ارزیابی میزان دقت داوران یکی از مجلات علمی پژوهشی فارسی زبان در تشخیص اصلاحات مورد نیاز یک مقاله علمی ارسالی؛ سال 1389

  Background and Objectives: Final corrections on a manuscript sent for publication in a scientific journal are suggested by reviewers. So this qualifies the paper with the least errors for publication. The present study aimed to assess the Persian language peer reviewers' comments on a manuscript sent to an Iranian Scientific Journal (journal of Rafsanjan university of medical sciences), 2010.   Materials and Methods: In this descriptive study, a manuscript which was sent to a scientific journal for publication was sent to 30 peer reviewers to obtain their comments. This approach was the routine method of the journal in peer reviewing the manuscripts. When peer reviewers' comments come back to the editorial office, a trained expert recorded the information on an anonymous checklist. The checklist included a list of nine items which were expected to be reported by peer reviewers as their comments. Data were analyzed using SPSS.   Results: Fourteen respondents (about 50%) sent their comments back in due date. Of these, five were affiliated with other universities and nine were affiliated to the journal university. Nine were female (64%) and 5 were males (%35/7). With one exception, peer reviewers inside the journal university were more successful than peer reviewers outside the journal university in distinguishing the other eight general items. No a peer reviewer reported all of the nine items. Among the nine items, "sample size" was reported by the highest proportion (64%) of peer reviewers.   Conclusion: Peer reviewing should be improved among peer reviewers of the scientific journal of this study and proper interventions should be conducted. More investigations are needed to cover more scientific journals and more peer reviewers.   Key words: Precision, Peer Reviewer, Scientific, Journal, Manuscripts     Funding: This research was funded by Rafsanjan University of Medical Sciences, Occupational Environment Research Centre .   Conflict interest: None declared.   Ethical approval: The Ethics Committee of Rafsanjan University of Medical Sciences.     How to cite this article : Vazirinejad R, Rezaeian M, Taghavi M. Assessing Peer Reviewer Comments on a Persian Language Manuscript Sent to an Iranian Scientific Journal, 2010. J Rafsanjan Univ Med Scie 2013 12(2): 127-136. [Farsi]