Introduction: Research evaluation based on peer review is done to assess the quality of research. In this article, the peer review evaluation results of selected Iranian research centers are presented. Methods: A qualitative study was conducted through peer review with 106 and 15 Iranian professors from inside and outside the country, respectively. The evaluation was implemented in four areas of leadership, structure, research products, and impact. In this study, research centers with independent research budget lines and 12 top research centers during 2015-2018 were evaluated. Results: The most weaknesses in these research centers were in leadership (scattered work, island and parallel activities) and impact (inefficiency of knowledge utilization in transfer chains) areas, and the greatest strengths were related to knowledge production (quantitative and qualitative development in the number of published articles and citations). In the structural part, the lack of attention to technological activities, the lack of applicability of research, and inadequate physical space were the most important weaknesses. Conclusion: In the peer review method, the assessment of leadership, structure, and in particular, impact areas has a very important role in research quality promotion due to appropriate interactions with specialists and peers.

Background and Objectives: The editorial peer review has an important role in the publication of scientific articles. Peers or reviewers are those scholars who have the expertise regarding the topic of a given article. They critically appraise the articles without having any monetary incentives or conflicts of interest. The aim of this study was to determine the most important aspects of the editorial peer review. Materials and Methods: The Pubmed search engine (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed) and the Scientific Information Database search engine (http://www.sid.ir/fa/index.asp) were applied using "Editorial Peer Review". as the keywords. In the next step, by altering the search strategy and also using the reference lists of the retrieved papers, the most up-to-date references for this review study were retrieved.Discussion: Based on the retrieved articles, at first the definition and the different methods of the editorial peer review are discussed. Then the usual biases within the editorial peer review process are explained. At the end of the article, various responsibilities of the peers are referred to. Conclusion: Reviewing the scientific articles is an ethical responsibility of the scientists, and should be considered by them as an honor rather than as an extra burden. When accepting a review, scientists should carry out the task based on the highest feasible standards. They should not only help the editor-in-chief to take the best possible decision about the article, but also assist the authors in raising the quality of their articles.

Nowadays, up-to-date sources are produced by researchers worldwide and published in various biomedical journals. Sharing the results of a study in a reputable journal is both a demanding and an exciting process. It is a form of mental exercise and has to be written in a well-organized manner to present logical flow and should respect the accepted international principles; otherwise the paper's rejection rate will be increased either by the editors or peer reviewers.1 Up to 2002, more than 4500 medical journals, mostly in English (88%) have been indexed in MEDLINE.2 currently, in Iran more than 80 medical journals are published.3    

The first journal that formalized the peer review process is The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, the first and longest-running journal launched in 1665 by Henry Oldenburg (1618-1677) (1). The review of a research paper starts with the ‘ Internal Review’ process. All authors must read the article and reconcile their comments before submission. The external review process begins after article submission, and the editor assigns the paper to the outside reviewers unrelated to the work of the study. External reviewers evaluate the submitted article for quality, accuracy, and completeness based on the journal’ s requirements. Reviewers’ feedback includes accepting, rejecting, or requesting a revision to the article. The editor determines the final decision, but the reviewers’ comments and recommendations show if the article is amenable to improvement by revision. . .

Dear Editor-in-Chief, eer-reviewers for funding allocation are under the same obligations as referees who critically and transparently review the assigned manuscript (1). Therefore, transparent peer review of grant applications is also needed because the transparent funding of novel and innovative research projects could make high-impact manuscripts and make great progress in science. . .

A recent report noted that it is time for transpar-ent peer-review (‘ open report’ publishing the content of reviews for submitted manuscripts) to become the norm (1). What is necessary for the transparent peer-review? . . .