Peer reviewers of Iranian accounting journals: Composition, characteristics, and the criteria of the scientific journals evaluation system of the MSRT

Ghannad, Mostafa; Arabmazar Yazdi, Mohammad; Safarzadeh Bandari, Mohammad Hossein; HesarZadeh, Reza

doi:10.22055/slis.2023.42600.1920

Peer reviewers of Iranian accounting journals: Composition, characteristics, and the criteria of the scientific journals evaluation system of the MSRT

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Mostafa Ghannad ¹

Mohammad Arabmazar Yazdi ²

Mohammad Hossein Safarzadeh Bandari ³

Reza HesarZadeh ⁴

¹ PhD Student of Accounting, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

² Associate Professor of Accounting, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.

³ Assistant Professor of Accounting, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran,

⁴ Associate Professor of Accounting, Faculty of Administrative Sciences and Economic, Ferdowsi University, Mashhad, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22055/slis.2023.42600.1920

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 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.

Keywords

Fair Review

Evaluation of Accounting Journals Peer Reviewers

Interlocked Reviewers

Preferential Publication

MSRT&rsquo

s Scientific Journals Evaluation System

Subjects

Altmetrics

Abooyee Ardakan, M., & Mirzaei, S. A. (2010). Referee and referee ethics in Iranian scientific journals. Ethics in Science and Technology, 1(2), 13-32. Available at https://sid.ir/paper/122640. [In Persian]

Abooyee Ardakan, M., Mirzaie, S. A., & Sheikhshoaei, F. (2012). The peer-review process for articles in Iran’s scientific journals. Journal of Information Processing and Management (JIPM), 28(2), 305-346. Available at https://jipm.irandoc.ac.ir/article-1-2213-fa.html. [In Persian]

Alidousti, S., Abooyee Ardakan, M., Mirzaei, S. A., & Sheikhshoaei, F. (2008). Investigating the status of the refereeing process of articles in Iran's prestigious scientific journals. Tehran: Iranian Research Institute for Information Science and Technology (IranDoc). Available at https://irandoc.ac.ir/research/239. [In Persian]

Ashrafi-Rizi, H. (2019). Identifying the methods to evaluate and improve reviewer’s performance in health scientific journals. Health Information Management, 16(3), 129-135. https://doi.org/10.22122/him.v16i3.3879. [In Persian]

Attaran, M., Sangari, A. A., & Dehbashi, A. (2010). Scientific writing in higher education: Looking at the examination process of academic journals. Higher Education Letter, 3(9), 9-22. Available at http://journal.sanjesh.org/article_29881.html. [In Persian]

Bailey, C. D., Hermanson, D. R., & Louwers, T. J. (2008). An examination of the peer review process in accounting journals. Journal of Accounting Education, 26(2), 55-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccedu.2008.04.001

Burton, F. G., Heninger, W. G., Summers, S. L., & Wood, D. A. (2021). Updated perceptions of accounting academics on the review and publication process. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3809906

Castelo-Baz, P., Leira-Feijoo, Y., Seoane-Romero, J. M., Varela-Centelles, P., & Seoane, J. (2015). Accessibility to editorial information in oral and maxillofacial surgery journals: The authors' point of view. Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, 43(7), 1078-1081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2015.06.005

Danziger, R. S., Nordgren, R. K., Singh, M., Solaro, R. J., & Berbaum, M. L. (2018). Analysis of the editorial review process of the Journal of Molecular and Cellular Cardiology. Journal of Molecular and Cellular Cardiology, 114, 124-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yjmcc.2017.11.002

Dayani, M. H. (2009). General review criteria. Library and Information Sciences, 12(2), 3-5. Available at http://lis.aqr-libjournal.ir/article_43609.html. [In Persian]

El-Omar, E. M. (2014). How to publish a scientific manuscript in a high-impact journal. Advances in Digestive Medicine, 1(4), 105-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aidm.2014.07.004

Elvik, R. (1998). Are road safety evaluation studies published in peer-reviewed journals more valid than similar studies not published in peer-reviewed journals? Accident Analysis & Prevention, 30(1), 101-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0001-4575(97)00068-7.

Erfanmanesh, M. A., Morovati, M., & Irani, S. (2016). Composition of journals’ editorial board members as an indicator of interdisciplinarity: The case of Iranian journals in social sciences and humanities. Library and Information Sciences, 19(1), 81-107. Available at https://lis.aqr-libjournal.ir/article_48142.html. [In Persian]

Ershad, F., Qarakhani, M., & Mirzaei, S. A. (2005). Analysis of refereed documents of Iranian sociology journal articles. Iranian Journal of Sociology, 6(4), 3-33. https://doi.org/20.1001.1.17351901.1384.6.4.2.2. [In Persian]

Fakhari, H., & Rajabdorri, H. (2018). A survey on the ethical approach of chief editors and members of the editorial board of scientific and research journal of accounting in the publication of the article in the own magazine. Financial Accounting Knowledge, 5(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.30479/jfak.2018.1397 .[In Persian]

Fatahi, S. R. (2011). Editor's note: Scientific research journals and the issue of refereeing articles. Information Processing and Management Research Paper, 27(1), 1-3. Available at https://jipm.irandoc.ac.ir/article-1-1738-fa.html. [In Persian]

Ghasemi, A. A., & Emami Meibodi, R. (2016). The role and status of interdisciplinary studies in the development of the humanities in Iran. Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 7(4), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.7508/isih.2015.28.001. [In Persian]

Glujovsky, D., Boggino, C., Riestra, B., Coscia, A., Sueldo, C. E., & Ciapponi, A. (2015). Quality of reporting in infertility journals. Fertility and Sterility, 103(1), 236-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.10.024

Hashemi, S. (2011). Content analysis of the documents related to the evaluation of the papers in the quarterly journal of educational innovations. Educational Innovations, 10(4), 87-104. Available at http://noavaryedu.oerp.ir/article_78961.html. [In Persian]

Huang, Z., & Zong, Q. (2022). Identifying the characteristics of excellent peer reviewers by using Publons. Online Information Review. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-11-2021-0604

Kliewer, M. A., Freed, K. S., DeLong, D. M., Pickhardt, P. J., & Provenzale, J. M. (2005). Reviewing the reviewers: Comparison of review quality and reviewer characteristics at the American Journal of Roentgenology. American Journal of Roentgenology, 184(6), 1731-1735. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.184.6.01841731

Lipworth, W. L., Kerridge, I. H., Carter, S. M., & Little, M. (2011). Journal peer review in context: A qualitative study of the social and subjective dimensions of manuscript review in biomedical publishing. Social Science & Medicine, 72(7), 1056-1063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.02.002

Makizadeh, F., & Zare Dehabadi, F. (2019). Bias in peer review. Quarterly Knowledge and Information Management Journal, 6(2), 51-62. https://doi.org/10.30473/mrs.2020.50651.1413. [In Persian]

Mansourian, Y. (2012). The refereeing process in scientific journals: Its strengths and weaknesses. Ketabmah Journal, 15(5), 3-7. [In Persian]

Methodology for evaluation and ranking of publications. (2019). Preparation of the ledger of policy making and planning of research affairs and approved by the Deputy of Research and Technology-Ministry of Science, Research and Technology on 24/08/2019. Available at https://qavanin.ir/Law/PrintText/267779. [In Persian]

Mirzaei, S. A., Ayubi Ardakan, M., Qarakhani, M., & SheikhShoaei, F. (2006). Peer review in scientific journals (Case study of Iranian Journal of Sociology). Iranian Journal of Sociology, 7(4), 147-179. https://doi.org/20.1001.1.17351901.1385.7.4.7.4. [In Persian]

Motallebifard, A., Navehebrahim, A., Mohabbat, H., & Sadin, A. A. (2013). Diagnosis and scientific framework development of peer review: A qualitative approach. Journal of Knowledge Studies, 6(22), 73-84. Available at https://qje.ntb.iau.ir/article_517276.html. [In Persian]

Noroozi Chakoli, A. (2020). Note from the Editor-in-Chief: The challenge of scientific peer-review and its impact on the qualitative promotion of publications and knowledge development. Scientometrics Research Journal, 6(11), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.22070/rsci.2020.1187. [In Persian]

Nylenna, M., Riis, P., & Karlsson, Y. (1994). Multiple blinded reviews of the same two manuscripts: Effects of referee characteristics and publication language. JAMA, 272(2), 149-151. https://doi.org/10.1001/JAMA.1994.03520020075021

Olia, M. B., & Shakiba, M. (2008). How to review research articles in a scientific and systematic way? Journal of Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, 16(2), 3-8. Available at http://jssu.ssu.ac.ir/article-1-656-fa.html. [In Persian]

Rahimi, F., Alinejad, F., Kohandel Jahromi, M., & MirHaghjoo, S. (2016). Ethical approach of editors-in-chief and their share of publishing articles in their own journals. Ethics in Science and Technology, 11(1), 51-61. https://doi.org/20.1001.1.22517634.1395.11.1.6.4. [In Persian]

Rajabali Beglou, R., Rabiei, M., & Rajabali Beglou, Z. (2022). Timeliness, and objective & constructive suggestions in review ethics: A case study of the review documents of Journal of Information Processing and Management (JIPM). Journal of Information Processing and Management, 38(1), 31-56. https://doi.org/10.35050/JIPM010.2022.018. [In Persian]

Rajabali Beglou, R., Seghatoleslami, A. R., Karimi, E., & Rajabali Beglou, Z. (2019). Investigating the ethics of arbitration in Iranian scientific journals: A case study of ethical ethics of arbitration in Journal of Information Processing and Management (JIPM). Tehran: Iranian Research Institute for Information Science and Technology (IranDoc). Available at https://irandoc.ac.ir/research/3066. [In Persian]

Rastifar, B., Ojaghi, R., & Esfadiary Moghaddam, A. R. (2016). How far is it from review to non-review: Typology of ethical injustices in scientific journals using the knowledge of experts' experiences in Kermanshah province? The Second National Conference of the Country's Scientific Publications & The Second Conference of the Student Scientific Group and Association of Shahid Beheshti University, 33-50. [In Persian]

Regulations of scientific publications. (2019). Preparation of the ledger of policy making and planning of research affairs and approved by the Deputy of Research and Technology - Ministry of Science, Research and Technology on 22/04/2019. Available at https://qavanin.ir/Law/PrintText/267697. [In Persian]

ShahGhasemi, M. (2021). Evaluation of the refereeing process of scientific accounting journals in Iran: From the authors' point of view. Master's thesis, Kharazmi University. Supervisor: Zahra Dayanti Deilmi, Advisor: Omid Faraji. [In Persian]

Vara', N. (2021). Examining the status and qualitative evaluation of MSRT journals based on regulations on determining the credibility. Rahyaft, 30(80), 115-129. https://doi.org/10.22034/rahyaft.2020.10455.1151. [In Persian]