of Computer sciences. University of North Texas. http: //www. cs. utexas. edu/~dahlin/professional/parbery-referee. pdf

Pyke D A. (1976). How I referee, Kings College Hospital. londan SE5 9RS, http: //www. ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/pmc/articles/PMC1689383/pdf/brmedj00542-003. p.pdf

Sheikh  A. (2000). Publication ethics and the research assessment exercise: reflection on the troubled question of authorship. Journal of Medical Ethics, 26( 6) , 422-427.

Smith AJ. (1990). ‘The Task of the Referee,’ University of California at Berttkeley, IEEE, 12 p. , online: www. computer. org/tpami/taskofreferee. html.

Stewart CN. (2003). ‘Press before paper-when media and science collide. nature biotechnology, 21, 353-354, date: 051203, online: www. nature. com/naturebiotechnology.

Tipler F J.(2003). Refereed journals: Do they insure quality or enforce orthodoxy. ISCID Archive,Tulane University,Now Orleans, http: //www. iscid. org/papers/ Tipler PeerReview_070103. pdf