1 دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه تهران
2 پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی
3 کتابداری و اطلاعرسانی، دانشگاه تهران؛ بورسیه دانشگاه علوم پزشکی تهران
عنوان مقاله [English]
This research with purpose of study the peer-review process in articles and its necessity for controlling of published scientific works quality, considered the types of refereeing currently practiced, the decision-making methods and criteria for acceptance of articles, the major decision makers, editor in chief problems, 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. About the editor in chief problems, they have exposed with three problems "prolonged peer review time", "articles weak quality" and "financial problems".