Scientometrics
Mostafa Ghannad; Mohammad Arabmazar Yazdi; Mohammad Hossein Safarzadeh Bandari; Reza HesarZadeh
Abstract
Background and Objectives: The role and importance of referees in improving the quality of scientific articles are well known, thus, drawing the attention of the Ministry of Science, Research, and Technology's (MSRT) Scientific Publications Evaluation Commission in defining the evaluation criteria for ...
Read More
Background and Objectives: The role and importance of referees in improving the quality of scientific articles are well known, thus, drawing the attention of the Ministry of Science, Research, and Technology's (MSRT) Scientific Publications Evaluation Commission in defining the evaluation criteria for scientific publications. To this end, the present paper aims to review the criteria of the MSRT's evaluation system for scientific journals, including the annual listing of reviewers, reviewers' registration with international scientific databases, and their geographical and institutional distribution. Moreover, the gender, specialty (academic major), and scientific rank of reviewers are investigated. Finally, interlocked reviewers (those performing peer-reviews for more than one journal) are identified, and the percentage of scientific accounting publications assigned to the journals' own reviewers is determined.
Methodology: This paper is descriptive survey research and uses a checklist for data collection. Data analysis is performed by adopting an evaluative scientometric method. The statistical population of this study comprises websites of 19 accounting journals indexed in 2021 by the MSRT's scientific journals evaluation system.
Findings: The results demonstrate that 17 out of 19 journals (90%) have annually listed the names of their reviewers on their websites. There are 1364 names of peer reviewers published in accounting journals, with the Journal of Governmental Accounting publishing the most (219) and the Journal of Management Accounting publishing the fewest (8). In addition, the issue of reviewer registration with reputable scientific databases, which strengthens the country's international standing, has not received sufficient attention, as less than 10% of reviewers have created profiles in the Publons database. The geographical distribution of reviewers indicates the contribution of all the country's provinces except for Khorasan-e-Jonoobi, and Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad. Tehran (49%), Fars (7%), and Khorasan-e-Razavi (6%) provinces contribute the most to the peer-review process. Furthermore, the institutional distribution of reviewers reveals that 107 universities have at least one representative on the peer-review boards of accounting journals, with the universities of Al-Zahra (13%), Tehran (7%), and Shiraz (6%) having the highest number of representatives. More than 52% of reviewers hold the academic rank of assistant professor, 32% associate professor, and 12% full professor; only 4% hold a degree below a Ph.D. Females comprise 27% of peer reviewers, and accounting specialists comprise 93% of reviewers. More than 231 of the 622 papers published in 2021 were authored by the journals' own reviewers (37%), with the Journal of Accounting and Auditing Reviews leading the way with 61% of its published papers written by its own reviewers. According to the investigation of interlocked reviewers, Zohreh Hajiha, who participated in the peer-review process of 14 journals, and Rezvan Hejazi, Shokrollah Khajavi, and Gholamreza Kordestani, who performed peer-reviews for 13 journals, have contributed to the most significant number of journals. The total number of reviewers' names published in accounting journals (1364) represents 492 individual reviewers.
Discussion: Considering that several accounting journals do not annually list the names of their reviewers, only publish the names of outstanding reviewers, or over-report the number of reviewers, there should be closer attention paid to the peer reviewers of accounting journals. Furthermore, the small percentage of reviewers registered with international scientific databases, the high proportion of published papers authored by the journals' own reviewers, and the lack of diversity in the specialty of the peer reviewers of accounting journals indicate an unfavorable situation that can be rectified through improved policymaking and the fulfillment of scientific publication criteria by relevant authorities and ultimately result in the improvement of quality of published papers and the advancement of accounting knowledge.
