Comparison of the Researchers' Views in the Technical- Engineering and Humanities Fields about the Importance of Criteria for Submitting an Article to the Journal and the Degree of Thematic Relevance of the Proposed Results of the RICeST Journal Finder

Document Type : Original Article


1 PhD. Student, Department of Knowledge and Information Science, Shiraz University; Instructor, Regional Information Center for Science and Technology, Shiraz, Iran.

2 Associate Professor, Department of Knowledge and Information Science, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

3 Professor, Department of Knowledge and Information Science, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran.

4 Associate Professor, Department of Computer Science and Engineering & IT, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran



Aim: This study aims to compare the researchers' views in two fields about the importance of criteria for submitting an article to the journal and the degree of thematic relevance of the proposed results of the RICeST Journal Finder.
Methodology: The research is a survey in terms of applied purpose and the data collection method and was done in two steps; First, due to the lack of a standard questionnaire, while studying the literature, important and common criteria for the researchers of the two fields were extracted and a researcher-made questionnaire consisting of 13 criteria was prepared. The face and content validity of the questionnaire was done by 10 experts in information science and epistemology. Then, in order to identify the importance of the criteria as well as the thematic relevance of the system's proposed results, subject matter experts (reviewers) in two fields from all over Iran were used.
Findings: Criteria of Peer review, thematic relevance of the article with the thematic scope of the journal, and having an impact factor from the perspective of researchers in both groups, were the most important and the age of the journal was the least. Measuring the thematic relevance of the results suggested by the system using the opinions of experts showed that in more than 85% of the queries, the proposed publication for the article is completely relevant. There is no statistically significant difference between the opinions of experts in these two areas. It is necessary to explain that the evaluation of the thematic relevance of the results was done after improving the existing challenges in the RICeST journal finder.
Conclusion: There are many Journals in various scientific fields, so authors are facing challenges to find the most appropriate journal to publish their research findings. The results showed that the importance of the criteria of selecting the journal, from the viewpoint of national researchers, is consistent with the findings of international studies. However, considering the mental variables of researchers in different conditions, it is not possible to consider a single factor category to choose a journal to publish a manuscript; However, the possibility of refining the results, based on the priority criteria of the researchers has been introduced the use of Journal finder systems as an auxiliary tool that can be found more quickly and easily to a list of related publications. Among the other factors that can be examined objectively and are important, regardless of the author's priorities and limitations, is the thematic connection of the manuscript with the journal to which the manuscript is to be sent and published, which is the basis of the performance of the Journal finder systems. In general, according to the obtained results, the authors can use the RICeST journal finder at the national level to obtain relevant journals to publish the manuscript.


Main Subjects

Bahadoran, Z., Mirmiran, P., Kashfi, K. & Ghasemi, A. (2021). Scientific Publishing in Biomedicine: How to Choose a Journal?. Int J Endocrinol Metab, 19(1), e108417.            
DOI: 10.5812/ijem.108417.
Björk, B.-C. & Holmström, J. (2006). Benchmarking scientific journals from the submitting author’s viewpoint. Learned Publishing, 19(2), 147-155.              
Bröchner, J. & Björk, B.-C. (2008). Where to submit? Journal choice by construction management authors. Construction Management and Economics, 26(7), 739–749.
Craswell, N., De Vries, A.P. & Soboroff, I. (2005). Overview of the TREC 2005 Enterprise Track. In Trec 5, 199-205.
Day, N.E. (2011). Manuscript Rejection and Its Impact on Scholars. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(4), 704–718.
De Rond, M. & Miller, A.N. (2005). Publish or perish: bane or boon of academic life?. Journal of management inquiry, 14(4), 321-329.
Hosseinzadeh, P., Mirzabigi, M. & Sotoudeh, H. (1400). The effectiveness of recommended journals of Elsevier's journal recommender system. Master's thesis. Shiraz university. [in persian]
Information bank of medical science publications of the country (02/14/1400). Available at:[in persian]
Knight, L.V. & Steinbach, T.A. (2008). Selecting an appropriate publication outlet: A comprehensive model of journal selection criteria for researchers in a broad range of academic disciplines. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 3, 59–79.
Miller, A.N., Taylor, S.G. & Bedeian, A.G. (-2011). Publish or perish: Academic life as management faculty live it. Career development international, 16(5), 422-445.
Mousavi Chalak, A., Yamin Firoz, M., Riahi, A. (2017). Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the indexed scientific productions of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Scopus, nursing field during the years 1379-1395. Journal of Qom University of Medical Sciences, 12(4), 61-71.
[in persian]
Mulligan, A., Hall, L. & Raphael, E. (2013). Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 132-161.
Özçakar, L., Franchignoni, F., Kara, M. & Muñoz, S.L. (2012). Choosing a scholarly journal during manuscript submission: the way how it rings true forphysiatrists. European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 48(4), 643–647.
Portal of scientific and research publications of the country (02/14/1400). Available at: [in persian]
Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D. & Huntington, P. (2004). Scholarly communication in the digital environment: What do authors want? Learned Publishing, 17(4), 261–273.
Sanderson, M. (2010). Test Collection based evaluation of information retrieval systems. Foundation and Trends in information retrieval, 4(4), 247-375.
Sarafzadeh, M. (2016). Let's recognize fake publications. Information Management Sciences and Techniques, 3(3), 2-14. DOI: 10.22091/stim.2017.2354.1157. [in persian]
Shokraneh, F., Ilghami, R., Masoomi, R. & Amanollahi, A. (2012). How to select a journal to submit and publish your biomedical paper? Bioimpacts, 2(1), 61-68.      
Solomon, D.J. & Björk, B.C. (2012). Publication fees in open access publishing: Sources of funding and factors influencing choice of journal. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(1), 22-107.      
Ulrich. (2021.05.09). Available at:
Wara, N., Mirzabigi, M., Sotoudeh, H., Fakhr Ahmad, S.M. & Mozafari, N. (1400). The effect of lack and dispersion of data on the effectiveness of the results of the Riceset journal finder system: a case study of the technical and engineering field. Information processing and management research, Available at:  [in persian]
Wijewickrema, M. & Petras, V. (2017). Journal selection criteria in an open access environment: A comparison between the medicine and social sciences. Learned Publishing, 30, 289–300.