Through a checklist 68 PROPOSALS and 28 reports of students' RESEARCHes submitted to student RESEARCH committee of QUMS (from 2004 to 2006) were assessed. Most of the RESEARCHers (48.5%) were medical students. Most of the teachers (72.1%) were from Faculty of Medicine; of these 17.6% were pharmacologist and 11.8% anatomist. Most of the RESEARCHes (35.5%) were experimental studies. Only 13.2% of their results were published in journals or seminars. The most weakness of the PROPOSALS was in "sampling" and "objectives and hypothesis". The weakness of the reports was evident in "abstract". It seems that teachers must advise their students in writing PROPOSALS and reports more than before.

Thank you for the opportunity to present our views in the Hepatitis Monthly and through this letter. We genuinely enjoyed the informative and instructive article by Professor Bagheri Lankarani, the Iranian Minister of Health & Medical Education and the chairman of Hepatitis Monthly, on the current status of RESEARCH in our country and the future perspectives. In this article, a number of directions have been proposed by the minister for changing some improper methods that are currently practiced mostly in RESEARCH areas in our country, in order to employ the available limited resources to achieve greater goals. Moreover, he focused on the importance of scorings awarded by highly referred scientific databanks, i.e. "ISI web of knowledge", to Iran's scientific production volume, as a sign of the country's science production activity.

Background: Evaluating the RESEARCH projects in qualitative and quantitative terms is necessary to clarify their advantages and disadvantages and to resolve the possible failures.Purpose: The study aims to assess the quality of the approved RESEARCH projects. The objective is to determine whether the design of the RESEARCH in the approved PROPOSALS is accurate in regard of different scientific aspects.Methods Questionnaires of 78 approved RESEARCH PROPOSALS in University of Medical Sciences, which were conducted by a faculty member, has been evaluated in terms of the principles of sampling, study methodology and consistency between these two items.Results: Mistakes in sampling techniques, with a rate of 45.2%, were more evident than other items. 10.3% of study methodologies were incorrect, and the consistency of methodology and sampling was inaccurate in 26.7% of projects. 53.8% of projects had some kind of mistake in them. Conclusion: Holding advanced workshops on RESEARCH methodology and more strict supervision at the time of approving RESEARCH projects are recommended.

Introduction: Due to the variety of health fields and the limited resources available, it is inevitable to prioritize RESEARCH in all these areas and meet all the RESEARCH needs of society. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the conformity of the plans with the RESEARCH priorities of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences. Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, data of approved PROPOSALS by vice chancellor of RESEARCH at Mashhad University of Medical Sciences during 2006 to 2016, and in the contract, ongoing or finished phases were extracted. The university RESEARCH priorities code was extracted and the degree of compliance with the RESEARCH topic was assessed. Results: The RESEARCH projects were increased more than four times from 2006 to 2016. The self-reported RESEARCH priority for 7433 projects was stated by the lead RESEARCHer according to which 44. 8% of the projects (3332) were in accordance with the RESEARCH priorities. On the other hand, compliance with RESEARCH priorities for 3889 projects was not announced. After reviewing and matching with RESEARCH priorities, it was found that out of 11322 projects, 47. 5% were in line with RESEARCH priorities. Both rates had a declining trend. Compliance status of the projects with university RESEARCH priorities was significantly different in terms of main provider unit, thesis, and academic rank. Conclusion: About half of the projects corresponded to the RESEARCH priority and its’,trend was decreasing in the study period.

Background: Human behavior is influenced by what we know or believe. In RESEARCH projects, when the RESEARCHer expected a particular finding then explaining the results would be biased. Thus, blinding is a fundamental aspect of all RESEARCH projects. Materials and methods: A retrospective descriptive study was performed. During a 4-year period (2001- 2004) all approved RESEARCH projects in deputy of RESEARCH affaires of Kerman University of Medical Sciences that had been referred to pathology laboratories were evaluated. The mechanism used for blinding is questioned by interview with RESEARCHers or reviewing the PROPOSALS.Results: Only 31% of RESEARCH PROPOSALS had observed blinding policies correctly. Mistakes occurred most often in blinding process were as follow: single pathologist who was aware of RESEARCH design, inappropriate group labeling by alphabetic abbreviations rather than case labeling by randomized numbers, remaining of interventions such as orthopedic devices in the test group, step by step remittance of specimens to pathology laboratory in multiphase studies, etc.Conclusion: Our results revealed that the pathologist should be blinded to group assignment. The blinding process and evaluating techniques should be supervised by statisticians and the monitoring committee (RESEARCH center).

Introduction: Considering the everincreasing developments in medical RESEARCH, especially the use of human subjects in RESEARCH projects, the implementation of such RESEARCH according to the ethical principles and criteria of creditable national and international declarations is of great significance. The present study aimed to investigate the rate of observance of RESEARCH ethics in PROPOSALS approved at Ilam University of Medical Sciences, Ilam, Iran, from 2010 to 2016. Materials & Methods: This descriptiveretrospective study evaluated 489 RESEARCH PROPOSALS that had been approved between 2010 and 2016. Following that, the required information was extracted using six checklists prepared using the standard questionnaires of the Ethics Review Committee in World Health Organization (WHO/ERC) and other related studies. The obtained data were analyzed in SPSS software. Findings: According to the results, 402 (82. 2%) PROPOSALS observed the ethical consideration section. However, only 20 (4%) PROPOSALS were referred to the RESEARCH Ethics Committee and approved by the RESEARCH Ethics Committee. Furthermore, in 163 (57. 8%) PROPOSALS, the subjects were informed of their participation in the study, and in 177 (36. 2%) PROPOSALS, informed consent was included. In the PROPOSALS with human subjects, the confidentiality of the subjects' information in the RESEARCH was predicted in 257 (52. 6%) PROPOSALS. Discussions & Conclusions: The ultimate goal of national/regional RESEARCH Ethics Committees is the improvement of the current situation and getting closer to the related standards, which totally showed a progressive trend. Holding educational workshops for honorable members of scientific boards as well as students, and careful supervision of ethics committees, especially in clinical trials and animal studies, is presented as a proposed optimization strategy to improve the ethical environment.

Written by a group of political science RESEARCHers, this commentary focuses on the contributions of political science to public health and proposes RESEARCH avenues to increase those contributions. Despite progress, the links between RESEARCHers from these two fields develop only slowly. Divergences between the approach of political science to public policy and the expectations that public health can have about the role of political science, are often seen as an obstacle to collaboration between experts in these two areas. Thus, promising and practical RESEARCH avenues are proposed along with strategies to strengthen and develop them. Considering the interdisciplinary and intersectoral nature of population health, it is important to create a critical mass of RESEARCHers interested in the health of populations and in healthy public policy that can thrive working at the junction of political science and public health.