نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
دانشیار، کتابداری و اطلاع‌رسانی، مرکز تحقیقات فن‌آوری اطلاعات در امور سلامت، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران
چکیده
مقدمه: با توجه به اهمیت نقش داوری در کیفیت مقالات ارسال شده برای مجلات، پژوهش حاضر با هدف شناسایی شیوه‌های ارزشیابی و بهبود عملکرد داوران مجلات علمی- پژوهشی حوزه سلامت انجام شد.روش بررسی: این مطالعه از نوع کاربردی بود که به روش تحلیل محتوای کیفی انجام گردید. سردبیران، مدیران داخلی و اعضای شورای نویسندگان مجلات با حداقل ۲ سال سابقه کار پیوسته در حوزه مجلات سلامت و حداقل تجربه داوری بیش از 10 مقاله، به صورت هدفمند انتخاب شدند و در مصاحبه نیمه ساختار یافته شرکت نمودند. استخراج داده‌ها با روش تحلیل محتوا صورت گرفت. به منظور تعیین روایی و پایایی، از ارزیابی Lincoln و Guba بر اساس چهار معیار اعتبارپذیری، انتقال‌پذیری، اطمینان‌پذیری و تأییدپذیری استفاده گردید.یافته‌ها: دیدگاه صاحب‌نظران درباره روش‌های ارزشیابی عملکرد داوران در سه دسته ارزیابی عملی (خودارزیابی عملکردی و دگرارزیابی عملکردی)، ارزیابی رفتاری (وقت‌شناسی و ارزیابی مبتنی بر تعهد و اخلاق) و ارزیابی فنی- تخصصی (ارزیابی فرایندی فن و دقت، ارزیابی سوابق و تجارب و ارزیابی مبتنی بر شواهد) مفهوم یافت. از تحلیل نظرات کارشناسان درباره روش‌های انگیزشی برای بهبود همکاری داوران، دو دسته تشویق (مادی، غیر مادی فردی و غیر مادی جمعی) و تعامل (اطلاع‌رسانی فرایندی، برقراری ارتباط فردی و طرح درخواست به طور منطقی) حاصل گردید. تحلیل نظرات درباره روش‌های ارتقای توانمندی علمی داوران نیز دو دسته اطلاع‌رسانی (ارایه شفاف و روزامد قوانین و دستورالعمل‌ها، ارایه بازخورد علمی و آموزش) و تقویت رفتار پاسخگو (توجه به داورهای کارامد و تقویت الگوی فکری- رفتاری داور) را نشان داد.نتیجه‌گیری: آگاهی از شیوه‌های ارزشیابی، تقویتی و انگیزشی عملکرد داوران، کیفی‌تر شدن داوری‌ها را بهبود می‌بخشد. نتایج به دست آمده به دست‌اندرکاران مجلات علمی- پژوهشی حوزه سلامت در جهت افزایش کیفیت داوری مقالات کمک می‌کند.
کلیدواژه‌ها
عنوان مقاله [English]
Identifying the Methods to Evaluate and Improve Reviewer's Performance in Health Scientific Journals
نویسنده [English]
- Hasan Ashrafi-Rizi
Associate Professor, Medical Library and Information Science, Health Information Technology Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
چکیده [English]
Introduction: Considering the importance of the role of reviewing articles in the quality of articles submitted for journals, this study was conducted to identify the methods to evaluate and improve reviewer's performance in health scientific journals. Methods: This qualitative research was conducted using content analysis method. Data were gathered through semi-structured interviews with experts who have had experience enough in health scientific journals including editors in chief, internal managers, editorial boards, authors’ council with at least 2 years of continuous related work experience in journals and review of at least ten articles. Sampling was carried out using purposeful method, and data were analyzed using content analysis method. Lincoln and Guba method was used to determine the validity and reliability of the analysis based on four criteria of credibility, transferability, certainty, and verifiability. Results: Experts’ opinions about the methods to evaluate and improve the performance of reviewers in health scientific journals were categorized in three categories of practical evaluation (functional self-assessment and other functional evaluations), behavioral evaluation (timeliness, and morality- and commitment-based assessment) and technical evaluation (assessment of activity, assessment of experiences, and evidence-based assessment). The analysis of experts’ viewpoints on motivational methods for improving reviewers cooperation, two categories of encouragement factors (financial, non-financial personal, and non-financial communal), and interaction (process awareness, personal communication, and asking question logically). Analysis of opinions on methods for enhancing scientific abilities of reviewers, showed two categories of awareness (providing transparent and up-to-date rules and guidelines, providing scientific feedback, and training), and strengthening responsive behavior (paying attention to efficient reviewers and strengthening the reviewers’ behavioral intellectual model).Conclusion: Awareness of evaluation, reinforcement, and motivation methods of reviewer's performance, improves the quality of reviews. These findings help health scientific journals managers to increase the quality of article review.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
- Reviewer's Performance
- Health
- Periodical
- Danziger RS, Nordgren RK, Singh M, Solaro RJ, Berbaum ML. Analysis of the editorial review process of the Journal of Molecular and Cellular Cardiology. J Mol Cell Cardiol 2018; 114: 124-8.
- El-Omar EM. How to publish a scientific manuscript in a high-impact journal. Advances in Digestive Medicine 2014; 1(4): 105-9.
- Horri A. The principle of scientific writing. Tehran, Iran: Iran Public Libraries Foundation; 2009. [In Persian].
- Ashrafi-rizi H, Zarmehr F. Criticism of health researches: why and how. Journal of Health Management and Informatics 2016; 3(2):64-65.
- Elvik R. Are road safety evaluation studies published in peer reviewed journals more valid than similar studies not published in peer reviewed journals? Accid Anal Prev 1998; 30(1): 118-30.
- Lipworth WL, Kerridge IH, Carter SM, Little M. Journal peer review in context: A qualitative study of the social and subjective dimensions of manuscript review in biomedical publishing. Soc Sci Med 2011; 72(7): 1056-63.
- Castelo-Baz P, Leira-Feijoo Y, Seoane-Romero JM, Varela-Centelles P, Seoane J. Accessibility to editorial information in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery journals: The authors' point of view. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2015; 43(7): 1078-81.
- Glujovsky D, Boggino C, Riestra B, Coscia A, Sueldo CE, Ciapponi A. Quality of reporting in infertility journals. Fertil Steril 2015; 103(1): 236-41.
- Primack RB, Maron M, Campos-Arceizcd A. Who are our reviewers and how do they review? The profile and work of Biological Conservation reviewers. Biological Conservatio 2017; 211: 177-82.
- Seyed Ayat Elah M, Abouei Ardakan M, Gharakhani M, Sheykh Shoaei F. Peer review process in scientific-research journals (a case study of the Iranian Journal of Sociology). Iranian Journal of Sociology 2007; 7(4): 147-79. [In Persian].
- Alipour-Hafezi M. Problems and shortcomings of the arbitration process in scientific publications. Ketab-e Mah-e Kolliyat 2012; 15(9): 38-43. [In Persian].
- Bunner C, Larson EL. Assessing the quality of the peer review process: author and editorial board member perspectives. Am J Infect Control 2012; 40(8): 701-4.
- Albers CA, Floyd RG, Fuhrmann MJ, Martinez RS. Publication criteria and recommended areas of improvement within school psychology journals as reported by editors, journal board members, and manuscript authors. J Sch Psychol 2011; 49(6): 669-89.
- Rahimi F, Alinejad Chomazkati F, Kohandel Jahromi M, Mirhaghjoo Langrudi S. Ethical Approach of editors-in-chief and their share of publishing articles in their own journals. Ethics in Science and Technology 2016; 11(1): 51-61. [In Persian].
- Trueger NS. Medical journals in the age of ubiquitous social Media. J Am Coll Radiol 2018; 15(1 Pt B): 173-6.
- Nightingale JM, Marshall G. Reprint of "Citation analysis as a measure of article quality, journal influence and individual researcher performance". Nurse Educ Pract 2013; 13(5): 429-36.
- Hariri N. Principles and methods of qualitative research. Tehran, Iran: Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch; 2016. [In Persian].
- Shahbian. M. Principles of management and editorial of scientific journals. Mashhad, Iran: Aban Bartar Publications; 2015. [In Persian].
- Mahmoud Youssef MA. Peer review of manuscripts submitted to medical journals. Middle East Fertil Soc 2012; 17(2): 139-42.
- Ashrafi-Rizi H. The right of patients to access and use health information. J Health Adm 2018; 20(70): 7-9. [In Persian].
- Samatha Priatna WS, Manalu SR, Sundjaja AM. Development of review rating and reporting in open journal system. Procedia Comput Sci 2017; 116: 645-51.
- Johnson C, Green B. Submitting manuscripts to biomedical journals: common errors and helpful solutions. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2009; 32(1): 1-12.
- Manalu SR, Priatna WS. Development of review rating and reporting in open journal system. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Electrical Engineering/Electronics, Computer, Telecommunications and Information Technology (ECTI-CON); 2017 Jun 27-30; Phuket, Thailand.
)