peer review ethics in iranian scientific journals: evidence-based case study of the journal of information processing and management (jipm)

The present study investigates peer review ethics (pre) in scientific journals in iran, specifically to compile the pre statement for the journal of information processing and management (jipm). moreover, pre statements of the ministry of science, research, and technology (msrt) journals were analyzed qualitatively. then, the review process and the documents of the jipm were analyzed. this evidence-based case study was conducted using a mixed method with three types of researchers-based, data-based, and research-based methods and focus group discussion (fgd) to validate the research findings. the findings showed that pre elements were classified into &timeliness,& &confidentiality,& &bias,& &conflict of interest,& &research misconduct,& &respectful and fair expressions,& &constructive and objective feedback,& and &accountability and responsibility& categories. the analysis of ethical statements of msrt journals found that only half of the journals published pre statements. in addition, 102 instances of violations of pre with 15% of each review were identified in documents submitted for review in jipm.

peer review ethics in iranian scientific journals: evidence-based case study of the journal of information processing and management (jipm)

the present study investigates peer review ethics (pre) in scientific journals in iran, specifically to compile the pre statement for the journal of information processing and management (jipm). moreover, pre statements of the ministry of science, research, and technology (msrt) journals were analyzed qualitatively. then, the review process and the documents of the jipm were analyzed. this evidence-based case study was conducted using a mixed method with three types of researchers-based, data-based, and research-based methods and focus group discussion (fgd) to validate the research findings. the findings showed that pre elements were classified into &timeliness,& &confidentiality,& &bias,& &conflict of interest,& &research misconduct,& &respectful and fair expressions,& &constructive and objective feedback,& and &accountability and responsibility& categories. the analysis of ethical statements of msrt journals found that only half of the journals published pre statements. in addition, 102 instances of violations of pre with 15% of each review were identified in documents submitted for review in jipm.