Vol. 14 No. 1 (2023): Peer review: a process undergoing a required transformation

Peer review ethics in Iranian LIS scholarly journals: a comparison between views of reviewers and authors

Rahmatollah Fattahi
Ferdowsi University of Mashhad
Reza Rajabali Beglou
Iranian Research Institute for Information Science and Technology (Irandoc)
Somayeh Sadat Akhshik
Kharazmi Unversity

Published 2022-12-19


  • Peer Review; ,
  • Peer Review Ethics (PRE);,
  • Scholarly Journals;,
  • Ethical Issues;,
  • Iran.

How to Cite

Fattahi, Rahmatollah, Reza Rajabali Beglou, and Somayeh Sadat Akhshik. 2022. “Peer Review Ethics in Iranian LIS Scholarly Journals: A Comparison Between Views of Reviewers and Authors”. JLIS.It 14 (1):30-45. https://doi.org/10.36253/jlis.it-504.


Peer review is one of the most efficient ways to ensure the quality of papers for possible publication in scholarly journals. However, the process of peer review is not free of bias and disorders. Many reviewers are unaware of how their attitudes towards the evaluation of scholarly papers may violate Peer Review Ethics (PRE). This paper attempts to analyze the different ethical issues influencing the job of reviewing. The research sample for this study included 7 Iranian library and information journals, 124 Iranian peer reviewers, and 34 authors. Peer reviewers and authors were asked to evaluate the most important ethical elements of peer review in Iranian LIS journals through two different questionnaires based on Rajabali Beglou et al. (2019) research.

Findings showed that there was no difference among authors and reviewers in terms of gender in most PRE elements. Also, the level of experience of the authors was not significant in terms of understanding and acceptance of the PRE among reviewers and authors. However, review experiences regarding some PRE elements were significant in respondents’ viewpoints. The experiences reviewers had already gained were influential on their views about PRE. In addition, results showed that there were significant differences among reviewers and authors about the PRE elements in LIS journals. Authorship experiences had not effect on the PRE elements and the dual role of peer reviewing and authorship had no impact on their views.


Metrics Loading ...


  1. Abooyee Ardakan, Mohammad, and Seyyed Ayatollah Mirzaee. 2010. “Reviewers and ethics of review in Iranian scientific journals.” Journal of Ethics in Science and Technology 5 (1-2): 36-47.
  2. Adler, A.C., and Stayer, S.A. 2017. “Bias among peer reviewers.” Journal of the American Medical Association, 318(8): 755. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.9186
  3. AEA (American Evaluation Association). 2018. Guiding Principles for Evaluators. https://www.eval.org/About/Guiding-Principles.
  4. AES (Australasian Evaluation Society). 2013. Guidelines for the ethical conduct of evaluations. https://www.aes.asn.au/ethical-guidelines.
  5. Ahmed, Hasan Shareef, and Armen Yuri Gasparyan. 2013. “Criticism of peer review and ways to improve it.” European Science Editing 39 (1): 8-10.
  6. Armstrong, J. Scott. 1997. “Peer Review for Journals: Evidence on Quality Control, Fairness, and Innovation.” Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1): 63-84. http://repository.upenn.edu/marketing_papers/104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-997-0017-3
  7. Atjonen, Päivi. 2018. “Ethics in Peer Review of Academic Journal Articles as Perceived by Authors in the Educational Sciences.” Journal of Academic Ethics 16: 359-76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-018-9308-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-018-9308-3
  8. Biagetti, Maria Teresa, Aldis Gedutis, and Lai Ma. 2020. “Ethical Theories in Research Evaluation: An Exploratory Approach.” Scholarly Assessment Reports 2 (1): 11. https://doi.org/10.29024/sar.19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29024/sar.19
  9. Callaham, Michael L. 2003. “Journal Policy on Ethics in Scientific Publication.” Annals of emergency medicine 41 (1): 82-9. https://doi.org/10.1067/mem.2003.42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1067/mem.2003.42
  10. Cawley, Valentine. 2011. “An analysis of the ethics of peer review and other traditional academic publishing practices.” International Journal of Social Science and Humanity 1 (3): 205-15. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJSSH.2011.V1.36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7763/IJSSH.2011.V1.36
  11. COPE (Committee On Publication Ethics). 2017. Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9
  12. Corlett, J. Angelo. 2005. “Ethical Issues in Journal Peer-review.” Journal of Academic Ethics 2 (4), 355-66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805005-9001-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-005-9001-1
  13. D’Angelo, John. 2012. Ethics in science: Ethical misconduct in scientific research. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis.
  14. Enago Academy. 2020. The Author’s Perspective on Peer Review: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly about the duration in peer reviewing. https://www.enago.com/academy/authors-perspective-onpeer-review-good-bad-and-ugly/.
  15. Fattahi, Rahmatollah. 2014. “Peer Review issues assuring the quality of knowledge for the 21st century.” First International meeting of Research Journal Editors organized by Islamic World Science Citation Center at Shiraz, Iran (October 23-24, 2014).
  16. Gasparyan, Armen Yuri, Lilit Ayvazyan, Nurbek A. Akazhanov, and George D. Kitas. 2013. “Conflicts of interest in biomedical publications: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, andeditors.” Croatian Medical Journal 54 (6): 600-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2013.54.600
  17. Hames, Irene. 2007. Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals Guidelines for Good Practice. Malden: Blackwell. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470750803
  18. Hope, Aluko A. and Cindy L. Munro. 2019. “Criticism and judgment: A critical look at scientific peer review.” American Journal of Critical Care 28 (4): 242-45. https://doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2019152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2019152
  19. Jagsi, Reshma, Katherine Egan Bennett, Kent A. Griffith, Rochelle Decastro, Calley Grace, Emma Holliday, and Anthony L. Zietman. 2014. “Attitudes towards Blinding of Peer Review and Perceptions of Efficacy within a Small Biomedical Specialty.” International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biography Physics 89 (5): 940-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.04.021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.04.021
  20. Jawaid, Shaukat Ali. 2015. “Second International Conference of Chief Editors of Research Journals organized by Islamic World Science Citation Center (ISC) Shiraz, Iran (December 1-2, 2014).” Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences 31 (1): 243-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.12669/pjms.311.7094. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.311.7094
  21. Kempers, Roger D. 2001. “Ethical issues in biomedical publications.” Human Fertility 4 (4): 261-66. https://doi.org/10.1080/1464727012000199631. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1464727012000199631
  22. King, Cynthia R., Deborah B. McGuire, Alice J. Longman, and Rose Mary Carrol-Johnson. 2007. “Peer Review, Authorship, Ethics, and Conflict of Interest.” Journal of Nursing Scholarship 29 (2): 163-68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.1997.tb01551.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.1997.tb01551.x
  23. Kostoulas, Achilleas. 2018. Peer review: the good, the bad, the ugly. Accessed August 3, 2022. https://achilleaskostoulas.com/2018/05/01/peer-review-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/.
  24. Patel, Jigisha. 2014. “Why Training and Specialization is Needed for Peer Review: A Case Study of Peer Review for Randomized Controlled Trials.” BMC Medicine 12: 128. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-014-0128-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-014-0128-z
  25. Rajabali Beglou, Reza, Reza, Nadia Haji Azizi, Alireza Seghatoleslami, Elmira Karimi, and Zahra Rajabali Beglou. 2019. “PRE in scientific journals: Case study of developing PRE statement in the Journal of Information Processing & Management (JIPM)”. Tehran: Iranian Research Institute for Information Science and Technology (Irandoc).
  26. Rajabali Beglou, Reza A. Seghatoleslami, and Zahra Rajabali Beglou. Forthcoming. “PRE in Iranian Scientific Journals: Evidence-Based Case Study of the Journal of Information Processing and Management”.
  27. Rajabali Beglou, Reza, Mohammad Rabiei, and Zahra Rajabali Beglou. 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 (JIPM) 38 (1).
  28. Relman, Arnold S., and Marcia Angell. 1989. “How good is peer review?” The New England Journal of Medicine 321 (12): 827-829. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198909213211211
  29. Resnik, David B, Christina Gutierrez-Ford, and Peddada Shyamal. 2008. “Perceptions of Ethical Problems with Scientific Journal Peer Review: An Exploratory Study.” Sci Eng Ethics 14 (3): 305-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-008-9059-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-008-9059-4
  30. Resnik, David B, and Susan A. Elmore. 2016. “Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors.” Science & Engineering Ethics 22 (1):169-88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9625-5
  31. Rockwell, Sara. 2006. Ethics of Peer Review: A Guide for Manuscript Reviewers. https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/guide.pdf.
  32. Ross-Hellauer, Tony. 2017. “What is open peer review? A systematic review.” F1000Research 6(588 Last updated: 15 May 2017). https://f1000research.com/articles/6-588/v1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2
  33. Shattell, Mona M., Peggy Chinn, Sandra P. Thomas, and W. Richard Cowling. 2010. “Authors’ and editors’ perspectives on peer review quality in three scholarly nursing journals.” Journal of nursing scholarship 42(1): 58-65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2009.01331.x
  34. Smith, Richard. 2006. “Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals.” Journal of Royal Society of Medicine 99 (4): 178-82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178
  35. Souder, Lawrence. 2011. “The ethics of scholarly peer review: a review of the literature.” Learned Publishing 24 (1): 55-74. https://doi.org/10.1087/20110109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1087/20110109
  36. Stewart, Georgina. (2016). “Reviewing and Ethics in the Online Academy.” Educational Philosophy and Theory. 48 (5): 437-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2014.950804. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2014.950804
  37. Thomas, Sandra P. 2018. “Current Controversies Regarding Peer Review in Scholarly Journals. ”Issues in Mental Health Nursing 39 (2): 99-101. https://doi.org/10.1080/01612840.2018.1431443. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01612840.2018.1431443
  38. Triggle, Chris R., and David J. Triggle. 2007. “What is the future of peer review? Why is there fraud in science? Is plagiarism out of control? Why do scientists do bad things? Is it all a case of: ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing?” Vascular Health and Risk Management 3 (1) 39-53.
  39. UK Evaluation Society. 2019. Good Practices Guidelines. https://www.evaluation.org.uk/professional-development/good-practice-guideline/.
  40. United Nations Evaluation Group. 2020. Ethical guidelines for Evaluation. http://www.unevaluation.org/document/download/3625.
  41. Van Rooyen, Susan. 2001. “The evaluation of peer‐review quality.” Learned Publishing 14(2), 85-91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1087/095315101300059413
  42. Wagner Amy K., Michael L. Boninger, Charles Levy, Leighton Chan, David Gater, and R. Lee Kirby. 2003. “Peer review: Issues in physical medicine and rehabilitation.” American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation 82: 790-802. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PHM.0000087607.28091.B7
  43. Ware, Mark. 2008. “Peer review: benefits, perceptions and alternatives.” Publishing Research Consortium 4: 4-20.
  44. Wendler, David, and Franklin Miller. 2014. “The ethics of peer review in bioethics.” Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (10): 697-701. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2013-101364
  45. Zinn, Walter, and Thomas J. Goldsby. 2016. “The ‘Invisible Hands’ in Research: The Critical Roles of Reviewers and Associate Editors.” Journal of Business Logistics 37 (3): 202-04. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12137