---

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to analyze Iran's scientific status of neuroscience field in citation indexes between 2002 and 2008.

Methods: In this descriptive survey, Web of Science (WOS) database was used for data collection. The Data were gathered from the subject areas of this database and then categorized in 14 subfields according to experts opinions of the field. Impact Factor and number of citations were the indexes considered to determine the citation patterns. Data analysis was performed by using HISTCITE, Excel 2007, and SPSS 18.

Results: A rising trend for neuroscience papers was observed between 2005 and 2008 with neuropharmacology being the most interested subfield of publication (264 papers). There were fewer papers on artificial intelligence, neurohistory, and psychopharmacology than other neuroscience subfields. Most international collaboration was seen in neurology field of study (46 papers). Iranian researchers had scientific collaboration with other countries in 168 papers in which Iranian authors were the first authors (58.33%). 87% of the papers were published in journals with an impact factor between 0 and 4. Researchers of Tehran University of Medical Sciences were the author of 25% of papers.

Conclusion: As the progress in the field of neuroscience, in Iran, was mostly focused on the subfields of pharmacology and neurology, it is recommended to give high priority to other subfields in health policies.

---

---

 Introduction: Abstract writing is one of the secondary services for summarizing the content of documents. It represents the major information and is used as an overview of the text. However, abstracts should be written and indexed on the basis of some criteria to provide sufficient and reliable information about the main text. This study aimed to assess the abstracts of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials (RCTs) indexed in PubMed on the basis of the CONSORT abstract checklist.

  Methods: This was a descriptive cross-sectional survey. The study sample included 314 RCTs indexed in PubMed with the affiliation of Iran and Tehran University of Medical Sciences up to the end of 2010. The abstracts were evaluated by the CONSORT checklist in which the items were scored 0–8 .

  Results : The Mean score for quality was 4.7± 1.02 out of 8 . None of the abstracts were assigned as the most qualified (Score=8) and the highest score was 7. Among the RCT designs, parallel trial designs were the most common ones. Indications of the type of randomization, the blinding type, and the number of participants involved were found not to be well reported qualitatively.

  Conclusion: The findings indicated that the items designated for RCTs abstracts were not thoroughly taken into consideration. It seems that training of researchers and authors is required for betterment of the quality of reporting in abstracts. In addition, journal editors should provide guidelines for authors to report this type of studies correctly.

---

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.