Volume 25, Issue 3 (9-2001)                   Research in Medicine 2001, 25(3): 167-174 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Azizi F, Etemadi A, Raies zadeh F, Alaoddinni F. Attitudes of Iranian medical journals editors towards standards of published medical research. Research in Medicine. 2001; 25 (3) :167-174
URL: http://pejouhesh.sbmu.ac.ir/article-1-283-en.html
Abstract:   (12959 Views)

Background: Medical journal editors have impressible role in the publishing process. In the present study we have surveyed the attitudes and knowledge of Iranian medical journal editors towards standards of published medical research.

 Materials and methods: 51 editors of registered journals were invited, where 27 have taken part. A self-directed questionnaire according to the Vancouver group guidelines was distributed. It was composed of 28 questions in the form of 9 groups, including peer review, conflicts of interest, authorship, scientific fraud, duplicate publication, mass media, advertising, competing manuscripts based on the same study, internet. Then, editors' knowledge of Vancouver group guidelines was measured through (- 44) to (+ 44).

 Results: 23 editors and 4 executive managers with mean age of 47.3 ± 8.7 yrs had entered. More than half of them had Ph.D. degree and most of the journals have taking advantage of peer review systems, usually 2-3 peers. Articles were approved by the majority of the peers in 92.6% of the cases, however, 52% of the journals have employed statistical peer review. Most of the editors have believed that writing the primary manuscript and designing the method of study are the principles of authorship, even though, most of them have considered these according to the Vancouver group guidelines. 7(25.9%) journals had no advertising. 12 journals have been presenting in Internet, where, 81.5% of the editors asserted the benefits of having Internet sites for journals. Mean of knowledge score was 6.5 ± 7.5. where. 33.3% had score of 0, 44.4% and 22.2% had moderate and good scores, respectively.

 Conclusion: Results have revealed the importance of peer review process, but the editors' policies should be more clarified. Editors were more or less agreed with the Vancouver group guidelines. Other studies could be helpful in promoting editors' attitude and practice.

Full-Text [PDF 1279 kb]   (1518 Downloads)    
Type of Study: General | Subject: General
Received: 2007/02/4

Creative Commons License
This Journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License  | Research in Medicine

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb