Timeliness, and Objective & Constructive Suggestions in Review Ethics: A Case study of the Review Documents of Journal of Information Processing and Management (JIPM)

Rajabali Beglou, Reza; Rabiei, Mohammad; Rajabali Beglou, Zahra

doi:10.35050/JIPM010.2022.018

Timeliness, and Objective & Constructive Suggestions in Review Ethics: A Case study of the Review Documents of Journal of Information Processing and Management (JIPM)

Authors

Reza Rajabali Beglou

Mohammad Rabiei

Zahra Rajabali Beglou

10.35050/JIPM010.2022.018

Abstract

Review or peer-review in scientific journals is one of the effective processes in improving the quality of scientific publications which adhere or pay attention to ethics in this process can strengthen journals and improve the decision-making process for editor in chiefs. In this study, paying attention to peer-review ethics in the Journal of Information Processing and Management (JIPM) evaluated in two dimensions of “timeliness” and “objective and constructive suggestions” dimension. For this purpose, the reports and review files in the period of October 2017 to December 2020 analyzed qualitatively with a deductive or directed content analysis approach in MaxQDA V. 2020. The results showed that the average duration of peer review was 28 days and this period is not significantly different between the five domains of the journal research domains. In addition, in the dimension of “objective and constructive suggestions”, more attentions were paid to the sub elements of “providing useful and constructive feedback to improve the clarity of manuscript” and “request supporting evidence(s) from the authors for their claims” than other sub elements. Also, “comments based on valid scientific and technical criteria” had the least amount of consideration in this dimension. Research results from two perspectives can improve the editor in chief’s decision. First, in terms of “timeliness”, the JIPM was in a relatively good position. Also, peer reviewers in the five domains did not perform the same for the sub elements of the “objective and constructive suggestions” dimension. This can be related to the nature of the articles in these subject areas and, the subject knowledge and moral literacy of the peer reviewers in these areas.

Keywords

Review ethics

Peer Review

timeliness

Objective & constructive suggestions

Journal of Information Processing & Management (JIPM)

ابویی اردکان، محمد، و سید آیت‌ا.. میرزایی. 1389. داوران و اخلاق داوری در مجله‌های علمی ایران. فصلنامة اخلاق در علم و فناوری 5 (1و2): 36-47.

ایمان، محمدتقی، و محمودرضا نوشادی.1390. تحلیل محتوای کیفی. فصلنامه پژوهش 3 (2): 15-44.

رجبعلی بگلو، رضا، نادیا حاجی‌عزیزی، علیرضا ثقه‌الاسلامی، المیرا کریمی، و زهرا رجبعلی بگلو. 1398. بررسی اخلاق داوری در مجله‌های علمی ایران: مطالعۀ موردی تدوین مرامنامه اخلاق داوری در «پژوهشنامۀ پردازش و مدیریت اطلاعات».تهران: پژوهشگاه علوم و فناوری اطلاعات ایران (ایرانداک).

کاردان، عباس. مترجم. 1395. جایگاه اخلاق در پژوهش علمی. نوشتة عادل شامو و دیوید رزنیک. 2009. تهران: پژوهشکده مطالعات فرهنگی و اجتماعی.

علیدوستی، سیروس، محمد ابویی اردکان، سید ‌آیت‌ا... میرزایی، و فاطمه شیخ‌شعاعی. 1387. بررسی وضعیت فرایند داوری مقالات در مجلات معتبر علمی ایران. تهران: پژوهشگاه علوم و فناوری اطلاعات ایران (ایرانداک).

بحرینی، حمیده. مترجم. 1395. درآمدی جدید به فلسفة اخلاق. نوشتة هری جی. گنسلر. 1998. ویراستار: مصطفی ملکیان. تهران: آسمان خیال.

قاسمی، علی‌حسین، و سیروس آزادی. مترجم. 1389. فرایند داوری در مجلات علمی، نقاط قوت و ضعف. نوشتة آناسی ولر. 2001. تهران: پژوهشگاه علوم و فناوری اطلاعات ایران.

Allen, Heidi, Alexandra Cury, Thomas Gaston, Chris Graf, Hannah Wakley, & Michael Willis. 2019. What does better peer review look like? Underlying principles and recommendations for better practice. Learned publishing 32 (2): 163-175.

Armstrong, J. Scott. 1997. Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1): 63-84. http://repository.upenn.edu/marketing_papers/104

Barakat, Amr F., Mohamed A1 Shokr, John A1 Ibrahim, John A1 Mandrola, A1 Elgendy, Y. Islam. 2020. Timeline from receipt to online publication of COVID-19 original research articles. medRxiv.1-8. doi: 10.1101/2020.06.22.20137653.

Benos, D. J. 2006. The ups and downs of peer review. Advances in Physiological Education. 31: 145–152. doi:10.1152/advan.00104.2006.

Callaham, Michael L.2003. Journal Policy on Ethics in Scientific Publication. Annals of emergency medicine. 41:1. 82- 88.

Cals, Jochen W. L., Christian D. Malen, Liam G. Glynn, Daniel Kotz. 2013. Should Authors Submit Previous Peer-Review Reports When Submitting Research Papers? Views of General Medical Journal Editors. Annals of Family Medicine 11 (2): 179-181.

Cawley, Valentine. 2011. An analysis of the ethics of peer review and other traditional academic publishing practices. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity 1 (3): 205–213.

Committee On Publicatione Ethics (COPE). 2017. Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers (English). https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9

Goldenberg, Maya. 2005. Evidence-based ethics? On evidence-based practice and the "empirical turn" from normative bioethics. BMC Medical Ethics 6 (11): 1-9.

Hames, Irene. 2007. Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals Guidelines for Good Practice. Malden: Blackwell.

Huisman, H., J. Smits. 2017. Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective. Scientometrics 113: 633–650.

Patel, Jigisha. 2014. Why Training and Specialization is Needed for Peer Review: A Case Study of Peer Review for Randomized Controlled Trials. BMC Medicine. 12: 128.

Resnik, David B, & Susan A Elmore. 2016. Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors. Science & Engineering Ethics. 22 (1): 169-188.

Strech, Daniel. 2008. Evidence-based ethics – What it should be and what it shouldn't. BMC Medical Ethic. 9 (16): 1-9. Doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-9-16

Souder, Lawrence. 2011. The ethics of scholarly peer review: a review of the literature. Learned Publishing 24: 55–74.

Tennant, J. P., M. Dugan Jonathan, Daniel Graziotinn, Damien C. Jacques, et al. 2019. A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review [version 3; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research. 6: 1151.

Wagner A. K., M. L. Boninger, C. Levy, L. Chan, D. Gater, & R. L. Kirby. 2003. Peer review: Issues in physical medicine and rehabilitation. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 82: 790 – 802.

Ware. Mark. 2008. Peer review: benefits, perceptions and alternatives. Publishing Research Consortium 4: 4-20.