Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Fall;7(2):77-82.

The critical appraisal of the papers published in the "iranian journal of psychiatry and behavioral sciences", 2007-2010

Mehrnoosh Kosaryan  1 , Khadijeh Rabiei  2
Affiliations

The critical appraisal of the papers published in the "iranian journal of psychiatry and behavioral sciences", 2007-2010

Mehrnoosh Kosaryan et al. Iran J Psychiatry Behav Sci. 2013 Fall.

Abstract

Objective: This study has been done in order to evaluate the papers published in the "Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences" from 2007 to 2010.

Methods: A questionnaire was developed according to the design, evidence level, and recommendations to write scientific papers. Validity was achieved by consulting experts. Reliability was tested by re-evaluation of 7 randomly selected papers, one month after the first evaluation by Pearson correlation coefficient (r = 0.8). Different parts of the paper, including title, abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, and references, were evaluated by a total of 47 questions. Each required item was judged as: appropriate, partially appropriate, not appropriate, and not applicable. SPSS software was used for descriptive analysis.

Results: From spring 2007 to summer 2010, 7 issues with 72 papers were published. The most frequent problem in the title was that one could not understand the design of the research by reading it. In the abstract part, in 90% of papers, time and setting of research were not mentioned. Statistical test was not mentioned in 70%, and reliability of the questionnaires was not mentioned in 70% of papers. The discussion part was the hardest part to judge and had few inappropriate issues, such as unnecessary repetition of introduction and/or results; in 20% of papers the conclusion was not appropriate based on the research design.

Conclusions: The evaluated papers had strong points, yet more effort is needed for them to approach excellence.

Declaration of interest: None.

Keywords: Critical Appraisal; Evidance Base Medicine; Research Methodology.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Rezaei-Ghaleh N, Siadat F, Azizi F. [Quantitative and qualitative assessment of Iranian biomedical publications in international journals between 1992 and 2002 according to their Impact factor] Pajouhesh Dar Pezeshki . 2003;27(2):139–43. Persian.
    1. Sheibaninia A, Valaie N, Mohammad Sadeghi Sh, Azizi F. [The evaluation of accuracy of article writing in scientific journals of dentistry in 2006] Pajouhesh Dar Pezeshki . 2009;33(1):5–11. Persian.
    1. Valaei N, Kosaryan M, Nasiri E, Mossavi SF. [Methodological evaluation of the papers published in the journal of Mazandaran university of medical sciences, number 1-47, summer 2005] J Mazandaran Univ Med Sci . 2006;16(52):131–40. Persian.
    1. Heidari F. Letter to editor. Pejouhandeh . 2010;15(5):233. Persian.
    1. Gachkar L. [Basics for research proposal: First level in research methodology] Tehran, Iran: Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences; 2005. Persian.

LinkOut - more resources