عنوان مقاله [English]
Publishing articles in scientific journals is a way to enter the field of science, and getting acceptance for studies and findings of researchers. Certainly, such a process requires a careful and delicate work, and it could present updated and applied information based on experiences and new findings of the researcher. The importance of this process becomes more, when based on the published paper, other researchers begin new studies and use it as a reference due to its’ scientific credit. Production of science is also interlinked with the referee of scientific society. As a matter of fact, publication of scientific journals is based on the scientific referee. Through content analysis of rejected papers in the journal of educational innovations, we tried to identify, classify and prioritize the main drawbacks of the above-mentioned papers according to the referees’ views.To do so, we analyzed the contents of 402 referee documents of 207 rejected papers in the journal of educational innovations. It presents major faults with the articles from the viewpoint of arbitrators, and identifies, categorizes and prioritizes them. Findings of this study showed that from the viewpoint of the editorial board, the main drawbacks of rejected papers were not choosing an appropriate topic and lacking an academic structure (82.5%). Also, from the viewpoint of the referees, the papers drawbacks included lack of discussion and conclusion (14.9%), lack of research background (13.8%) and lack of theoretical framework (11.8%). Review of related papers and research makes the researcher aware of the studies conducted inside and outside the country on the related topic. Thus she/he faces issues that has been paid less attention, selects appropriate theoretical framework and these enables she/he to present a scientific and evidence-based discussion and conclusion. Sources mentioned within and at the end of paper would clearly display this fact.