Views of Iranian medical journal editors on medical research publication.
OBJECTIVE: Medical journal editors play an important role in optimizing research publication. This study evaluates the views of Iranian medical journal editors, and their knowledge of medical publication standards. METHODS: In May 2001, 51 editors from all journals approved by the Ministry of Health were invited to participate, 27 of whom completed the study. A self-administered questionnaire, based on the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (URMS) was used which consisted of 28 questions in 9 subject fields. These fields included: peer review, conflicts of interest, authorship criteria, publication ethics, duplicate publication, mass media, advertising, competing manuscripts, and the Internet. The knowledge of the editors was assessed by a scoring system, with a range of -46 to +44 points. RESULTS: Twenty-three of the participants were editors-in-chief and 4 were managing editors. Their average age was 47.3 +/- 8.7 years and 25 were male. All journals were peer-reviewed, most having 2 or 3 reviewers for each manuscript. Of the journals, 92.6% accepted or rejected an article on the basis of the views of most reviewers and 52%, sometimes or always, used a statistician as a reviewer. Most of the editors believed that writing the first draft and designing the study are authorship criteria, and most of them believed that these 2 are stated in URMS. Seven journals (25.9%) never published advertisements. Among journals that sold advertisements, the most popular policy (85%) was the rejection of advertisements because they advertised harmful products. Out of 27 journals, 12 were accessible on the Internet, and 7 had independent websites. Of the editors, 81.5% thought that a website is useful for their journal. The average knowledge score of the editors was 6.5 +/- 7.5. None had a negative score, 33% scored zero, 45% obtained average scores and 22% obtained good scores. CONCLUSION: The results show that peer review is favored by all the editors studied, though it seems that journals do not follow clear-cut policies in this regard. Most of the editors, agreed with the statements of URMS to some extent and generally most have average to high knowledge of URMS.