Scientometrics
Mostafa Ghannad; Mohammad Arabmazar Yazdi; Mohammad Hossein Safarzadeh Bandari; Reza HesarZadeh
Abstract
Purpose: The present paper aims to review the criteria of the scientific journals evaluation system of MSRT including the annual listing of the names of reviewers, reviewers’ registration with international scientific databases, and their geographical and institutional distribution. Moreover, the ...
Read More
Purpose: The present paper aims to review the criteria of the scientific journals evaluation system of MSRT including the annual listing of the names of reviewers, reviewers’ registration with international scientific databases, and their geographical and institutional distribution. Moreover, the composition of reviewers, in terms of gender, specialty, and scientific rank, is investigated. Finally, interlocked reviewers are identified, and it is investigated what percentage of scientific publications in accounting is allocated to the journals’ own reviewers.
Methodology: this paper is descriptive survey research and uses a checklist to collect the data. Data analysis is performed by adopting an evaluative scientometric method. The statistical population of the current research comprises the websites of 19 accounting journals scientific in 2021.
Findings: Findings demonstrate that 17 out of 19 journals (90%) have annually listed the names of their reviewers on their website. less than 10 percent of reviewers have built up their profiles in the Publons database. The geographical distribution shows that 28 provinces contribution to the peer-review process. Furthermore, the institutional distribution of reviewers shows that 107 universities have at least one representative on the peer-review boards of accounting journals. More than 52% of reviewers hold the academic rank of assistant professor, 32% associate professor, and 12% full professor.
Women make up 27% of peer reviewers, and 93% of reviewers are accounting specialists. More than 231 out of 622 papers published in 2021 are authored by the journals’ own reviewers (37%). The investigation of interlocked reviewers reveals that Zohreh Hajiha, participating in the peer-review process of 14 journals have contributed to the largest number of journals, and the total number of reviewers’ names published in accounting journals (1364) represent 492 individual reviewers.
Conclusion: The status of referees in accounting publications does not indicate the favorable situation that is expected which can be rectified through better policymaking and fulfilling the scientific publication criteria by relevant authorities, and finally, lead to the improved quality of published papers and the development of accounting knowledge.
