Criticism of health researches: why and how

Document Type: Letter to Editor



Research is one of the most important ways of science production (1). The purpose of research is exploring the unknown and explaining the variables that affect the human life. In the health sciences the purpose of which is health promotion, research is valued as much as human life (2). In many scientific texts, there is an emphasis on the importance of health researches in the quality of human life; the lack of attention to the quality of the publishing process is considered as the cause of much damage (3-10). The result of health researches is usually published as a paper, thesis, research project and book, the contents of all needs to be assessed. This process is named Research Review or Research Critique (2). Research critique is done during publishing process or after it, and in this paper we deal with it after publishing health texts. The broker chain between information producer and consumers who is the critic (Reviewer) and critique journals has been less attended. In short, Soltani indicates that the purpose of critique as a defense of society’s cultural rights is to help the reader to choose the appropriate work, help the writer identify his weak points and his strengths (11), and also prevent damage to the society, especially people’s health. In the critique of health researches, there are two essential stages: in the first stage, the work is studied quickly by the critic (Survey study). The aim of this study is gaining knowledge of the text and usually the bibliographic information of work like title, writer, incentive of work, headings and so on is assessed briefly (12). In the second stage, a critical study is done. The critical study is the most important and most critical step in the reviewing the texts. “In this study, the critic judges as to the accuracy, reliability, or value of the text based on criteria or standards. This type of study is the key to the appropriate understanding. This method is necessary to determine the truth and value of literature “(12, 13). The critic also accepts or rejects the content by reason, logic, scientific arguments and citation.” So, to do a critical study, four techniques are essential: asking questions, inferring, relevant content and association between the work content with other works, and evaluation “(12).

  1. Kalhor M, Taleie g, Hosseini M. Survey on Printed researchers by Biosot model in Lorestan University Medical Sciences (2003-2005). Health information Management Journal 2013;1:12-3.
  2. Abedi HA, Masoudi R, Hosseini-gholafshani Z. [The process of qualitative and qualification research review]. Jamenegar. 2011.
  3. Dayani F. Role of medical library and information centers to produce science. Health information Management Journal. 2013;1(33).
  4. Ebrahimi S. The situation of scientific publications of Iran’s universities of medical sciences. Health information Management Journal. 2013;1:11.
  5. Farokhania M. [The survey of Iranian English medical journals in some data bases]. Health information Management Journal. 2013;1(36).
  6. Ghasempour M, Eftekharian F. The scientific preclusions of medical universities in Web of Science (2000-2007). In: Mosavi A, Tirgar A, Yaminifiroz M, editors. Scientometric in Medical Sciences. Babol: Babol University of Medical Sciences; 2010. p. 213-32.
  7. Jamalimahmoei R. Assessment of Iranian medical sciences. In: Mosavi A, Tirgar A, Yaminifiroz M, editors. Babol University of Medical Sciences. Babol: Babol University of Medical Sciences; 2010. p. 13-32.
  8. Khodabandeh S, Begliu MH, Asadi M. The Middle East scientific outputs in cancer field in Medline (1965-2008). In: Mosavi A, Tirgar A, Yaminifiroz M, editors. Scientometric in Medical Sciences. Babol: Babol University of Medical Sciences; 2010. p. 309-20.
  9. Mokhtari H, Mirzai A. Differences among science, social science and humanities from scientometric perspective. Health information Management Journal 2013;1:56.
  10. Weiss AP. Measuring the impact of medical research: moving from outputs to outcomes. Am J Psychiatry. 2007;164(2):206-14.
  11. Soltani MA. Necessity and methods of book review. Pajohesh Ayeneh. 1990;1(1):10-7.
  12. Seif AA, Tehran T. Learning and Reading. Doran Publications. 2000.
  13. Ashrafi-rizi H. The process and parts of book reviewing. Monthly Book Review. 2011;15(1):62-9.