Shortcomings of Evaluation Worksheets for Scientific Art Articles in Iran Based on Merton's Science Norms

Gholamreza Hassani, Mohsen Marasy, Hamzehali Nourmohammadi


The scientific journal assessment worksheets are the most important tool for evaluating the quality of scientific papers. The purpose of this research is an objective and qualitative description of indices used in the worksheets for the evaluation of art scientific research journals in Iran and to acknowledge their shortcomings in comparison with the norms of science from the Robert King Merton's perspective. The research approach in this study is combining survey and content analysis. Statistical samples consisted of nine worksheets developed for the evaluation of specialized art journal articles with a scientific research rank. Moreover, 14 experts in the fields of Scientometrics and art were invited to provide feedback on the extent to which the evaluation criteria used in the evaluation worksheets are in conformity with Merton’s science norms. Data collection was done in two forms including library research, referring to scientific journal databases, and structured interviews. In order to uncover the existing status of the indicators from the researcher-made check list, Excel software and a questionnaire were used as research instruments. The collected data were analyzed by descriptive statistics along with relevant tables and charts. Findings of the research show that out of the total 53 existing indicators, the index of "using sufficient and new valid sources (internal and external)" had the highest frequency (77.78%). The findings also indicated that the other 26 indicators had the lowest frequency percentage (11.11%). Moreover, these indices are consistent with the six out of seven of Merton's science norms (less than 18%). The obtained results revealed the unbalanced distribution of components and indicators of evaluation in these worksheets and their non-conformance to the norms of science, necessitating their revision.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Evaluation worksheets, Art scientific journals, Merton's science norms.

Tam Metin:

PDF (English)


Afshari, M.; Mahram, B. & Noghani, M. (2013). Analyzing and formulating quality assessment indicators of scientific-research articles in the field of humanities, based on Merton's science norm theory the scientific-research. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 6(1), 49-66.

Arastoopour, S. (2012). The reviewing forms in scientific serial numbers and related issues. Ketabmah-koliat, Communication and Knowledge Sciences, 6(9), 26-31.

Bucchi, M. (2004). Science in Society, an introduction to social studies of science. London: Rutledge.

Cannavo, L. (1997). Sociological models of science knowledge. International Sociology, 12(4), 475-496.

Cole, S. (2004). Merton contribution to sociology of science. Social studies of Science, 34(6), 829-844.

Ershad, F.; Gharani, M. & Mirzaei, S. (2005). The analysis of reviewing documents of Iranian Journal of Sociology. Iranian Journal of Sociology, The sixth period, 4(3), 33.

European Commission (2009). European Educational Research Quality Indicator (EERQI), Project No. 217549.

Fabes, R. A.; Martin, C. L.; Hanish, L. D. & Updegraff, K. A. (2000). Criteria for evaluating the significance of developmental research in the twenty-first century. Force and Counterforce, Child Development, 71(1): 212-221.

Fuller, S. (2000). Governance of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Gharani, M. & Mirzaei, S. A. (2005). The analysis on judgment documents on sociology journal of Iran, the sociology journal of Iran, 6(4): 3- 33.

Goldin, I. & Ashley, K. (2010). Eliciting Informative Feedback in Peer Review: Importance of Problem-Specific Scaffolding. "Learning by Reviewing through Peer Feedback Refinement." Proceedings of the Worship on Computer-Supported Peer Review in Education, 10th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Pittsburgh, USA. Retrieved 16-7-2012 from: 2010_submission_7.pdf

Hames, I. (2007). Peer review and manuscript management in scientific journals: Guidelines for good practice. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

Krippendorff, K. (2014). Content analysis, methodology foundations. Tehran: Ney publication.

Krippendorff, K. (2014). Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Tehran: Ney Publication.

Merton, R. K. (1972). The institutional imperative of science. In: B. Barnes (Ed.). Sociology of science, (65-79). Middlesex: Penguin Books.

Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Pashang, M.; Nourmohammadi, H. & Nourrouzichakoli, A. (2015). The analysis of per capita of Iran Medical Journals publications and its comparison with the number of researchers in this field. Journal of Librarianship, 49(4), 1-15.

Qane-Ei Rad, M. A. & Qazi pour, F. (2002). The normative and organizational factors affecting productivity rate of the faculty board members. Quarterly Journal of the Research, 4,167- 206.

Quality Criteria for Assessment of Education Research in Different Contexts (2009). Teaching and Learning Research Program. No. 80. Retrieved 16-7-2012 from: RB%2080%20FINAL.pdf.

Restivo. S. (1995). The Theory Landscape in Science Studies. In. S. Jasanoff, G. Markle, J. C. Peterson, & T. Pinch. (Eds.). Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, (95-110) Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Rockwell, S. (2005). Ethics of Peer Review: A Guide for Manuscript Reviewers. Retrieved 16-7-2012 from: http//

Sarokhani, B. (2006). The methodology in social sciences: the quantitative and statistical methods (3rd ed.). Tehran: Agah publications.

Steincke, A. (2003). Peer review forms: Getting the best from your reviewers. Science Editor, 26(5), 158.



  • Şu halde refbacks yoktur.

Telif Hakkı (c) 2018 Journal of History Culture and Art Research

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.