Volume 15, Issue 6 (Feb & Mar 2022)
payavard 2022, 15(6): 519-528 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: IR.IUMS.REC.1398.43
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Panahi S, Fakharpour S, Sedghi S. The Viewpoints of Alborz University of Medical Sciences’ Faculty Members on Open Peer Review of Journal Articles. payavard 2022; 15 (6) :519-528
URL: http://payavard.tums.ac.ir/article-1-7144-en.html
URL: http://payavard.tums.ac.ir/article-1-7144-en.html
1- Associate Professor, Department of Medical Library and Information Science, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2- Master of Sciences Student in Medical Library and Information Science, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran ,saeidehfakharpour@gmail.com
3- Professor, Department of Medical Library and Information Science, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2- Master of Sciences Student in Medical Library and Information Science, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran ,
3- Professor, Department of Medical Library and Information Science, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Abstract: (1531 Views)
Background and Aim: The open peer review process, which is one of the peer-reviewed methods in journals, has been accepted in scientific forums. The aim of this study was to investigate the points of view of university faculty members about the open peer review process of journal articles.
Materials and Methods: The study used a descriptive survey. The sample size was calculated using the Cochran’s formula of 150 people out of a total of 246 faculty members of Alborz University of Medical Sciences. The research tool was a questionnaire designed based on the existing literature. Data were analyzed by SPSS software using descriptive statistics and paired t-test.
Results: The results showed that the participants’ views on “approaches and processes of open peer review” with 3.48 mean score and “benefits of open peer review” with mean score of 3.70 were relatively desirable. Among the open peer review styles, participants preferred the “open reporting” and “data peer review” styles, respectively. Participants’ views on the “advantages and disadvantages of open peer review” also indicated that participants agreed with most of the components presented in this area. There was also a statistically significant difference between the mean score of participants’ views on the traditional peer review process and open peer review (P<0.05).
Conclusion: Open peer review is relatively accepted among the faculty members of Alborz University of Medical Sciences. As the acceptance of this type of peer review increases among the scientific community, paying attention to the attitudes and views related to the open peer review process can improve the quality of articles and research published in scientific journals.
Materials and Methods: The study used a descriptive survey. The sample size was calculated using the Cochran’s formula of 150 people out of a total of 246 faculty members of Alborz University of Medical Sciences. The research tool was a questionnaire designed based on the existing literature. Data were analyzed by SPSS software using descriptive statistics and paired t-test.
Results: The results showed that the participants’ views on “approaches and processes of open peer review” with 3.48 mean score and “benefits of open peer review” with mean score of 3.70 were relatively desirable. Among the open peer review styles, participants preferred the “open reporting” and “data peer review” styles, respectively. Participants’ views on the “advantages and disadvantages of open peer review” also indicated that participants agreed with most of the components presented in this area. There was also a statistically significant difference between the mean score of participants’ views on the traditional peer review process and open peer review (P<0.05).
Conclusion: Open peer review is relatively accepted among the faculty members of Alborz University of Medical Sciences. As the acceptance of this type of peer review increases among the scientific community, paying attention to the attitudes and views related to the open peer review process can improve the quality of articles and research published in scientific journals.
Keywords: Peer Review, Open Peer Review, Traditional Peer Review, Scientific Journals, Scientific Articles, Faculty Members
Type of Study: Original Research |
Subject:
Medical Library & Information Sciences
ePublished: 1399/07/23
ePublished: 1399/07/23
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
