Cover Image

Post publication peer review in Iranian biomedical journals

Ali Ghanbari, Seyed-Alireza Derakhshan Rad

Background: letters to the editor provide an opportunity for readers to state their views about published articles. Research on this issue has been mainly on western journals and there is no study on the Iranian journals. The present study aimed to investigate this subject in Iranian biomedical journals.

Materials and Method: This was a bibliometric study. The databases of Iran Medex, Medlib, and SID were searched to find the letters published in Iranian biomedical journals. The letters in formats such as commentaries, concise articles, and the preliminary results of studies or brief reports were excluded from the study.

Results: 184 letters were found in Iranian journals; 49 of them were responses of authors to the criticism made by readers. As a result, the number of letters that commented on or criticized the original articles reduced to 135. For every 1198 articles published in Iranian journals, there is only one letter written in correspondence to published articles. 76% of letters published in 2010 to 2012.

Conclusions: the Iranian readers are much less productive in writing letters to Iranian biomedical journals compared to their peers in other places. The low number of letters could be attributed to several issues including a broad unawareness of the importance of the letters and little incentive for writing letter.The sharp rise in the number of letters after 2009 indicates a boosted motivation of Iranians for writing more letters to the editor.

Peer review; Letter; Journalism, Medical

Squires BP. Letters to the editor: What editors expect from authors. CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal. 1990;142(7):713.

Brown C. Unvarnished viewpoints and scientific scrutiny: Letters to the editor provide a forum for readers and help make a journal accountable to the medical community. Canadian Medical Association Journal. 1997;157(6):792-4.

Curfman GD, Graham A, Lindenfelser L, Anderson KR, Drazen JM. Innovations in correspondence. New England Journal of Medicine. 2003;348(4):344-.

Altman DG. Poor-quality medical research. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association. 2002;287(21):2765-7.

Liesegang TJ. Peer review should continue after publication. American journal of ophthalmology. 2010;149(3):359-60.

Gøtzsche PC, Delamothe T, Godlee F, Lundh A. Adequacy of authors’ replies to criticism raised in electronic letters to the editor: cohort study. BMJ: British Medical Journal. 2010;341.

Stroebe W, Postmes T, Spears R. Scientific misconduct and the myth of self-correction in science. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2012;7(6):670-88.

Jenal S, Vituri DW, Ezaías GM, Silva LAd, Caliri MHL. The peer review process: an integrative review of the literature. Acta Paulista de Enfermagem. 2012;25(5):802-8.

Mulligan A, Hall L, Raphael E. Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2013;64(1):132-61.

Lee CJ, Sugimoto CR, Zhang G, Cronin B. Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2013;64(1):2-17.

Horton R. Postpublication criticism and the shaping of clinical knowledge. JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association. 2002;287(21):2843-7.

Johnson C, Green B. How to write a letter to the editor: an author's guide. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine. 2006;5(4):144-7.

Von Elm E, Wandel S, Jüni P. The role of correspondence sections in post-publication peer review: A bibliometric study of general and internal medicine journals. Scientometrics. 2009;81(3):747-55.

Caswell A. Letters to the editor 1991. An audit of the MJA's correspondence columns. The Medical journal of Australia. 1992;157(1):63.

Boyton RJ, Arnold PC. An audit of the BMJ's correspondence columns. British Medical Journal. 1990;301(6766):1419-20.

Mahesh S, Kabos M, Walvoort H, Overbeke A. Significance of letters published in the Dutch Journal of Medicine, 1997/98]. Nederlands tijdschrift voor geneeskunde. 2001;145(11):531.

Mayberry J. I read with interest………. Postgraduate medical journal. 2004;80(948):559-.

Azizi MH, Raees-Jalali GA, Noroozi H. A Brief History of the Publication of Biomedical Journals in Iran between 1901 and 1979. Archives of Iranian Medicine. 2009;12(2):204.

BiomedExperts. Elsevier Inc; [2/20/2013]; Available from:

Leonardi S, La Rosa M. Are hepatitis B virus and celiac disease linked? Hepatitis Monthly. 2010;10(3):173.

Yilmaz Y, Yonal O, Kurt R, Bayrak M, Aktas B, Ozdogan O. Noninvasive assessment of liver fibrosis with the aspartate transaminase to platelet ratio index (APRI): Usefulness in patients with chronic liver disease: APRI in chronic liver disease. Hepatitis Monthly. 2011;11(2):103.

Tenopir C, King DW, Spencer J, Wu L. Variations in article seeking and reading patterns of academics: What makes a difference? Library & Information Science Research. 2009;31(3):139-48.

Saint S, Christakis DA, Saha S, Elmore JG, Welsh DE, Baker P, et al. Journal reading habits of internists. Journal of general internal medicine. 2000;15(12):881-4.

Florian RV. Aggregating post-publication peer reviews and ratings. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience. 2012;6.

Haynes RB, Mulrow CD, Huth EJ, Altman DG, Gardner MJ. More informative abstracts revisited. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113(1):69-76.

Coomarasamy A, Khan KS. What is the evidence that postgraduate teaching in evidence based medicine changes anything? A systematic review. BMJ: British Medical Journal. 2004;329(7473):1017.

Norman GR, Shannon SI. Effectiveness of instruction in critical appraisal (evidence-based medicine) skills: a critical appraisal. Canadian Medical Association Journal. 1998;158(2):177-81.

Edwards R, White M, Gray J, Fischbacher C. Use of a journal club and letter‐writing exercise to teach critical appraisal to medical undergraduates. Medical education. 2001;35(7):691-4.

Malekian M. Hadise Arezoomandi. 1st ed. Tehran: Negah Moaser; 2011.

Stang A, Poole C, Schmidt-Pokrzywniak A. Pre-peer review, peer review, and post-peer review: three areas with potential for improvement. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2008;61(4):309.

Bhopal RS, Tonks A. The role of letters in reviewing research. BMJ. 1994;308(6944):1582-3.

The new regulations for academics promotion. Iran's ministry of health and medical education

[cited 2013 2/20/2013]; Available from:

Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Publishing and Editorial Issues Related to Publication in Biomedical Journals: Correspondence. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors

[cited 2013 2/20/2013]; Available from:

Aminpour F. The influence of Iranian scientific journals in disseminating medical information. Journal of Research in Medical Sciences. 2012;17(2).


  • There are currently no refbacks.