Volume 17, Number 57 (7-2014)                   jha 2014, 17(57): 26-45 | Back to browse issues page


XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Amanollahi A, sarikhani L, Azhandeh A, Shokraneh F. Objective and Subjective Criteria in Assessing the Accpeted or Rejected Manuscripts of Journal of Health Administration. jha. 2014; 17 (57) :26-45
URL: http://jha.iums.ac.ir/article-1-1552-en.html

1- Instructor Research, Health Information Management Research Center, Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences, Bandar Abbas, Iran
2- Master in Executive Master of Business Administration, Health Management and Economics Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3- Office of Journal of Health Administration, School of Management and Medical Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
4- Cochrane Schizophrenia Group, the Institute of Mental Health, a partnership between the University of Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust, UK
Abstract:   (1897 Views)
Introduction: Peer-review is one of the important pre-publication steps for academic papers. It usually assures the readers about the high-quality reporting of scientific findings. Since objective and subjective criteria used by the reviewers are effective factors on the quality of journal, this study aims to assess these criteria for the accepted and rejected manuscripts of Journal Health Administration.
Methods:
We used both quantitative and qualitative methods in this study. Mentioned items in peer-review checklist were considered as objective criteria and content analysis used to get the subjective criteria from reviewers’ comments. Peer-review checklists of accepted or rejected manuscripts between 2011 and 2013 (330 manuscripts) were the sample of this cross-sectional study.
Results: There were 10 sets containing 29 subsets for objective criteria and 224 subsets for subjective criteria beside 1978 comments from reviewers. Problem statement, data gathering methods, compatibility of discussion with findings, and ethical issues were the main criteria which were different between accepted and rejected papers.
Conclusion: Variation of subjective criteria in reviewers’ comments makes the process of decision making more complicated for the editors. So, we tried to include all of the obtained objective and subjective criteria in one peer-review checklist to help the reviewers in assessing the papers.
Full-Text [PDF 833 kb]   (3461 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: General
Received: 2014/01/6 | Accepted: 2014/04/5 | Published: 2014/04/5

© 2015 All Rights Reserved | Journal of Health Administration

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb