Lost in Documentation: Professional Norms and the Gaps in Survey Translation Transparency

Lost in Documentation: Professional Norms and the Gaps in Survey Translation Transparency | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Lost in Documentation: Professional Norms and the Gaps in Survey Translation Transparency Marziyeh Sadeghzadeh, Nasimeh Nouhi Jadesi This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7326457/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 13 Apr, 2026 Read the published version in Research Integrity and Peer Review → Version 1 posted 5 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study systematically investigates documentation gaps in survey translation within validation studies conducted by Iranian researchers, emphasizing the critical importance of transparency in cross-cultural instrument adaptation. Using Behr and Zabal’s ( 2020 ) three-level documentation framework, 644 eligible studies were analyzed to assess the completeness of reported translation procedures. The findings reveal a pronounced imbalance: while the translation process itself is frequently documented, both preparatory (input) and resultant (output) stages are largely neglected. This selective reporting obscures essential information about translation validity, undermining methodological rigor and the replicability of research. Extending the analysis through Chesterman’s ( 2016 ) professional norms-accountability, communication, and relation-the study demonstrates that adherence to these norms is insufficient across all documentation levels. The results highlight several priorities for the field: the need for comprehensive documentation protocols, the integration of documentation practices into translator training, and the development of standardized templates that capture both formal and context-specific details. These documentation gaps not only risk marginalizing translators’ intellectual contributions but also threaten the integrity of cross-cultural research. Importantly, the patterns observed in Iran echo systemic challenges faced in other low- and middle-income countries, indicating that improving documentation standards is a global imperative for advancing transparency, equity, and quality in translation research worldwide. documentation practice survey translation research transparency Iran Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction Research journals are increasingly promoting scholarly practices that emphasize transparency, openness, and reproducibility, which are anticipated to enhance both the efficiency and credibility of published research (Catalá-López et al., 2023 ). Within translation studies, where methodological precision and cross-linguistic validation are paramount, such practices are particularly critical. Harkness and Schoua-Glusberg ( 1998 ) argued that only through rigorous and systematic documentation of research processes- including translation protocols, back-translation procedures, and equivalence assessments- can current practices evolve toward greater openness and reproducibility of findings. One frequently overlooked aspect of methodological documentation is the translation process of research instruments into a language, culture, and context distinct from those of the original version. If the translation phase of survey validation fails to meet reliability and validity standards, the resulting instrument will lack the necessary rigor to serve as a dependable measurement tool in subsequent research. Survey translation documentation- defined as the systematic recording of all procedural steps, resources utilized, challenges encountered and resolved, and personnel involved in the translation process- has been strongly advocated by experts as an essential component of survey development (Harkness, 2003 ; Ber, 2023; Behr & Shishido, 2016 ; Mohler et al., 2010 ). Behr and Zabal ( 2020 ) posit that survey translation documentation serves a dual function: as an internal quality assurance mechanism throughout all phases of survey development, and as a means to inform external data users and researchers about the survey’s design and implementation. This documentation enables independent evaluation of the study’s framework, procedures, and overall quality (Behr & Zabal, 2020 , p. 1). Further reinforcing this perspective, Behr and Shishido ( 2016 ) argue that comprehensive documentation not only attests to the translation’s quality but also provides a reference for interpreting unexpected statistical outcomes encountered by survey users. For documentation to be truly effective, Mohler et al. ( 2008 ) emphasize that it must meet three key criteria: adequacy, precision, and detail, while remaining economical in its execution. Additionally, Behr et al. ( 2019 ) underscore the importance of ensuring such documentation is easily accessible and available for cross-referencing in future research applications. Behr and Zabal ( 2020 ) proposed a three-level survey translation documentation framework that systematically guides survey developers in determining essential documentation requirements. This framework provides a comprehensive structure for documenting the survey translation process by differentiating three distinct phases: the "Input" level (about pre-translation materials and preparatory work), the "Translation process" level (covering procedural steps and decision-making), and the "Output" level (encompassing final translated instruments and validation records). Table 1 presents these three levels along with their accompanying factors in detail, offering researchers a complete taxonomy of documentation elements required at each stage of the translation process. Table 1 Survey translation documentation, Behr and Zabal ( 2020 ) Input 1) Briefing document 2) Guidelines 3) Item-specific guide 4) Reference or further material 5) Translation training material Translation Key 1) Source/ target language 2) Source/ target culture 3) Material/ workload Steps 4) Translation: double, split, single 5) Review 6) Harmonization 7) Pretesting 8) Other quality control Persons 9) Translation personnel 10) Review personnel Output 1) Difficulties 2) Dubious translation 3) Noteworthy decisions 4) Adaptations 5) Changes to existing translation Valdez et al. ( 2021 ), in their article examining the application of various prominent translation frameworks and survey design approaches, called for research focusing on survey translation disclosure in multilingual studies. Specifically, they emphasized the need to identify "(1) the most frequently used translation frameworks and (2) the rate at which studies disclose their translation practices" (p. 5). Moving beyond this valuable recommendation, the current study seeks to advance the field by transcending a simple description of the prevalence and types of translation guidelines employed (which constitutes only one component of the table presented earlier). Instead, it aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the documentation practices implemented and reported in survey translation processes within survey development studies conducted by Iranian researchers. Accordingly, this research systematically describes and analyzes the extent to which Iranian scholars have reported and documented the specific procedures used in their survey translation processes. This analysis is structured according to the three-level documentation framework established by Behr and Zabal ( 2020 ), thereby offering a nuanced examination of current practices in this specific academic context. Moreover, the three-level documentation framework (Behr & Zabal, 2020 ) aligns closely with Chesterman’s ( 2016 ) professional translation norms, offering a robust lens to interpret the observed gaps. Professional translation norms, as articulated by Chesterman, can be grouped into three overarching categories: accountability, communication, and relation norms. These norms are not rigid prescriptions but rather culturally embedded expectations that exert prescriptive pressure on translators, guiding their behavior towards what is perceived as professional and ethical conduct. The accountability norm emphasizes the translator's responsibility to balance loyalty among all stakeholders- such as the original author, the client, themselves, and the target audience- ensuring integrity and thoroughness in their work. Communication norms highlight the translator's role as a mediator, aiming to optimize communication between all parties and adapting to the specific communicative context. Finally, relation norms pertain to establishing an appropriate relationship of relevant similarity between the source and target texts, recognizing that equivalence is a flexible, context-dependent concept influenced by text type, commissioner’s requests, and reader expectations. These norms underpin the professionalization of translation, ensuring that translators not only produce linguistically accurate work but also act ethically and effectively within their sociocultural context. By applying these norms, our analysis moves beyond descriptive reporting to reveal how systemic documentation failures in Iranian survey translations reflect broader tensions between procedural efficiency and normative professional standards- a critical step toward improving both practice and reproducibility. Hence, this study is guided by the following research questions, structured according to Behr and Zabal's (2020) three-level documentation framework and Chesterman’s ( 2016 ) professional translation norms: To what extent have survey validation studies by Iranian researchers documented: a) Input-level factors (source materials, preparatory work)? b) Process-level factors (procedural steps, quality controls)? c) Output-level factors (final instruments, validation records)? How do the observed documentation patterns reflect: a) Adherence to/violation of professional translation norms (accountability, communication, relation)? b) Potential impacts on translation quality and research transparency? Literature review To date, limited research has systematically examined the extent to which scholarly articles reflect comprehensive documentation of survey translation processes as an indicator of translation professional reflection. While this remains an understudied area, a few recent publications have emerged as exemplars of robust documentation practices. A notable example is the work of Partsch, Behr, and Krasnoff (2020) on the Values-in-Action (VIA) inventory translation. Their study not only provided detailed documentation of the final translated instrument but also introduced an innovative coding scheme to quantify and categorize translation challenges, thereby establishing a valuable methodological benchmark for the field. This literature review examines two distinct categories of articles pertinent to survey translation documentation. The first category comprises empirical studies that primarily analyze the extent to which researchers document their translation methodologies in survey validation research. These studies typically focus on three key aspects: (1) documentation of translation methods, (2) reporting of pretesting procedures, and (3) disclosure of the specific translation guidelines or frameworks employed. The second category encompasses conceptual studies that investigate survey translation documentation from a theoretical perspective. These works engage with fundamental questions about documentation standards, propose methodological frameworks, or advance theoretical discussions about best practices in recording translation processes. Studies with an empirical perspective on survey translation documentation Maneesriwongul and Dixon ( 2004 ) conducted one of the pioneering methodological reviews examining instrument translation processes and evaluations of translation adequacy in nursing research. Their analysis of 47 studies identified six distinct translation approaches: (1) forward-only translation, (2) forward-only translation with testing, (3) back-translation, (4) back-translation with monolingual testing, (5) back-translation with bilingual testing, and (6) back-translation incorporating both monolingual and bilingual testing. The authors systematically evaluated the strengths and limitations of each method, ultimately advocating for greater methodological consensus in cross-cultural research to ensure translation quality. They specifically emphasized the need for researchers to provide documented evidence of both the accuracy and validity of their survey translation procedures in a similar methodological vein, Andrade et al. ( 2018 ) conducted a systematic review of translation approaches in research instrument development. Their study initially identified publications describing instrument translation methodologies, ultimately including nine studies that met their inclusion criteria. These studies were classified into five distinct categories: (1) individualized translation processes, (2) group translation approaches, (3) translations incorporating adjustments for monolingual groups, (4) translations adapted for bilingual groups, and (5) mixed translation methodologies. This focus on methodological documentation was further exemplified by Peters and Passchier's (2006) review of translation practices in headache research. Their comprehensive analysis examined both cross-cultural translation literature and headache-specific instrument adaptations. The authors not only documented current translation methods employed in the field but also established clear recommendations for practice. Their findings emphasized the critical need for more detailed reporting of translation processes in headache-related instruments to ensure the quality of cross-cultural research. Studies with a conceptual perspective on survey translation documentation Valdez et al. ( 2021 ) systematically analyzed the application of various prominent translation frameworks and survey design approaches. Their findings underscore that in multilingual survey contexts, the optimal framework selection depends fundamentally on specific research circumstances. The authors strongly recommend adopting approaches that prioritize maximal cultural input, ideally through collaboration with diverse teams encompassing cultural, linguistic, and subject matter experts. Adopting a distinct perspective, Son ( 2018 ) reconceptualizes the conventional use of back-translation in research methodology. While traditionally employed as a quality control mechanism, Son proposes back-translation's innovative utility as a documentation tool. The author contends that "rather than treating detected deviations from the source as inaccuracies requiring correction, back-translation can strategically document intentional adaptations when accompanied by explanatory notes in the documentation process" (p. 90). This paradigm shift positions back-translation not merely as a validation technique but as a means of transparently recording culturally-adaptive modifications. The prevailing literature lacks a holistic, systematic investigation of all essential elements necessary for complete survey translation documentation within specific cultural contexts. Current scholarship on survey translation documentation demonstrates two consistent limitations: (1) it examines only a narrow subset of the numerous factors requiring documentation in survey translation and validation, and (2) it lacks systematic investigation of these elements. In contrast to these partial approaches, the present study adopts a comprehensive framework that systematically examines all critical factors essential for complete survey translation documentation. Moreover, by reframing observed documentation practices through the lens of Chesterman's (2016) professional translation norms, this research moves beyond descriptive reporting to reveal how systemic documentation failures reflect broader tensions between procedural efficiency and normative professional standards. By addressing this gap, the study aims to contribute a nuanced understanding of current documentation practices within a specific academic context and to offer practical recommendations for improving transparency, rigor, and replicability in cross-cultural survey research. Methods Our systematic review employed a rigorous multi-phase methodology. First, we established specific inclusion criteria, which included any survey translation and validation study written in English, conducted by an Iranian researcher, and published in peer-reviewed journals between 2000 and 2023. This focus guided our selection of key search terms, namely "questionnaire", “survey” paired with either "Persian version" or "Farsi version” (Farsi or Persian is the official language of Iran). The second phase involved executing comprehensive searches in Google Scholar using these predetermined terms, with a publication date range spanning from 2000 to 2023. The purpose was to retrieve any survey translation and validation study conducted by Iranian researchers written in English and published in peer-reviewed journals from 2000–2023. This initial search strategy identified 851 potentially relevant studies including “questionnaire” or “survey” plus “Farsi version” or “Persian version” in their title for further evaluation. In the third phase, the two researchers independently conducted a thorough screening process to assess each retrieved record against our inclusion criteria. This careful evaluation led to the exclusion of several categories of studies: duplicate publications and non-journal academic works such as theses and dissertations (n = 31); articles written primarily in Persian with only titles and abstracts in English (n = 64); studies that developed original Persian surveys rather than translating existing instruments (n = 90); and publications focusing on survey application rather than validation processes, including those examining survey responsiveness (n = 13). This screening and exclusion phase reduced the included articles to 664, meeting all inclusion criteria. Final Study Selection and Analysis Having established the corpus, we developed a comprehensive coding scheme -which was an Excel file- based on Behr and Zabal's (2020) survey translation documentation framework. The coding scheme enabled systematic comparison across included studies and encompassed two elements. First, article metadata, which included title, author(s), field, journal name, publisher, and year of publication of the article. Second, to operationalize Behr and Zabal's (2020) three-level framework, we developed a structured coding scheme that systematically assessed the presence or absence of specific documentation factors at each level: Input, Process, and Output, as outlined in Table 1 . For each study in our sample, two independent coders assessed whether there was evidence of documentation for each factor. The coding scheme used a binary (yes/no) form framework-specific documentation features including any indication related input factors (Briefing document, Guidelines, Item-specific guide, Reference or further material and Translation training material ), translation process factors (Source/ target language, Source/ target culture, Material/ workload, Translation: double, split, single, Review, Harmonization, Pretesting, Other quality control, Translation personnel and Review personnel) and output factors (Difficulties, Dubious translation, Noteworthy decisions, Adaptations ). Operationalizing Chesterman’s ( 2016 ) translation professional norms To operationalize Chesterman's (2016) professional translation norms (Accountability, Communication, and Relation), we linked each norm to specific documentation practices within the Behr & Zabal framework. For the accountability norm, we operationalized the accountability norm as the extent to which the study provided transparent and justifiable rationales for all translation choices, adaptations, and modifications. This was assessed through: Source instrument development (input) Adaptation guidelines (input) Rationale for modifications (Process) Discussion of limitations and biases(output) Communication norm was operationalized as the extent to which the study provided clear and accessible information about the translation process to all stakeholders, including researchers, end-users, and policy-makers. This was assessed by examining documentation related to: Description of translation procedures (Process) Reporting the validation results (Output) Discussion of cultural equivalence (output) Relation norms were operationalized as the extent to which the study demonstrated an appropriate relationship of relevant similarity between the source and the target text, taking into account the specific context and purpose of the survey. This was assessed through examining documentation related to: Assessment of conceptual equivalence(input) Use of culturally appropriate language(process) Discussion of Potential Cultural Biases (output) It was decided that adherence to these norms would be reflected in the completeness and transparency of documentation at all three levels (Input, Process, and Output). Conversely, a lack of documentation would be interpreted as a violation of these norms. Two researchers independently coded subsets of articles using Microsoft Excel as the primary coding platform. Through iterative consensus-building sessions, the research team compared coded data and resolved discrepancies. To ensure inter-coder reliability, a subset of 20% of the articles was independently coded by both researchers. Inter-coder agreement was assessed using Cohen's kappa. The initial kappa value was 68% level of agreement. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion and consensus, resulting in a final kappa of 77% of agreement. The finalized dataset was subsequently transferred to SPSS-22 ( Statistical Package for Socal Sciences)for quantitative analysis, where we computed descriptive statistics that were then interpreted collectively by the research team. Field Distribution and Publication Characteristics The analyzed articles represented diverse academic disciplines, with medicine predominating (51% of studies). The remaining 49% spanned psychology, psychiatry, education, management, and related fields. Regarding publication venues, 28% appeared in Iranian journals publishing in English, while the majority (72%) were published in international journals. Table 2 A representation of field and journal type of the studies included in the dataset. Field % Medicine 50.6% Non-medicine 49.4 Publishers and Journals % 1. Iranian Journals published in English 28% 2. BMC journals 12% 3. Springer journals 12% 4. Elsevier journals 10% 5 Wiley journals 6% 6. Tylor and Francis journals 5% 7. Brieflands journals 4% 8. Frontiers Media journals 3% 9. Sage journals 3% 10. Routledge 3% 11. Dove Press journals 2% 12. Oxford University Press journals 1% 13. other 11% Results This study systematically examined the documentation practices of survey translation processes in validation studies published by Iranian researchers, utilizing Behr and Zabal's (2020) comprehensive documentation framework as our analytical lens. Our primary objective was to identify which specific factors within this framework researchers have consistently reported in their methodological documentation. A preliminary finding is the surge in Iranian researchers’ interest toward survey translation and validation studies in recent years, as illustrated in Fig. 2 . This trend highlights the growing need for meticulous investigation into translation processes within survey validation—a key focus of the current study. The subsequent sections present: (1) the frequency distribution of documented factors across each level of the framework (Input, Process, and Output) and a comparative discussion situating these findings within the context of similar international studies, and (2) discussing the findings through the professional norms framework proposed by Chesterman ( 2016 ). This dual approach enables us to both quantify current documentation practices and qualitatively assess their alignment with global standards in survey translation methodology. Documentation at the Input Level The first focus of our first research question was the extent of input-level documentation in survey translation processes among Iranian validation studies. Following Behr and Zabal's (2020) framework, input documentation encompasses "everything that is fed into the translation process by translation coordinators" (p. 2), comprising five essential components. Analysis of the collected articles revealed a striking pattern: while researchers consistently documented translation guidelines (one of the five input factors), the remaining four components were absent from all publications. This finding suggests two possible interpretations: either these elements were genuinely omitted from the translation processes themselves, or researchers deemed them insufficiently important to warrant documentation in their methodological reports. The analysis of translation guideline implementation reveals significant patterns in Iranian survey validation studies. As Table 3 demonstrates, only 41.7% of researchers employed established translation guidelines, adhering to their systematic procedures. This moderate adoption rate suggests that approximately half of Iranian scholars approach survey translation with the methodological rigor it requires, while others may overlook the importance of standardized protocols in cross-cultural adaptation. The current findings align with Danielsen et al. ( 2015 ), who reported a comparable guideline implementation rate of 36.8%. Among Iranian researchers utilizing translation guidelines, certain frameworks emerged as particularly prominent: Beaton et al.'s ( 2000 ) methodology appeared most frequently (11%), followed by WHO (World Health Organization) guidelines (9%), Wild et al.'s ( 2005 ) approach (5%), and Guillemin et al.'s ( 1993 ) protocol (4%). The prevalence of these specific guidelines likely stems from their methodological robustness in translation studies, established reputation in the field, and frequent citation in previous Persian survey adaptations. However, the near absence of documented rationales for guideline selection represents a notable gap in methodological transparency within these translation studies. This pattern of guideline usage and documentation reflects broader trends in translation research, where established protocols often gain traction through academic convention rather than explicit methodological justification. The findings underscore the need for greater attention to transparent reporting practices in survey translation methodologies, particularly in justifying the selection of specific adaptation frameworks. Such improvements would enhance both the reproducibility and cross-cultural comparability of translated survey instruments. Table 3 The percentage of survey translation guideline types used by Iranian researchers Guideline % N = 632 No guideline 53.5% A specified guideline 41.7% 1. Beaton et al. ( 2000 ) 11% 2. WHO 9% 3. Wild et al. ( 2005 ) 5% 4. Guillemin et al. ( 1993 ) 4% 5. International Quality of Life Assessment 3% 6. Bullinger et al. (1998) 3% 7. Brislin (1970) 3% 8. International Test Communication (ITC) 0.8% 9. Chen et al. (2010) 0.5% 10. Gandek & Ware (1998) 0.5% 11. Polit & Yang (2016) 0.5% 12. Jones et al. (2001) 0.5% 13. Sousa et al. (2011) 0.3% 14. The MAPI linguistic validation process 0.3% 15. Tsang et al. (2017) 0.3% Combination of two or more 4.8% Documentation of “Translation” level The second focus of our first research question was the documentation practices surrounding the actual survey translation process in Iranian validation studies, specifically focusing on the three core components identified by Behr and Zabal ( 2020 ). Key The “key” component included documenting “Source/target language”, “Source/target culture”, and “Further material”. From these three factors, “source/target language” and Source/target culture” had been consistently documented by the Iranian authors (100%). Steps The analysis of the "Steps" component examined factors including Translation, Review, Harmonization, Pretesting, and Other quality control measures. The findings indicate that nearly all aspects of the translation process itself were documented by the authors, with detailed results presented in Table 2 . Regarding translation methods, the study identified three approaches as outlined by Behr and Zabal ( 2020 ): single translation (one forward translation), split translation (dividing the questionnaire between multiple translators), and double translation (multiple independent translations followed by reconciliation). Within the collected corpus of articles, no instances of split translation were observed. The vast majority of studies employed single translation (99%) while double translation appeared only in rare cases. The analysis revealed partial documentation of the review stage in survey translation practices among Iranian researchers, with only approximately 26.4% of studies explicitly reporting this quality control measure. This suggests that while some researchers incorporate review processes, the majority do not document this stage in their methodological reporting. Regarding harmonization procedures, documentation was notably insufficient, appearing in only 23% of examined articles. When mentioned, descriptions typically consisted of vague statements such as "discrepancies were resolved" rather than detailed accounts of specific harmonization methods or decision-making processes. This lack of precise documentation makes it difficult to assess the rigor of harmonization practices in these translation studies. The analysis demonstrated that nearly all studies incorporated some form of pretesting to validate their translated instruments. Researchers employed both quantitative and qualitative validation approaches, with varying degrees of frequency. Quantitative validation methods were documented as follows: Cronbach's alpha (83.9%), correlation analysis (51.6%), confirmatory factor analysis (50%), content validity indices (25.5%), intra-class correlation (26.2%), and exploratory factor analysis (33.1%). These findings reveal a strong preference for reliability testing, particularly through Cronbach's alpha, while other psychometric measures appeared less consistently. The widespread use of back-translation (99%) and Cronbach's alpha (83.9%) closely aligns with Danielsen et al.'s ( 2015 ) findings, which reported rates of 94% and 79% respectively for these validation approaches. This consistency indicates these methods have become standard practice in cross-cultural survey validation. Qualitative pretesting methods showed different patterns of implementation: pilot testing (38.4%), face validity assessment (27.7%), cognitive debriefing interviews (7.2%), and introspective debriefing interviews (0.6%). The notably low adoption of interview-based methods suggests potential opportunities for methodological enhancement in future translation studies. The analysis reveals a striking disparity in the adoption of pretesting methods among Iranian researchers. While all studies incorporated at least one quantitative validation approach, only 53% employed any qualitative pretesting method. This pattern demonstrates a clear preference for quantitative methods, which were not only used more frequently but also with greater methodological diversity compared to qualitative approaches. The limited use of qualitative methods - particularly evident in the rare application of cognitive (7.2%) and introspective debriefing interviews (0.6%) - may reflect insufficient awareness of these techniques among Iranian researchers. As Sousa, Matson, and Lopez (2016) demonstrated, cognitive interviewing offers valuable insights into respondents' interpretation and comprehension of adapted items prior to data collection. The underutilization of such qualitative approaches may stem from several factors: the prevalent perception of quantitative analysis as more rigorous in the Iranian academic context, greater familiarity with statistical methods among researchers, or simply established conventions in methodological training. This methodological imbalance suggests an opportunity for enhancing translation validation practices. Increased awareness and adoption of qualitative methods could potentially enrich the analytical depth and diversity of survey translation studies. The integration of both methodological approaches would likely yield more comprehensive validation outcomes, combining the statistical robustness of quantitative measures with the nuanced understanding offered by qualitative techniques. A particularly noteworthy practice observed in some studies involved direct consultation with original questionnaire developers. This approach took two distinct forms: approximately 35% of researchers simply sought permission to translate the instrument (as recommended by certain guidelines), while a smaller subset (12%) engaged in more substantive consultation by soliciting developers' feedback on their translated versions. These collaborative verification methods served dual purposes - they not only provided opportunities for refinement based on expert input but also offered researchers additional validation of their translation choices. The practice of developer consultation represents a distinctive quality control measure that, while less common than back-translation, demonstrated tangible benefits for translation accuracy. In cases where implemented, this approach enabled researchers to either make informed adjustments to their translations or gain confidence in their existing versions through expert confirmation. Persons The analysis showed that 27% of studies documented the individuals involved in the translation process, while 26% provided details about those conducting the review. The documented information included education level, profession, language proficiency in both source and target languages, and whether personnel were blind to the original questionnaire version. Nearly all studies mentioned the professionals who conducted the translation and review steps, though the level of detail varied. Some articles described these personnel thoroughly, while others provided only minimal information. The findings indicate that while most studies acknowledged the involvement of translation and review personnel, complete documentation of their qualifications and roles was inconsistent. Approximately three-quarters of studies lacked full details about either translators (73%) or reviewers (74%). This suggests room for improvement in documenting personnel to ensure methodological transparency in survey translation studies. Documentation of “output” level Behr and Zabal ( 2020 ) conceptualized output documentation as encompassing all products generated during translation, specifically identifying five key elements: "Difficulties," "Dubious translations," "Noteworthy decisions," "Adaptations," and "Changes to existing translations." Analysis of Iranian researchers' publications revealed that only the "Adaptations" factor received substantive attention in the methodological reporting. Among the remaining factors, "Changes to existing translations" was inherently inapplicable to this study's focus, as the analysis specifically examined initial translations of questionnaires rather than modifications to previously translated instruments. The other three elements ("Difficulties," "Dubious translations," and "Noteworthy decisions") were conspicuously absent from the documented outputs across all reviewed studies. The analysis addressed two primary aspects of adaptation documentation in the reviewed studies. First, it examined the overall rate at which researchers reported making cultural or linguistic adaptations to their translated instruments. The findings revealed that only 11.8% of articles documented any such modifications. This low documentation rate raises important questions about current practices among Iranian researchers. The minimal reporting of adaptations could reflect either: (1) insufficient attention to necessary cultural and linguistic adjustments during the translation process, or (2) a failure to adequately document and report adaptations that were in fact made. Both possibilities represent significant limitations in the methodological transparency of these survey translation studies. The analysis examined three primary categories of adaptations made in survey translations, drawing on the frameworks of Bluemke et al. ( 2021 ) and Behr and Shishido ( 2016 ): Cultural adaptations addressed norm-driven differences (accounting for variations in cultural norms, values, and practices) and terminological/factual-driven differences (accounting for country-specific characteristics). These modifications ensured the translated instrument's cultural appropriateness for the target population. Measurement adaptations focused on counteracting potential response style biases that might differ across cultural contexts. Such adjustments aimed to maintain measurement equivalence between the original and translated versions. Construct adaptations involved modifications to better operationalize the measured constructs and enhance content validity, independent of cultural considerations. These changes sought to preserve the theoretical integrity of the instrument while improving its applicability in the new linguistic context. The findings revealed distinct patterns in the types of adaptations documented across studies. Cultural adaptations predominated, accounting for 66% of all reported modifications. These primarily addressed norm-driven differences in cultural values and practices, along with terminological adjustments for country-specific characteristics. Construct-related adaptations represented the second most frequent category at 26.3% of documented changes. This category included substantive modifications such as adding new dimensions to existing constructs to better align with the Iranian context. These adaptations aimed to enhance the instruments' content validity while maintaining their theoretical foundations. Measurement adaptations constituted the smallest proportion at 9.7%. These modifications typically involved technical adjustments to response formats, such as converting textual scales to numerical formats, designed to address potential response style differences. The distribution of adaptation types demonstrates researchers' greater attention to cultural considerations compared to construct or measurement issues. This pattern suggests that Iranian researchers prioritize cultural relevance when adapting instruments, while being more conservative with modifications affecting the core constructs or measurement properties. Researchers have consistently neglected to record crucial aspects of the output process, including challenges encountered, noteworthy decisions made, and dubious translations identified. This omission, coupled with the low overall rate of adaptation documentation (11.8%), suggests researchers may view such information as unimportant for methodological reporting. However, as Sterie and Bernard ( 2019 ) emphasize, documenting translation biases, uncertainties, and difficulties serves critical functions. First, such records help explain potential anomalies in statistical results encountered by future survey users. Second, systematic documentation provides valuable feedback to original instrument developers, as some translation challenges may reveal inherent questionnaire flaws rather than translation errors. Third, as Behr and Zabal ( 2020 ) note, sharing these experiences through scientific publications creates learning opportunities for the research community. Comprehensive documentation of translation challenges and decision rationales would foster greater awareness that rigorous instrument translation requires meticulous attention to numerous linguistic, cultural, and psychometric factors. Otherwise, it poses the risk of reducing translation to a technical exercise rather than a sociolinguistic negotiation and may perpetuate what has been termed "methodological imperialism" in translation studies—where standardized reporting protocols marginalize locally meaningful practices. Discussion Answering the first research question: The analysis revealed a pronounced imbalance in documentation focus across the input, translation, and output levels- the details of which are presented in Table 4 . The findings demonstrate that researchers devoted substantially greater attention to documenting the core translation process itself, while largely neglecting comprehensive reporting of both preparatory (input) and resultant (output) aspects. This pattern suggests that Iranian researchers have prioritized the visible translation activities over equally crucial pre-translation preparations and post-translation outcomes. The documented gaps align partially with Behr and Zabal's (2020) observation that "Input material" and "Translation" documentation can be collected in a straightforward manner and be included in publications (p. 10), in contrast to the more complex documentation of "Output." However, our findings extend this observation by revealing that even input documentation remains insufficient despite its relative simplicity. Table 4 The representation of survey translation documentation of Iranian survey validation studies Level Factor Percentage of documentation Input Briefing document 0% of the articles Guidelines 53% of the articles Item-specific guide 0% of the articles Reference or further material 0% of the articles Translation training material 0% of the articles Translation Key Source/ target language 100% of the articles Source/ target culture 0% of the articles Material/ workload 0% of the articles Steps Translation Single translation 99% of the articles Double translation 1% of the articles Split translation 0% of the articles Review 27% of the articles Harmonization 23% of the articles Pretesting Quantitative 100%= use of at least one quantitative method reported Content validity (CVI or CVR) 25/2% of the articles Cronbach’s alpha 83.9% of the articles Correlation with other questionnaires 51,6% of the articles Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 26.2% of the articles Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) 33.1% of the articles Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) 50% of the articles Test-retest 21% of the articles Qualitative 56.% documented at least one qualitative method pilot 38.4% of the articles Face validity 27.7% of the articles Cognitive debriefing interview 7.2% of the articles Introspective debriefing interview 0.6% of the articles Other quality control Back translation 97% of the articles Interaction with the questionnaire developer(s) Seeking Permission from questionnaire developer(s) 35% of the articles Seeking approval from questionnaire developer(s) 12% of the articles Persons Translation personnel 27% of the articles Review personnel 26% of the articles Output Difficulties 0% of the articles Dubious translation 0% of the articles Noteworthy decisions 0% of the articles Adaptations 11.8% documented at least one adaptation Cultural adaptation 66% of the adaptations Measurement adaptation 24.3% of the adaptations Construct adaptation 9.7% of the adaptations Changes to existing translation Not applicable The second concern of this study was extending the above descriptive results to a broader analytical perspective in the translation field. Accordingly, the following is a discussion of how these documentation gaps reflect the (non)adherence to the translation professional norms outlined by Chesterman ( 2016 ). The following table presents a norm-based reinterpretation of above findings, aligning each level of documentation with Chesterman’s three norms. Table 5 Survey Translation Documentation Analyzed through Chesterman’s ( 2016 ) Translation Norms Norm Input stage Translation process stage Output stage Accountability Briefing document ✗ Item-specific guide ✗ Training material ✗ Guidelines ~ Reference or further material ~ Review personnel ~ Harmonization ~ Translation personnel ~ Difficulties ✗ Dubious translations ✗ Noteworthy decisions ✗ Adaptations ~ Changes to existing trans N/A Communication Guidelines ~ Item-specific guide ✗ Source/target language ✓ Source/target culture ✗ Material/workload ✗ Pretesting & quality control ✓ Adaptations ~ Rationale for changes ✗ Relation Guidelines ~ Item-specific guide ✗ Translation method ✓ Review & quality control ✓ Harmonization ~ Adaptation rationale ✗ Noteworthy decisions ✗ (✓ = Well-documented, ~ = Partially-documented, ✗ = Not documented, N/A = Not applicable) The near-total absence of input-level documentation-source instrument metadata (0%), briefing documents (0%), and translation training materials (0%) reflects a fundamental misalignment with Chesterman’s accountability norm. This norm demands that translators balance loyalty among stakeholders, including source authors, clients, and target audiences. For instance, the omission of source instrument development details (e.g., whether the original survey was validated for specific cultural contexts) obscures the translator’s fidelity to the source material. The selective documentation of translation guidelines (41.7%) further compounds this issue. While WHO and Beaton et al. ( 2000 ) frameworks were frequently cited, the absence of a rationale for guideline selection suggests procedural compliance rather than critical engagement. This aligns with Valdez et al.’s ( 2021 ) observation that guideline implementation often becomes a "checklist exercise," divorced from contextual justification. At the process level, Iranian researchers exhibited a strong procedural focus (e.g., back-translation in 97% of studies) but neglected qualitative rigor. While quantitative validation metrics like Cronbach’s alpha (83.9%) and confirmatory factor analysis (50%) dominated reporting, qualitative methods such as cognitive interviews (7.2%) were severely underutilized. This reflects a disciplinary bias toward statistical legitimacy-a pattern observed in LMIC (Low and Middle Income Countries) contexts (Danielsen et al., 2015 )-that contravenes Chesterman’s communication norm. Translators, as mediators, must optimize understanding between stakeholders, yet vague harmonization statements ("discrepancies resolved") and undocumented reviewer qualifications (27%) obscure how linguistic and cultural conflicts were negotiated. The reliance on single forward translations (99%)-despite evidence that team-based approaches reduce error rates (Behr & Shishido, 2016 )-suggests institutional pressures to prioritize efficiency over best practices. While this aligns with Toury’s ( 1995 ) observation that norms emerge from context-specific "problem-solving," it risks perpetuating methodological inertia. For example, back-translation, though nearly universal, was reduced to a validity ritual rather than a tool for documenting intentional adaptations (Son, 2018 ). The findings reveal a systemic tension between procedural compliance and ethical transparency. Iranian researchers documented steps easily aligned with global standards (e.g., back-translation) but omitted elements requiring contextual labor (e.g., adaptation rationales). This mirrors Pym’s ( 2024 ) "value trade-offs," where institutional pressures for rapid publication clash with methodological rigor. While Iranian researchers’ reliance on single forward translations (99%) and back-translation (97%) reflects resource constraints, it diverges sharply from international frameworks like TRAPD (Translation, Review, Adjudication, Pretesting and Documentation), where team-based adjudication and adaptation logs are standard. For example, the European Social Survey mandates documentation of 92% of input factors, compared to 0% in Iranian studies. This disparity highlights systemic inequities in translation infrastructure, where LMIC researchers face pressure to prioritize publication speed over transparency. The most striking gaps emerged at the output level, where 66% of cultural adaptations went undocumented. This violates Chesterman’s relation norm, which requires demonstrating "relevant similarity" between source and target texts. When researchers modify terms like "career advancement" to align with Persian familial values but omit rationales, they obscure how equivalence was negotiated. Such omissions mirror Venuti’s ( 1995 ) concept of translator invisibility, where procedural efficiency erases the translator’s agency as a cultural mediator. The near-total absence of difficulty logs (0%) and dubious translation records (0%) further exacerbates this issue. As Sterie and Bernard ( 2019 ) note, undocumented challenges-such as untranslatable idioms or response scale ambiguities, deprive the field of lessons learned. For instance, if researchers struggled to adapt Likert scales for Persian respondents’ tendency toward moderate responses, sharing these struggles could inform future adaptations. Instead, the silence reinforces a false dichotomy between "smooth" translations and rigorous ones, privileging fluency over transparency. When viewed through the lens of Venuti’s ( 1995 ) concept of the translator’s “invisibility,” these gaps take on added significance. Venuti argues that the prevailing expectation of fluency and transparency in translation often erases the presence and agency of the translator, rendering their intellectual labor unseen and unacknowledged. In the context of survey translation, the absence of detailed documentation-particularly regarding the rationale for adaptations, the challenges encountered, and the decision-making processes-serves to perpetuate this invisibility. The translation process is presented as a seamless, technical task, rather than as a site of negotiation, cultural mediation, and professional expertise. As a result, the translator’s crucial role in ensuring conceptual and cultural equivalence is obscured, and the broader research community is deprived of insights into the complexities and dilemmas inherent in cross-cultural instrument adaptation. Toury ( 1995 ) posits that translation practices are governed by a set of norms-initial, preliminary, and operational-that reflect the expectations and conventions of the target culture. The systematic neglect of input and output documentation in the surveyed studies suggests that, within this research context, there is a prevailing norm that prioritizes procedural efficiency and compliance with minimal standards over transparency and reflexivity. Iran’s documentation practice as a microcosm of other LMICs The Iranian case reflects systemic challenges endemic to LMIC research ecosystems. While rooted in a specific national context, these findings resonate with Valdez et al.'s ( 2021 ) global analysis of translation disclosure rates, revealing structural inequities in methodological transparency across under-resourced settings. The study's most striking finding - that 66% of cultural adaptations went undocumented - mirrors Valdez et al.'s observation that Latin American researchers underreport linguistic and cultural modifications by 55–70%. Both contexts demonstrate how LMIC researchers, despite making necessary adaptations such as adjusting individualistic constructs for collectivist Persian or Latin American norms, prioritize procedural compliance over explanatory transparency. Resource limitations present a fundamental barrier, as evidenced by Iranian researchers' reliance on single forward translations (99%) and minimal harmonization (23%), which mirrors The TRAPD protocols standard in high-income countries, requiring teams of translators and cultural consultants, remain largely inaccessible in LMIC contexts. Institutional pressures compound these challenges, as researchers face competing demands to publish rapidly while minimizing costs. This dynamic incentivizes perfunctory documentation practices, such as noting back-translation completion (97%), over more rigorous but time-consuming methods like cognitive interviews (7.2%) or detailed adaptation rationales (11.8%). Similar trade-offs were observed in Valdez et al.'s review of African studies, where 73% prioritized statistical validation over process transparency. Personnel constraints are evident in the 74% of studies that failed to document reviewer credentials, a pattern mirrored in Moroccan oncology research where translators' qualifications were routinely omitted despite using modified Brislin methods. Quantitative bias emerges clearly in the prioritization of statistical measures (83.9% reporting Cronbach's alpha) over qualitative rigor (only 7.2% conducting cognitive interviews), a tendency also documented in Latin American studies where 68% favored statistical validity. Cultural marginalization manifests in the 66% of undocumented adaptations for Persian collectivism, comparable to WHO African surveys where 59% omitted adjustments for clan and family structures. These findings suggest that documentation gaps follow predictable patterns across LMIC contexts, shaped by shared structural conditions. When European research teams allocate €15,000-€20,000 per language for comprehensive translation protocols, their LMIC counterparts - often working with budgets under €500 - must make pragmatic compromises to sustain their research programs. The proposed three-level framework offers a practical approach to addressing these challenges while respecting resource constraints. At the input level, it advocates for minimum viable documentation, including source instrument metadata and cultural briefing summaries, while maintaining more comprehensive TRAPD-style guidelines as an aspirational standard. This tiered approach aligns with cost-effective models like Barrera and Castro’s ( 2006 ) adapted committee method, which achieved 60% cost reductions while maintaining quality standards. Methodological training gaps further exacerbate these documentation challenges, as reflected in the complete absence of input-level documentation (0% briefing documents, 0% training materials). Without access to comprehensive training programs like the European Social Survey's TRAPD guidelines or adequate institutional support, LMIC researchers default to minimalist reporting practices, perpetuating Venuti’s "translator invisibility" on a systemic scale. These patterns confirm that documentation gaps represent not negligence but structural adaptations to LMIC realities, where researchers must navigate constrained resources while meeting academic productivity expectations. Conclusion The findings illuminate significant documentation gaps in survey translation practices among Iranian researchers, revealing not only procedural shortcomings but also deeper theoretical implications for the field of translation studies. The gaps identified in this study are not merely technical—they reflect unresolved tensions in translation theory, academic incentives, and cross-cultural power dynamics. The findings expose a critical tension between local pragmatism and global methodological expectations. This study transcends a regional case analysis to expose universal tensions in translation scholarship. The documentation gaps-rooted in norm conflicts between efficiency (Toury), ethics (Chesterman), and visibility (Venuti)- underscore the need for a paradigm shift. By reimagining documentation as both scholarly obligation and act of resistance, the field can elevate translators from invisible technicians to visible intellectuals, ensuring their cultural and intellectual labor shapes global standards in cross-cultural research. Top-tier translation related journals play a pivotal role here: by mandating transparency, they can transform documentation from bureaucratic chore to citational asset, aligning methodological rigor with ethical accountability. Some limitations might reduce the generalizability of the findings. One key limitation lies in the study’s exclusive focus on English-language publications authored by Iranian researchers. This linguistic and regional restriction may inadvertently exclude valuable insights from Persian-language articles, theses, or research disseminated through local channels. Such a focus risks underrepresenting the full spectrum of survey translation practices within Iran, potentially biasing the findings toward those researchers who are already more attuned to international publication norms and expectations. Another limitation concerns the reliance on published articles as the primary data source. The observed documentation gaps may not always reflect actual methodological shortcomings; rather, they could be artifacts of journal space constraints, editorial policies, or prevailing norms that discourage detailed reporting of translation procedures. Researchers may, in fact, maintain comprehensive private records that never appear in the final published version, a discrepancy noted in both Iranian and broader LMIC contexts. To address this, future studies could adopt mixed-methods approaches, combining systematic literature reviews with qualitative interviews or surveys of researchers to disentangle reporting practices from actual translation processes. Additionally, the study’s methodology- while rigorous in its coding and analysis- does not formally test the equivalence or measurement invariance of translated instruments, nor does it systematically assess the impact of undocumented translation decisions on data quality. Future research could integrate psychometric analyses or experimental designs to evaluate how documentation practices influence measurement outcomes. Abbreviations CVI Content Validity Index CVR Content Validity Ratio EFA Exploratory Factor Analysis CFA Confirmatory Factor Analysis ICC Intraclass Correlation Coefficient LMIC Low- and Middle-Income Countries SPSS-22 Statistical Package for Social Sciences WHO World Health Organization TRAPD Translation, Review, Adjudication, Pre-testing, and Documentation Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable as the study did not entail human participation Consent for publication: All authors consented that the manuscript be published in the Journal of Peer Review and Research Integrity. Availability of data and material: The raw data table is available at Zenodo repository, https://zenodo.org/records/16779153?token=eyJhbGciOiJIUzUxMiJ9.eyJpZCI6IjM3OGQ2YzM4LWEyYTctNDU0MS1iNzY5 LWEyZDcwZGQ0ZDM4MyIsImRhdGEiOnt9LCJyYW5kb20iOiJjMTYxYzFmZjM4MGNmMGFmZDBlYWY yMWJlYWQxM2M4NiJ9.c75A_MrLeCPQDdJ8fZ5ZfqxPgDUnfqshHrEgy4cniOqxdhYlfL1gcT7gOx_6npIIBGzp5W-AOsHjIG2NDO03RQ doi: 10.5281/zenodo.16779153 Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests. Funding: This study received no funding. Authors' contributions: All authors participated in the conceptualization, development of methodology, analysis, and final write-up. all the stages were conducted collaboratively. Acknowledgement: We appreciate the authors who provided us with their published articles. References Andrade, L., Borges, K., Raponi, M. B., Felix, M., Castro, S., & Barbosa, M. (2018). Translation methods of instruments to sign language: An evidence-based proposal. Texto & Contexto - Enfermagem, 26 (4), Article e20170022. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-07072017002210017 Barrera, M., Jr., & Castro, F. G. (2006). A heuristic framework for the cultural adaptation of interventions. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 13 (4), 311–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2850.2006.00043.x Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures . Spine, 25 (24), 3186–3191. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014 Behr, D. (2023). What to consider and look out for in survey translation . Mannheim, Germany: GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.15465/gesis-sg_en_043 Behr, D., & Shishido, K. (2016). The translation of measurement instruments for cross-cultural surveys. In C. Wolf, D. Joye, T. W. Smith, & Y.-C. Fu (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of survey methodology (pp. 268–286). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473957893.n19 Behr, D., & Zabal, A. (2020). Documenting survey translation . Mannheim, Germany: GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences. Behr, D., Dept, S., & Krajčeva, E. (2019). Documenting the survey translation and monitoring process. In T. P. Johnson, B.-E. Pennell, I. Stoop, & B. Dorer (Eds.), Advances in comparative survey methods: Multinational, multiregional and multicultural contexts (3MC) (pp. 341–356). John Wiley & Sons. Bluemke, M., Partsch, M., Saucier, G., & Lechner, C. (2021). Human character in the IPIP: Towards shorter, more content-valid, and cross-culturally comparable IPIP-VIA character strength scales. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/k79qf Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137–164). Sage. Catalá-López, F., Ridao, M., Tejedor-Romero, L., Caulley, L., Hutton, B., Husereau, D., Alonso-Arroyo, A., Bernal-Delgado, E., Drummond, M., & Moher, D. (2023). Transparency, openness and reproducible research practices are frequently underused in health economic evaluations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 165 , Article 110024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.10.024 Chesterman, A. (2016). Memes of translation: The spread of ideas in translation theory (Rev. ed.) . John Benjamins Publishing Company. Danielsen, A. K., Pommergaard, H. C., Burcharth, J., Angenete, E., & Rosenberg, J. (2015). Translation of questionnaires measuring health related quality of life is not standardized: A literature-based research study. PLOS ONE, 10 (5), e0127050. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127050 Guillemin, F., Bombardier, C., & Beaton, D. (1993). Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: Literature review and proposed guidelines. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46 , 1417–1432. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(93)90142-N Hall, D. A., Zaragoza Domingo, S., Hamdache, L. Z., Manchaiah, V., Thammaiah, S., Evans, C., ... & International Collegium of Rehabilitative Audiology and TINnitus Research NETwork. (2018). A good practice guide for translating and adapting hearing-related questionnaires for different languages and cultures. International Journal of Audiology, 57 (3), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2017.1393565 Harkness, J., & Schoua-Glusberg, A. (1998). Questionnaires in translation. In J. Harkness (Ed.), Cross-cultural survey equivalence (pp. 87–126). Zentrum für Umfragen, Methoden und Analysen-ZUMA. Harkness, J. (2003). Questionnaire translation. In J. Harkness, F. J. R. van de Vijver, & P. Ph. Mohler (Eds.), Cross-cultural survey methods (pp. 35–56). Wiley. Maneesriwongul, W., & Dixon, J. K. (2004). Instrument translation process: A methods review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48 (2), 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03185.x Mohler, P., Pennell, B.-E., & Hubbard, F. (2008). Survey documentation: Towards professional knowledge management in sample surveys. In E. de Leeuw, J. Hox, & D. Dillman (Eds.), International handbook of survey methodology (pp. 443–460). Taylor & Francis. Mohler, P. P., Hansen, S. E., Pennell, B.-E., Thomas, W., Wackerow, J., & Hubbard, F. (2010). A survey process quality perspective on documentation. In J. A. Harkness, M. Braun, B. Edwards, T. P. Johnson, P. P. Mohler, ... & T. W. Smith (Eds.), Survey methods in multinational, multiregional, and multicultural contexts (pp. 299–314). Wiley. Peters, M., & Passchier, J. (2006). Translating instruments for cross-cultural studies in headache research. Headache, 46 (1), 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-4610.2006.00298.x Pym, A. (2024). Trade-offs in translation effects. Target . Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.23010.pym Son, J. (2018). Back translation as a documentation tool. Translation and Interpretation, 10 (2), 89–100. Sousa, V. E. C., Matson, J., & Dunn Lopez, K. (2017). Questionnaire adapting: Little changes mean a lot. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 39 (9), 1289–1300. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945916678212 Sterie, A. C., & Bernard, M. (2019). Challenges in a six-phase process of questionnaire adaptation: Findings from the French translation of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale. BMC Palliative Care, 18 (1), Article 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-019-0422-9 Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive translation studies-and beyond. John Benjamins. Valdez, D., Montenegro, M. S., Crawford, B. L., Turner, R. C., Lo, W. J., & Jozkowski, K. N. (2021). Translation frameworks and questionnaire design approaches as a component of health research and practice: A discussion and taxonomy of popular translation frameworks and questionnaire design approaches. Social Science & Medicine , 278, 113931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113931 Venuti, L. (1995). The translator’s invisibility: A history of translation. Routledge. Wild, D., Grove, A., Martin, M., Eremenco, S., McElroy, S., Verjee-Lorenz, A., & Erikson, P. (2005). Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: Report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value in Health, 8 (2), 94–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 13 Apr, 2026 Read the published version in Research Integrity and Peer Review → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Major revision 25 Nov, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 21 Aug, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 13 Aug, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 12 Aug, 2025 First submitted to journal 11 Aug, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7326457","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":499955488,"identity":"521512ec-3b34-4691-be28-70d59af0b83a","order_by":0,"name":"Marziyeh Sadeghzadeh","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Salman Farsi University of Kazerun","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Marziyeh","middleName":"","lastName":"Sadeghzadeh","suffix":""},{"id":499955489,"identity":"994f3242-6152-4505-9ebc-a345f29025d7","order_by":1,"name":"Nasimeh Nouhi Jadesi","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8389-0253","institution":"Salman Farsi University of Kazerun","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Nasimeh","middleName":"Nouhi","lastName":"Jadesi","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-08-08 10:51:54","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7326457/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7326457/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00192-4","type":"published","date":"2026-04-13T15:57:54+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":89550361,"identity":"aedb1adc-0a4e-4e30-879b-13068ba4e124","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-21 08:12:46","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":64104,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePrisma chart demonstrating study selection\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7326457/v1/6644ec878cc478876408649f.png"},{"id":89551590,"identity":"ed260017-7456-46bf-9c47-a99fd293d406","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-21 08:28:46","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":63244,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eA representation of the percentage of translation validation studies across 2000-2023 in the dataset\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7326457/v1/98a83a5dab32bff82eb7a7b7.png"},{"id":107351186,"identity":"02370c85-2e70-45cb-8186-dee0adc9e0f1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-20 16:10:09","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":589721,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7326457/v1/281ac40b-d15b-4d1d-996e-195b695116d6.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"","formattedTitle":"Lost in Documentation: Professional Norms and the Gaps in Survey Translation Transparency","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eResearch journals are increasingly promoting scholarly practices that emphasize transparency, openness, and reproducibility, which are anticipated to enhance both the efficiency and credibility of published research (Catal\u0026aacute;-L\u0026oacute;pez et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Within translation studies, where methodological precision and cross-linguistic validation are paramount, such practices are particularly critical. Harkness and Schoua-Glusberg (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e) argued that only through rigorous and systematic documentation of research processes- including translation protocols, back-translation procedures, and equivalence assessments- can current practices evolve toward greater openness and reproducibility of findings. One frequently overlooked aspect of methodological documentation is the translation process of research instruments into a language, culture, and context distinct from those of the original version. If the translation phase of survey validation fails to meet reliability and validity standards, the resulting instrument will lack the necessary rigor to serve as a dependable measurement tool in subsequent research.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSurvey translation documentation- defined as the systematic recording of all procedural steps, resources utilized, challenges encountered and resolved, and personnel involved in the translation process- has been strongly advocated by experts as an essential component of survey development (Harkness, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Ber, 2023; Behr \u0026amp; Shishido, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Mohler et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Behr and Zabal (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) posit that survey translation documentation serves a dual function: as an internal quality assurance mechanism throughout all phases of survey development, and as a means to inform external data users and researchers about the survey\u0026rsquo;s design and implementation. This documentation enables independent evaluation of the study\u0026rsquo;s framework, procedures, and overall quality (Behr \u0026amp; Zabal, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e, p. 1). Further reinforcing this perspective, Behr and Shishido (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) argue that comprehensive documentation not only attests to the translation\u0026rsquo;s quality but also provides a reference for interpreting unexpected statistical outcomes encountered by survey users.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor documentation to be truly effective, Mohler et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e) emphasize that it must meet three key criteria: adequacy, precision, and detail, while remaining economical in its execution. Additionally, Behr et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) underscore the importance of ensuring such documentation is easily accessible and available for cross-referencing in future research applications. Behr and Zabal (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) proposed a three-level survey translation documentation framework that systematically guides survey developers in determining essential documentation requirements. This framework provides a comprehensive structure for documenting the survey translation process by differentiating three distinct phases: the \"Input\" level (about pre-translation materials and preparatory work), the \"Translation process\" level (covering procedural steps and decision-making), and the \"Output\" level (encompassing final translated instruments and validation records). Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e presents these three levels along with their accompanying factors in detail, offering researchers a complete taxonomy of documentation elements required at each stage of the translation process.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSurvey translation documentation, Behr and Zabal (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" morerows=\"4\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInput\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1) Briefing document\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2) Guidelines\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3) Item-specific guide\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4) Reference or further material\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5) Translation training material\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"9\" rowspan=\"10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTranslation\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKey\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1) Source/ target language\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2) Source/ target culture\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3) Material/ workload\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSteps\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4) Translation: double, split, single\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5) Review\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6) Harmonization\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7) Pretesting\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8) Other quality control\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePersons\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9) Translation personnel\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10) Review personnel\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" morerows=\"4\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOutput\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1) Difficulties\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2) Dubious translation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3) Noteworthy decisions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4) Adaptations\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5) Changes to existing translation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eValdez et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), in their article examining the application of various prominent translation frameworks and survey design approaches, called for research focusing on survey translation disclosure in multilingual studies. Specifically, they emphasized the need to identify \"(1) the most frequently used translation frameworks and (2) the rate at which studies disclose their translation practices\" (p. 5). Moving beyond this valuable recommendation, the current study seeks to advance the field by transcending a simple description of the prevalence and types of translation guidelines employed (which constitutes only one component of the table presented earlier). Instead, it aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the documentation practices implemented and reported in survey translation processes within survey development studies conducted by Iranian researchers. Accordingly, this research systematically describes and analyzes the extent to which Iranian scholars have reported and documented the specific procedures used in their survey translation processes. This analysis is structured according to the three-level documentation framework established by Behr and Zabal (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), thereby offering a nuanced examination of current practices in this specific academic context.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMoreover, the three-level documentation framework (Behr \u0026amp; Zabal, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) aligns closely with Chesterman\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) professional translation norms, offering a robust lens to interpret the observed gaps. Professional translation norms, as articulated by Chesterman, can be grouped into three overarching categories: accountability, communication, and relation norms. These norms are not rigid prescriptions but rather culturally embedded expectations that exert prescriptive pressure on translators, guiding their behavior towards what is perceived as professional and ethical conduct. The accountability norm emphasizes the translator's responsibility to balance loyalty among all stakeholders- such as the original author, the client, themselves, and the target audience- ensuring integrity and thoroughness in their work. Communication norms highlight the translator's role as a mediator, aiming to optimize communication between all parties and adapting to the specific communicative context. Finally, relation norms pertain to establishing an appropriate relationship of relevant similarity between the source and target texts, recognizing that equivalence is a flexible, context-dependent concept influenced by text type, commissioner\u0026rsquo;s requests, and reader expectations. These norms underpin the professionalization of translation, ensuring that translators not only produce linguistically accurate work but also act ethically and effectively within their sociocultural context.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBy applying these norms, our analysis moves beyond descriptive reporting to reveal how systemic documentation failures in Iranian survey translations reflect broader tensions between procedural efficiency and normative professional standards- a critical step toward improving both practice and reproducibility. Hence, this study is guided by the following research questions, structured according to Behr and Zabal's (2020) three-level documentation framework and Chesterman\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) professional translation norms:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo what extent have survey validation studies by Iranian researchers documented: a) Input-level factors (source materials, preparatory work)? b) Process-level factors (procedural steps, quality controls)? c) Output-level factors (final instruments, validation records)?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eHow do the observed documentation patterns reflect: a) Adherence to/violation of professional translation norms (accountability, communication, relation)? b) Potential impacts on translation quality and research transparency?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eLiterature review\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo date, limited research has systematically examined the extent to which scholarly articles reflect comprehensive documentation of survey translation processes as an indicator of translation professional reflection. While this remains an understudied area, a few recent publications have emerged as exemplars of robust documentation practices. A notable example is the work of Partsch, Behr, and Krasnoff (2020) on the Values-in-Action (VIA) inventory translation. Their study not only provided detailed documentation of the final translated instrument but also introduced an innovative coding scheme to quantify and categorize translation challenges, thereby establishing a valuable methodological benchmark for the field.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis literature review examines two distinct categories of articles pertinent to survey translation documentation. The first category comprises empirical studies that primarily analyze the extent to which researchers document their translation methodologies in survey validation research. These studies typically focus on three key aspects: (1) documentation of translation methods, (2) reporting of pretesting procedures, and (3) disclosure of the specific translation guidelines or frameworks employed. The second category encompasses conceptual studies that investigate survey translation documentation from a theoretical perspective. These works engage with fundamental questions about documentation standards, propose methodological frameworks, or advance theoretical discussions about best practices in recording translation processes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eStudies with an empirical perspective on survey translation documentation\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eManeesriwongul and Dixon (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e) conducted one of the pioneering methodological reviews examining instrument translation processes and evaluations of translation adequacy in nursing research. Their analysis of 47 studies identified six distinct translation approaches: (1) forward-only translation, (2) forward-only translation with testing, (3) back-translation, (4) back-translation with monolingual testing, (5) back-translation with bilingual testing, and (6) back-translation incorporating both monolingual and bilingual testing. The authors systematically evaluated the strengths and limitations of each method, ultimately advocating for greater methodological consensus in cross-cultural research to ensure translation quality. They specifically emphasized the need for researchers to provide documented evidence of both the accuracy and validity of their survey translation procedures in a similar methodological vein, Andrade et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) conducted a systematic review of translation approaches in research instrument development. Their study initially identified publications describing instrument translation methodologies, ultimately including nine studies that met their inclusion criteria. These studies were classified into five distinct categories: (1) individualized translation processes, (2) group translation approaches, (3) translations incorporating adjustments for monolingual groups, (4) translations adapted for bilingual groups, and (5) mixed translation methodologies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis focus on methodological documentation was further exemplified by Peters and Passchier's (2006) review of translation practices in headache research. Their comprehensive analysis examined both cross-cultural translation literature and headache-specific instrument adaptations. The authors not only documented current translation methods employed in the field but also established clear recommendations for practice. Their findings emphasized the critical need for more detailed reporting of translation processes in headache-related instruments to ensure the quality of cross-cultural research.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eStudies with a conceptual perspective on survey translation documentation\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eValdez et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) systematically analyzed the application of various prominent translation frameworks and survey design approaches. Their findings underscore that in multilingual survey contexts, the optimal framework selection depends fundamentally on specific research circumstances. The authors strongly recommend adopting approaches that prioritize maximal cultural input, ideally through collaboration with diverse teams encompassing cultural, linguistic, and subject matter experts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdopting a distinct perspective, Son (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) reconceptualizes the conventional use of back-translation in research methodology. While traditionally employed as a quality control mechanism, Son proposes back-translation's innovative utility as a documentation tool. The author contends that \"rather than treating detected deviations from the source as inaccuracies requiring correction, back-translation can strategically document intentional adaptations when accompanied by explanatory notes in the documentation process\" (p. 90). This paradigm shift positions back-translation not merely as a validation technique but as a means of transparently recording culturally-adaptive modifications.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe prevailing literature lacks a holistic, systematic investigation of \u003cem\u003eall\u003c/em\u003e essential elements necessary for complete survey translation documentation within specific cultural contexts. Current scholarship on survey translation documentation demonstrates two consistent limitations: (1) it examines only a narrow subset of the numerous factors requiring documentation in survey translation and validation, and (2) it lacks systematic investigation of these elements. In contrast to these partial approaches, the present study adopts a comprehensive framework that systematically examines all critical factors essential for complete survey translation documentation. Moreover, by reframing observed documentation practices through the lens of Chesterman's (2016) professional translation norms, this research moves beyond descriptive reporting to reveal how systemic documentation failures reflect broader tensions between procedural efficiency and normative professional standards. By addressing this gap, the study aims to contribute a nuanced understanding of current documentation practices within a specific academic context and to offer practical recommendations for improving transparency, rigor, and replicability in cross-cultural survey research.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eOur systematic review employed a rigorous multi-phase methodology. First, we established specific inclusion criteria, which included any survey translation and validation study written in English, conducted by an Iranian researcher, and published in peer-reviewed journals between 2000 and 2023. This focus guided our selection of key search terms, namely \"questionnaire\", \u0026ldquo;survey\u0026rdquo; paired with either \"Persian version\" or \"Farsi version\u0026rdquo; (Farsi or Persian is the official language of Iran). The second phase involved executing comprehensive searches in Google Scholar using these predetermined terms, with a publication date range spanning from 2000 to 2023. The purpose was to retrieve any survey translation and validation study conducted by Iranian researchers written in English and published in peer-reviewed journals from 2000\u0026ndash;2023. This initial search strategy identified 851 potentially relevant studies including \u0026ldquo;questionnaire\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;survey\u0026rdquo; plus \u0026ldquo;Farsi version\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;Persian version\u0026rdquo; in their title for further evaluation. In the third phase, the two researchers independently conducted a thorough screening process to assess each retrieved record against our inclusion criteria. This careful evaluation led to the exclusion of several categories of studies: duplicate publications and non-journal academic works such as theses and dissertations (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;31); articles written primarily in Persian with only titles and abstracts in English (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;64); studies that developed original Persian surveys rather than translating existing instruments (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;90); and publications focusing on survey application rather than validation processes, including those examining survey responsiveness (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;13). This screening and exclusion phase reduced the included articles to 664, meeting all inclusion criteria.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eFinal Study Selection and Analysis\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHaving established the corpus, we developed a comprehensive coding scheme -which was an Excel file- based on Behr and Zabal's (2020) survey translation documentation framework. The coding scheme enabled systematic comparison across included studies and encompassed two elements. First, article metadata, which included title, author(s), field, journal name, publisher, and year of publication of the article. Second, to operationalize Behr and Zabal's (2020) three-level framework, we developed a structured coding scheme that systematically assessed the presence or absence of specific documentation factors at each level: Input, Process, and Output, as outlined in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. For each study in our sample, two independent coders assessed whether there was evidence of documentation for each factor. The coding scheme used a binary (yes/no) form framework-specific documentation features including any indication related input factors (Briefing document, Guidelines, Item-specific guide, Reference or further material and Translation training material ), translation process factors (Source/ target language, Source/ target culture, Material/ workload, Translation: double, split, single, Review, Harmonization, Pretesting, Other quality control, Translation personnel and Review personnel) and output factors (Difficulties, Dubious translation, Noteworthy decisions, Adaptations ).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOperationalizing Chesterman\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) translation professional norms\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo operationalize Chesterman's (2016) professional translation norms (Accountability, Communication, and Relation), we linked each norm to specific documentation practices within the Behr \u0026amp; Zabal framework. For the accountability norm, we operationalized the accountability norm as the extent to which the study provided transparent and justifiable rationales for all translation choices, adaptations, and modifications. This was assessed through:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSource instrument development (input)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdaptation guidelines (input)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRationale for modifications (Process)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDiscussion of limitations and biases(output)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCommunication norm was operationalized as the extent to which the study provided clear and accessible information about the translation process to all stakeholders, including researchers, end-users, and policy-makers. This was assessed by examining documentation related to:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDescription of translation procedures (Process)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eReporting the validation results (Output)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDiscussion of cultural equivalence (output)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRelation norms were operationalized as the extent to which the study demonstrated an appropriate relationship of relevant similarity between the source and the target text, taking into account the specific context and purpose of the survey. This was assessed through examining documentation related to:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAssessment of conceptual equivalence(input)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eUse of culturally appropriate language(process)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDiscussion of Potential Cultural Biases (output)\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt was decided that adherence to these norms would be reflected in the completeness and transparency of documentation at all three levels (Input, Process, and Output). Conversely, a lack of documentation would be interpreted as a violation of these norms.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTwo researchers independently coded subsets of articles using Microsoft Excel as the primary coding platform. Through iterative consensus-building sessions, the research team compared coded data and resolved discrepancies. To ensure inter-coder reliability, a subset of 20% of the articles was independently coded by both researchers. Inter-coder agreement was assessed using Cohen's kappa. The initial kappa value was 68% level of agreement. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion and consensus, resulting in a final kappa of 77% of agreement. The finalized dataset was subsequently transferred to SPSS-22 ( Statistical Package for Socal Sciences)for quantitative analysis, where we computed descriptive statistics that were then interpreted collectively by the research team.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eField Distribution and Publication Characteristics\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe analyzed articles represented diverse academic disciplines, with medicine predominating (51% of studies). The remaining 49% spanned psychology, psychiatry, education, management, and related fields. Regarding publication venues, 28% appeared in Iranian journals publishing in English, while the majority (72%) were published in international journals.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eA representation of field and journal type of the studies included in the dataset.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eField\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMedicine\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e50.6%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNon-medicine\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e49.4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePublishers and Journals\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e%\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1. Iranian Journals published in English\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e28%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2. BMC journals\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3. Springer journals\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4. Elsevier journals\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5 Wiley journals\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6. Tylor and Francis journals\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7. Brieflands journals\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8. Frontiers Media journals\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9. Sage journals\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10. Routledge\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11. Dove Press journals\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12. Oxford University Press journals\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13. other\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study systematically examined the documentation practices of survey translation processes in validation studies published by Iranian researchers, utilizing Behr and Zabal's (2020) comprehensive documentation framework as our analytical lens. Our primary objective was to identify which specific factors within this framework researchers have consistently reported in their methodological documentation. A preliminary finding is the surge in Iranian researchers\u0026rsquo; interest toward survey translation and validation studies in recent years, as illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. This trend highlights the growing need for meticulous investigation into translation processes within survey validation\u0026mdash;a key focus of the current study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe subsequent sections present: (1) the frequency distribution of documented factors across each level of the framework (Input, Process, and Output) and a comparative discussion situating these findings within the context of similar international studies, and (2) discussing the findings through the professional norms framework proposed by Chesterman (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). This dual approach enables us to both quantify current documentation practices and qualitatively assess their alignment with global standards in survey translation methodology.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eDocumentation at the Input Level\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe first focus of our first research question was the extent of input-level documentation in survey translation processes among Iranian validation studies. Following Behr and Zabal's (2020) framework, input documentation encompasses \"everything that is fed into the translation process by translation coordinators\" (p. 2), comprising five essential components. Analysis of the collected articles revealed a striking pattern: while researchers consistently documented translation guidelines (one of the five input factors), the remaining four components were absent from all publications. This finding suggests two possible interpretations: either these elements were genuinely omitted from the translation processes themselves, or researchers deemed them insufficiently important to warrant documentation in their methodological reports.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis of translation guideline implementation reveals significant patterns in Iranian survey validation studies. As Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e demonstrates, only 41.7% of researchers employed established translation guidelines, adhering to their systematic procedures. This moderate adoption rate suggests that approximately half of Iranian scholars approach survey translation with the methodological rigor it requires, while others may overlook the importance of standardized protocols in cross-cultural adaptation. The current findings align with Danielsen et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), who reported a comparable guideline implementation rate of 36.8%.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAmong Iranian researchers utilizing translation guidelines, certain frameworks emerged as particularly prominent: Beaton et al.'s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e) methodology appeared most frequently (11%), followed by WHO (World Health Organization) guidelines (9%), Wild et al.'s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) approach (5%), and Guillemin et al.'s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e) protocol (4%). The prevalence of these specific guidelines likely stems from their methodological robustness in translation studies, established reputation in the field, and frequent citation in previous Persian survey adaptations. However, the near absence of documented rationales for guideline selection represents a notable gap in methodological transparency within these translation studies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis pattern of guideline usage and documentation reflects broader trends in translation research, where established protocols often gain traction through academic convention rather than explicit methodological justification. The findings underscore the need for greater attention to transparent reporting practices in survey translation methodologies, particularly in justifying the selection of specific adaptation frameworks. Such improvements would enhance both the reproducibility and cross-cultural comparability of translated survey instruments.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe percentage of survey translation guideline types used by Iranian researchers\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGuideline\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eN\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;632\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNo guideline\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e53.5%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eA specified guideline\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e41.7%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1. Beaton et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2. WHO\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3. Wild et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4. Guillemin et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5. International Quality of Life Assessment\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6. Bullinger et al. (1998)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7. Brislin (1970)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8. International Test Communication (ITC)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.8%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9. Chen et al. (2010)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.5%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10. Gandek \u0026amp; Ware (1998)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.5%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11. Polit \u0026amp; Yang (2016)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.5%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12. Jones et al. (2001)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.5%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13. Sousa et al. (2011)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.3%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14. The MAPI linguistic validation process\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.3%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15. Tsang et al. (2017)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.3%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCombination of two or more\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.8%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eDocumentation of “Translation” level\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe second focus of our first research question was the documentation practices surrounding the actual survey translation process in Iranian validation studies, specifically focusing on the three core components identified by Behr and Zabal (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eKey\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe \u0026ldquo;key\u0026rdquo; component included documenting \u0026ldquo;Source/target language\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;Source/target culture\u0026rdquo;, and \u0026ldquo;Further material\u0026rdquo;. From these three factors, \u0026ldquo;source/target language\u0026rdquo; and Source/target culture\u0026rdquo; had been consistently documented by the Iranian authors (100%).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eSteps\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis of the \"Steps\" component examined factors including Translation, Review, Harmonization, Pretesting, and Other quality control measures. The findings indicate that nearly all aspects of the translation process itself were documented by the authors, with detailed results presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. Regarding translation methods, the study identified three approaches as outlined by Behr and Zabal (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e): single translation (one forward translation), split translation (dividing the questionnaire between multiple translators), and double translation (multiple independent translations followed by reconciliation). Within the collected corpus of articles, no instances of split translation were observed. The vast majority of studies employed single translation (99%) while double translation appeared only in rare cases.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis revealed partial documentation of the review stage in survey translation practices among Iranian researchers, with only approximately 26.4% of studies explicitly reporting this quality control measure. This suggests that while some researchers incorporate review processes, the majority do not document this stage in their methodological reporting.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegarding harmonization procedures, documentation was notably insufficient, appearing in only 23% of examined articles. When mentioned, descriptions typically consisted of vague statements such as \"discrepancies were resolved\" rather than detailed accounts of specific harmonization methods or decision-making processes. This lack of precise documentation makes it difficult to assess the rigor of harmonization practices in these translation studies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis demonstrated that nearly all studies incorporated some form of pretesting to validate their translated instruments. Researchers employed both quantitative and qualitative validation approaches, with varying degrees of frequency. Quantitative validation methods were documented as follows: Cronbach's alpha (83.9%), correlation analysis (51.6%), confirmatory factor analysis (50%), content validity indices (25.5%), intra-class correlation (26.2%), and exploratory factor analysis (33.1%). These findings reveal a strong preference for reliability testing, particularly through Cronbach's alpha, while other psychometric measures appeared less consistently. The widespread use of back-translation (99%) and Cronbach's alpha (83.9%) closely aligns with Danielsen et al.'s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) findings, which reported rates of 94% and 79% respectively for these validation approaches. This consistency indicates these methods have become standard practice in cross-cultural survey validation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eQualitative pretesting methods showed different patterns of implementation: pilot testing (38.4%), face validity assessment (27.7%), cognitive debriefing interviews (7.2%), and introspective debriefing interviews (0.6%). The notably low adoption of interview-based methods suggests potential opportunities for methodological enhancement in future translation studies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis reveals a striking disparity in the adoption of pretesting methods among Iranian researchers. While all studies incorporated at least one quantitative validation approach, only 53% employed any qualitative pretesting method. This pattern demonstrates a clear preference for quantitative methods, which were not only used more frequently but also with greater methodological diversity compared to qualitative approaches. The limited use of qualitative methods - particularly evident in the rare application of cognitive (7.2%) and introspective debriefing interviews (0.6%) - may reflect insufficient awareness of these techniques among Iranian researchers. As Sousa, Matson, and Lopez (2016) demonstrated, cognitive interviewing offers valuable insights into respondents' interpretation and comprehension of adapted items prior to data collection. The underutilization of such qualitative approaches may stem from several factors: the prevalent perception of quantitative analysis as more rigorous in the Iranian academic context, greater familiarity with statistical methods among researchers, or simply established conventions in methodological training. This methodological imbalance suggests an opportunity for enhancing translation validation practices. Increased awareness and adoption of qualitative methods could potentially enrich the analytical depth and diversity of survey translation studies. The integration of both methodological approaches would likely yield more comprehensive validation outcomes, combining the statistical robustness of quantitative measures with the nuanced understanding offered by qualitative techniques.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA particularly noteworthy practice observed in some studies involved direct consultation with original questionnaire developers. This approach took two distinct forms: approximately 35% of researchers simply sought permission to translate the instrument (as recommended by certain guidelines), while a smaller subset (12%) engaged in more substantive consultation by soliciting developers' feedback on their translated versions. These collaborative verification methods served dual purposes - they not only provided opportunities for refinement based on expert input but also offered researchers additional validation of their translation choices. The practice of developer consultation represents a distinctive quality control measure that, while less common than back-translation, demonstrated tangible benefits for translation accuracy. In cases where implemented, this approach enabled researchers to either make informed adjustments to their translations or gain confidence in their existing versions through expert confirmation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003ePersons\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis showed that 27% of studies documented the individuals involved in the translation process, while 26% provided details about those conducting the review. The documented information included education level, profession, language proficiency in both source and target languages, and whether personnel were blind to the original questionnaire version. Nearly all studies mentioned the professionals who conducted the translation and review steps, though the level of detail varied. Some articles described these personnel thoroughly, while others provided only minimal information. The findings indicate that while most studies acknowledged the involvement of translation and review personnel, complete documentation of their qualifications and roles was inconsistent. Approximately three-quarters of studies lacked full details about either translators (73%) or reviewers (74%). This suggests room for improvement in documenting personnel to ensure methodological transparency in survey translation studies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eDocumentation of \u0026ldquo;output\u0026rdquo; level\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eBehr and Zabal (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) conceptualized output documentation as encompassing all products generated during translation, specifically identifying five key elements: \"Difficulties,\" \"Dubious translations,\" \"Noteworthy decisions,\" \"Adaptations,\" and \"Changes to existing translations.\" Analysis of Iranian researchers' publications revealed that only the \"Adaptations\" factor received substantive attention in the methodological reporting. Among the remaining factors, \"Changes to existing translations\" was inherently inapplicable to this study's focus, as the analysis specifically examined initial translations of questionnaires rather than modifications to previously translated instruments. The other three elements (\"Difficulties,\" \"Dubious translations,\" and \"Noteworthy decisions\") were conspicuously absent from the documented outputs across all reviewed studies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis addressed two primary aspects of adaptation documentation in the reviewed studies. First, it examined the overall rate at which researchers reported making cultural or linguistic adaptations to their translated instruments. The findings revealed that only 11.8% of articles documented any such modifications.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis low documentation rate raises important questions about current practices among Iranian researchers. The minimal reporting of adaptations could reflect either: (1) insufficient attention to necessary cultural and linguistic adjustments during the translation process, or (2) a failure to adequately document and report adaptations that were in fact made. Both possibilities represent significant limitations in the methodological transparency of these survey translation studies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis examined three primary categories of adaptations made in survey translations, drawing on the frameworks of Bluemke et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) and Behr and Shishido (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e):\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eCultural adaptations addressed norm-driven differences (accounting for variations in cultural norms, values, and practices) and terminological/factual-driven differences (accounting for country-specific characteristics). These modifications ensured the translated instrument's cultural appropriateness for the target population.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eMeasurement adaptations focused on counteracting potential response style biases that might differ across cultural contexts. Such adjustments aimed to maintain measurement equivalence between the original and translated versions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eConstruct adaptations involved modifications to better operationalize the measured constructs and enhance content validity, independent of cultural considerations. These changes sought to preserve the theoretical integrity of the instrument while improving its applicability in the new linguistic context.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe findings revealed distinct patterns in the types of adaptations documented across studies. Cultural adaptations predominated, accounting for 66% of all reported modifications. These primarily addressed norm-driven differences in cultural values and practices, along with terminological adjustments for country-specific characteristics. Construct-related adaptations represented the second most frequent category at 26.3% of documented changes. This category included substantive modifications such as adding new dimensions to existing constructs to better align with the Iranian context. These adaptations aimed to enhance the instruments' content validity while maintaining their theoretical foundations. Measurement adaptations constituted the smallest proportion at 9.7%. These modifications typically involved technical adjustments to response formats, such as converting textual scales to numerical formats, designed to address potential response style differences. The distribution of adaptation types demonstrates researchers' greater attention to cultural considerations compared to construct or measurement issues. This pattern suggests that Iranian researchers prioritize cultural relevance when adapting instruments, while being more conservative with modifications affecting the core constructs or measurement properties.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eResearchers have consistently neglected to record crucial aspects of the output process, including challenges encountered, noteworthy decisions made, and dubious translations identified. This omission, coupled with the low overall rate of adaptation documentation (11.8%), suggests researchers may view such information as unimportant for methodological reporting. However, as Sterie and Bernard (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) emphasize, documenting translation biases, uncertainties, and difficulties serves critical functions. First, such records help explain potential anomalies in statistical results encountered by future survey users. Second, systematic documentation provides valuable feedback to original instrument developers, as some translation challenges may reveal inherent questionnaire flaws rather than translation errors. Third, as Behr and Zabal (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) note, sharing these experiences through scientific publications creates learning opportunities for the research community. Comprehensive documentation of translation challenges and decision rationales would foster greater awareness that rigorous instrument translation requires meticulous attention to numerous linguistic, cultural, and psychometric factors. Otherwise, it poses the risk of reducing translation to a technical exercise rather than a sociolinguistic negotiation and may perpetuate what has been termed \"methodological imperialism\" in translation studies\u0026mdash;where standardized reporting protocols marginalize locally meaningful practices.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eAnswering the first research question:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis revealed a pronounced imbalance in documentation focus across the input, translation, and output levels- the details of which are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e. The findings demonstrate that researchers devoted substantially greater attention to documenting the core translation process itself, while largely neglecting comprehensive reporting of both preparatory (input) and resultant (output) aspects. This pattern suggests that Iranian researchers have prioritized the visible translation activities over equally crucial pre-translation preparations and post-translation outcomes. The documented gaps align partially with Behr and Zabal's (2020) observation that \"Input material\" and \"Translation\" documentation can be collected in a straightforward manner and be included in publications (p. 10), in contrast to the more complex documentation of \"Output.\" However, our findings extend this observation by revealing that even input documentation remains insufficient despite its relative simplicity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe representation of survey translation documentation of Iranian survey validation studies\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLevel\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFactor\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePercentage of documentation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"4\" rowspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eInput\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBriefing document\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0% of the articles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGuidelines\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e53% of the articles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eItem-specific guide\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0% of the articles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eReference or further material\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0% of the articles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTranslation training material\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0% of the articles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"23\" rowspan=\"24\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTranslation\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKey\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"5\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSource/ target language\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100% of the articles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"5\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSource/ target culture\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0% of the articles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"5\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMaterial/ workload\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0% of the articles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"18\" rowspan=\"19\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSteps\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTranslation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSingle translation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e99% of the articles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDouble translation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1% of the articles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSplit translation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0% of the articles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"5\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eReview\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e27% of the articles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"5\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHarmonization\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e23% of the articles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"10\" rowspan=\"11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePretesting\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" morerows=\"6\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c4\" rowspan=\"7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuantitative\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e100%= use of at least one quantitative method reported\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eContent validity (CVI or CVR)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e25/2% of the articles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e83.9% of the articles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCorrelation with other questionnaires\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e51,6% of the articles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e26.2% of the articles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExploratory factor analysis (EFA)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e33.1% of the articles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eConfirmatory factor analysis (CFA)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e50% of the articles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTest-retest\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e21% of the articles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" morerows=\"3\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c4\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eQualitative\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e56.% documented at least one qualitative method\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003epilot\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e38.4% of the articles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFace validity\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e27.7% of the articles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCognitive debriefing interview\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.2% of the articles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntrospective debriefing interview\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.6% of the articles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\" morerows=\"2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOther quality control\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBack translation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e97% of the articles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" morerows=\"1\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInteraction with the questionnaire developer(s)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeeking Permission from questionnaire developer(s)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e35% of the articles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeeking approval from questionnaire developer(s)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12% of the articles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePersons\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"5\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTranslation personnel\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e27% of the articles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"5\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eReview personnel\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e26% of the articles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"6\" rowspan=\"7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eOutput\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDifficulties\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0% of the articles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDubious translation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0% of the articles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNoteworthy decisions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0% of the articles\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" morerows=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\" rowspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdaptations\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e11.8% documented at least one adaptation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCultural adaptation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e66% of the adaptations\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMeasurement adaptation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e24.3% of the adaptations\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eConstruct adaptation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9.7% of the adaptations\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eChanges to existing translation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe second concern of this study was extending the above descriptive results to a broader analytical perspective in the translation field. Accordingly, the following is a discussion of how these documentation gaps reflect the (non)adherence to the translation professional norms outlined by Chesterman (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). The following table presents a norm-based reinterpretation of above findings, aligning each level of documentation with Chesterman\u0026rsquo;s three norms.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSurvey Translation Documentation Analyzed through Chesterman\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) Translation Norms\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNorm\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInput stage\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTranslation process stage\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOutput stage\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccountability\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBriefing document ✗\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eItem-specific guide ✗\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTraining material ✗\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eGuidelines ~\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eReference or further material ~\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eReview personnel ~\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHarmonization ~\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTranslation personnel ~\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDifficulties ✗\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDubious translations ✗\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNoteworthy decisions ✗\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdaptations ~\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eChanges to existing trans N/A\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCommunication\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGuidelines ~\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eItem-specific guide ✗\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSource/target language ✓\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSource/target culture ✗\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMaterial/workload ✗\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePretesting \u0026amp; quality control ✓\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdaptations ~\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRationale for changes ✗\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRelation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGuidelines ~\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eItem-specific guide ✗\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTranslation method ✓\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eReview \u0026amp; quality control ✓\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHarmonization ~\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdaptation rationale ✗\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNoteworthy decisions ✗\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e(✓ = Well-documented, ~ = Partially-documented, ✗ = Not documented, N/A\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Not applicable)\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe near-total absence of input-level documentation-source instrument metadata (0%), briefing documents (0%), and translation training materials (0%) reflects a fundamental misalignment with Chesterman\u0026rsquo;s accountability norm. This norm demands that translators balance loyalty among stakeholders, including source authors, clients, and target audiences. For instance, the omission of source instrument development details (e.g., whether the original survey was validated for specific cultural contexts) obscures the translator\u0026rsquo;s fidelity to the source material. The selective documentation of translation guidelines (41.7%) further compounds this issue. While WHO and Beaton et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e) frameworks were frequently cited, the absence of a rationale for guideline selection suggests procedural compliance rather than critical engagement. This aligns with Valdez et al.\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) observation that guideline implementation often becomes a \"checklist exercise,\" divorced from contextual justification. At the process level, Iranian researchers exhibited a strong procedural focus (e.g., back-translation in 97% of studies) but neglected qualitative rigor. While quantitative validation metrics like Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha (83.9%) and confirmatory factor analysis (50%) dominated reporting, qualitative methods such as cognitive interviews (7.2%) were severely underutilized. This reflects a disciplinary bias toward statistical legitimacy-a pattern observed in LMIC (Low and Middle Income Countries) contexts (Danielsen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e)-that contravenes Chesterman\u0026rsquo;s communication norm. Translators, as mediators, must optimize understanding between stakeholders, yet vague harmonization statements (\"discrepancies resolved\") and undocumented reviewer qualifications (27%) obscure how linguistic and cultural conflicts were negotiated. The reliance on single forward translations (99%)-despite evidence that team-based approaches reduce error rates (Behr \u0026amp; Shishido, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e)-suggests institutional pressures to prioritize efficiency over best practices. While this aligns with Toury\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e) observation that norms emerge from context-specific \"problem-solving,\" it risks perpetuating methodological inertia. For example, back-translation, though nearly universal, was reduced to a validity ritual rather than a tool for documenting intentional adaptations (Son, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). The findings reveal a systemic tension between procedural compliance and ethical transparency. Iranian researchers documented steps easily aligned with global standards (e.g., back-translation) but omitted elements requiring contextual labor (e.g., adaptation rationales). This mirrors Pym\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e) \"value trade-offs,\" where institutional pressures for rapid publication clash with methodological rigor. While Iranian researchers\u0026rsquo; reliance on single forward translations (99%) and back-translation (97%) reflects resource constraints, it diverges sharply from international frameworks like TRAPD (Translation, Review, Adjudication, Pretesting and Documentation), where team-based adjudication and adaptation logs are standard. For example, the European Social Survey mandates documentation of 92% of input factors, compared to 0% in Iranian studies. This disparity highlights systemic inequities in translation infrastructure, where LMIC researchers face pressure to prioritize publication speed over transparency.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe most striking gaps emerged at the output level, where 66% of cultural adaptations went undocumented. This violates Chesterman\u0026rsquo;s relation norm, which requires demonstrating \"relevant similarity\" between source and target texts. When researchers modify terms like \"career advancement\" to align with Persian familial values but omit rationales, they obscure how equivalence was negotiated. Such omissions mirror Venuti\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e) concept of translator invisibility, where procedural efficiency erases the translator\u0026rsquo;s agency as a cultural mediator. The near-total absence of difficulty logs (0%) and dubious translation records (0%) further exacerbates this issue. As Sterie and Bernard (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) note, undocumented challenges-such as untranslatable idioms or response scale ambiguities, deprive the field of lessons learned. For instance, if researchers struggled to adapt Likert scales for Persian respondents\u0026rsquo; tendency toward moderate responses, sharing these struggles could inform future adaptations. Instead, the silence reinforces a false dichotomy between \"smooth\" translations and rigorous ones, privileging fluency over transparency.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen viewed through the lens of Venuti\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e) concept of the translator\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;invisibility,\u0026rdquo; these gaps take on added significance. Venuti argues that the prevailing expectation of fluency and transparency in translation often erases the presence and agency of the translator, rendering their intellectual labor unseen and unacknowledged. In the context of survey translation, the absence of detailed documentation-particularly regarding the rationale for adaptations, the challenges encountered, and the decision-making processes-serves to perpetuate this invisibility. The translation process is presented as a seamless, technical task, rather than as a site of negotiation, cultural mediation, and professional expertise. As a result, the translator\u0026rsquo;s crucial role in ensuring conceptual and cultural equivalence is obscured, and the broader research community is deprived of insights into the complexities and dilemmas inherent in cross-cultural instrument adaptation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eToury (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1995\u003c/span\u003e) posits that translation practices are governed by a set of norms-initial, preliminary, and operational-that reflect the expectations and conventions of the target culture. The systematic neglect of input and output documentation in the surveyed studies suggests that, within this research context, there is a prevailing norm that prioritizes procedural efficiency and compliance with minimal standards over transparency and reflexivity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eIran\u0026rsquo;s documentation practice as a microcosm of other LMICs\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Iranian case reflects systemic challenges endemic to LMIC research ecosystems. While rooted in a specific national context, these findings resonate with Valdez et al.'s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) global analysis of translation disclosure rates, revealing structural inequities in methodological transparency across under-resourced settings. The study's most striking finding - that 66% of cultural adaptations went undocumented - mirrors Valdez et al.'s observation that Latin American researchers underreport linguistic and cultural modifications by 55\u0026ndash;70%. Both contexts demonstrate how LMIC researchers, despite making necessary adaptations such as adjusting individualistic constructs for collectivist Persian or Latin American norms, prioritize procedural compliance over explanatory transparency.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eResource limitations present a fundamental barrier, as evidenced by Iranian researchers' reliance on single forward translations (99%) and minimal harmonization (23%), which mirrors The TRAPD protocols standard in high-income countries, requiring teams of translators and cultural consultants, remain largely inaccessible in LMIC contexts. Institutional pressures compound these challenges, as researchers face competing demands to publish rapidly while minimizing costs. This dynamic incentivizes perfunctory documentation practices, such as noting back-translation completion (97%), over more rigorous but time-consuming methods like cognitive interviews (7.2%) or detailed adaptation rationales (11.8%). Similar trade-offs were observed in Valdez et al.'s review of African studies, where 73% prioritized statistical validation over process transparency.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePersonnel constraints are evident in the 74% of studies that failed to document reviewer credentials, a pattern mirrored in Moroccan oncology research where translators' qualifications were routinely omitted despite using modified Brislin methods. Quantitative bias emerges clearly in the prioritization of statistical measures (83.9% reporting Cronbach's alpha) over qualitative rigor (only 7.2% conducting cognitive interviews), a tendency also documented in Latin American studies where 68% favored statistical validity. Cultural marginalization manifests in the 66% of undocumented adaptations for Persian collectivism, comparable to WHO African surveys where 59% omitted adjustments for clan and family structures.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese findings suggest that documentation gaps follow predictable patterns across LMIC contexts, shaped by shared structural conditions. When European research teams allocate \u0026euro;15,000-\u0026euro;20,000 per language for comprehensive translation protocols, their LMIC counterparts - often working with budgets under \u0026euro;500 - must make pragmatic compromises to sustain their research programs. The proposed three-level framework offers a practical approach to addressing these challenges while respecting resource constraints. At the input level, it advocates for minimum viable documentation, including source instrument metadata and cultural briefing summaries, while maintaining more comprehensive TRAPD-style guidelines as an aspirational standard. This tiered approach aligns with cost-effective models like Barrera and Castro\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) adapted committee method, which achieved 60% cost reductions while maintaining quality standards.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMethodological training gaps further exacerbate these documentation challenges, as reflected in the complete absence of input-level documentation (0% briefing documents, 0% training materials). Without access to comprehensive training programs like the European Social Survey's TRAPD guidelines or adequate institutional support, LMIC researchers default to minimalist reporting practices, perpetuating Venuti\u0026rsquo;s \"translator invisibility\" on a systemic scale. These patterns confirm that documentation gaps represent not negligence but structural adaptations to LMIC realities, where researchers must navigate constrained resources while meeting academic productivity expectations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe findings illuminate significant documentation gaps in survey translation practices among Iranian researchers, revealing not only procedural shortcomings but also deeper theoretical implications for the field of translation studies. The gaps identified in this study are not merely technical\u0026mdash;they reflect unresolved tensions in translation theory, academic incentives, and cross-cultural power dynamics. The findings expose a critical tension between local pragmatism and global methodological expectations. This study transcends a regional case analysis to expose universal tensions in translation scholarship. The documentation gaps-rooted in norm conflicts between efficiency (Toury), ethics (Chesterman), and visibility (Venuti)- underscore the need for a paradigm shift. By reimagining documentation as both scholarly obligation and act of resistance, the field can elevate translators from invisible technicians to visible intellectuals, ensuring their cultural and intellectual labor shapes global standards in cross-cultural research. Top-tier translation related journals play a pivotal role here: by mandating transparency, they can transform documentation from bureaucratic chore to citational asset, aligning methodological rigor with ethical accountability.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSome limitations might reduce the generalizability of the findings. One key limitation lies in the study\u0026rsquo;s exclusive focus on English-language publications authored by Iranian researchers. This linguistic and regional restriction may inadvertently exclude valuable insights from Persian-language articles, theses, or research disseminated through local channels. Such a focus risks underrepresenting the full spectrum of survey translation practices within Iran, potentially biasing the findings toward those researchers who are already more attuned to international publication norms and expectations. Another limitation concerns the reliance on published articles as the primary data source. The observed documentation gaps may not always reflect actual methodological shortcomings; rather, they could be artifacts of journal space constraints, editorial policies, or prevailing norms that discourage detailed reporting of translation procedures. Researchers may, in fact, maintain comprehensive private records that never appear in the final published version, a discrepancy noted in both Iranian and broader LMIC contexts. To address this, future studies could adopt mixed-methods approaches, combining systematic literature reviews with qualitative interviews or surveys of researchers to disentangle reporting practices from actual translation processes. Additionally, the study\u0026rsquo;s methodology- while rigorous in its coding and analysis- does not formally test the equivalence or measurement invariance of translated instruments, nor does it systematically assess the impact of undocumented translation decisions on data quality. Future research could integrate psychometric analyses or experimental designs to evaluate how documentation practices influence measurement outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionList\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eCVI\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eContent Validity Index\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eCVR\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eContent Validity Ratio\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eEFA\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eExploratory Factor Analysis\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eCFA\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eConfirmatory Factor Analysis\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eICC\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIntraclass Correlation Coefficient\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eLMIC\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLow- and Middle-Income Countries\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eSPSS-22\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStatistical Package for Social Sciences\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eWHO\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eWorld Health Organization\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"DefinitionListEntry\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Term\"\u003eTRAPD\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"Description\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTranslation, Review, Adjudication, Pre-testing, and Documentation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable as the study did not entail human participation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsent for publication: All authors consented that the manuscript be published in the Journal of Peer Review and Research Integrity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAvailability of data and material: \u0026nbsp;The raw data table is available at Zenodo repository, https://zenodo.org/records/16779153?token=eyJhbGciOiJIUzUxMiJ9.eyJpZCI6IjM3OGQ2YzM4LWEyYTctNDU0MS1iNzY5\u003cbr\u003eLWEyZDcwZGQ0ZDM4MyIsImRhdGEiOnt9LCJyYW5kb20iOiJjMTYxYzFmZjM4MGNmMGFmZDBlYWY\u003cbr\u003eyMWJlYWQxM2M4NiJ9.c75A_MrLeCPQDdJ8fZ5ZfqxPgDUnfqshHrEgy4cniOqxdhYlfL1gcT7gOx_6npIIBGzp5W-AOsHjIG2NDO03RQ doi: 10.5281/zenodo.16779153\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCompeting interests: The authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFunding: This study received no funding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAuthors\u0026apos; contributions: All authors participated in the conceptualization, development of methodology, analysis, and final write-up. all the stages were conducted collaboratively.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcknowledgement: We appreciate the authors who provided us with their published articles.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAndrade, L., Borges, K., Raponi, M. B., Felix, M., Castro, S., \u0026amp; Barbosa, M. (2018). Translation methods of instruments to sign language: An evidence-based proposal. \u003cem\u003eTexto \u0026amp; Contexto - Enfermagem, 26\u003c/em\u003e(4), Article e20170022. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-07072017002210017\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBarrera, M., Jr., \u0026amp; Castro, F. G. (2006). A heuristic framework for the cultural adaptation of interventions. \u003cem\u003eClinical Psychology:\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eScience and Practice, 13\u003c/em\u003e(4), 311\u0026ndash;316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2850.2006.00043.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBeaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., \u0026amp; Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures\u003cem\u003e. Spine, 25\u003c/em\u003e(24), 3186\u0026ndash;3191. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBehr, D. (2023). \u003cem\u003eWhat to consider and look out for in survey translation\u003c/em\u003e. Mannheim, Germany: GESIS \u0026ndash; Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.15465/gesis-sg_en_043\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBehr, D., \u0026amp; Shishido, K. (2016). The translation of measurement instruments for cross-cultural surveys. In C. Wolf, D. Joye, T. W. Smith, \u0026amp; Y.-C. Fu (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eThe SAGE handbook of survey methodology \u003c/em\u003e(pp. 268\u0026ndash;286). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473957893.n19\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBehr, D., \u0026amp; Zabal, A. (2020). \u003cem\u003eDocumenting survey translation\u003c/em\u003e. Mannheim, Germany: GESIS \u0026ndash; Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBehr, D., Dept, S., \u0026amp; Krajčeva, E. (2019). Documenting the survey translation and monitoring process. In T. P. Johnson, B.-E. Pennell, I. Stoop, \u0026amp; B. Dorer (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eAdvances in comparative survey methods: Multinational, multiregional and multicultural contexts (3MC)\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 341\u0026ndash;356). John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBluemke, M., Partsch, M., Saucier, G., \u0026amp; Lechner, C. (2021). Human character in the IPIP: Towards shorter, more content-valid, and cross-culturally comparable IPIP-VIA character strength scales. \u003cem\u003ePsyArXiv.\u003c/em\u003e https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/k79qf\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J. Lonner \u0026amp; J. W. Berry (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eField methods in cross-cultural research\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 137\u0026ndash;164). Sage.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCatal\u0026aacute;-L\u0026oacute;pez, F., Ridao, M., Tejedor-Romero, L., Caulley, L., Hutton, B., Husereau, D., Alonso-Arroyo, A., Bernal-Delgado, E., Drummond, M., \u0026amp; Moher, D. (2023). Transparency, openness and reproducible research practices are frequently underused in health economic evaluations. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 165\u003c/em\u003e, Article 110024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.10.024\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChesterman, A. (2016). \u003cem\u003eMemes of translation: The spread of ideas in translation theory (Rev. ed.)\u003c/em\u003e. John Benjamins Publishing Company.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDanielsen, A. K., Pommergaard, H. C., Burcharth, J., Angenete, E., \u0026amp; Rosenberg, J. (2015). Translation of questionnaires measuring health related quality of life is not standardized: A literature-based research study. \u003cem\u003ePLOS ONE, 10\u003c/em\u003e(5), e0127050. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127050\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGuillemin, F., Bombardier, C., \u0026amp; Beaton, D. (1993). Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: Literature review and proposed guidelines. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46\u003c/em\u003e, 1417\u0026ndash;1432. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(93)90142-N\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHall, D. A., Zaragoza Domingo, S., Hamdache, L. Z., Manchaiah, V., Thammaiah, S., Evans, C., ... \u0026amp; International Collegium of Rehabilitative Audiology and TINnitus Research NETwork. (2018). A good practice guide for translating and adapting hearing-related questionnaires for different languages and cultures. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Audiology, 57\u003c/em\u003e(3), 161\u0026ndash;175. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2017.1393565\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarkness, J., \u0026amp; Schoua-Glusberg, A. (1998). Questionnaires in translation. In J. Harkness (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eCross-cultural survey equivalence\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 87\u0026ndash;126). Zentrum f\u0026uuml;r Umfragen, Methoden und Analysen-ZUMA.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarkness, J. (2003). Questionnaire translation. In J. Harkness, F. J. R. van de Vijver, \u0026amp; P. Ph. Mohler (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eCross-cultural survey methods\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 35\u0026ndash;56). Wiley.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eManeesriwongul, W., \u0026amp; Dixon, J. K. (2004). Instrument translation process: A methods review. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Advanced Nursing, 48\u003c/em\u003e(2), 175\u0026ndash;186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03185.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMohler, P., Pennell, B.-E., \u0026amp; Hubbard, F. (2008). Survey documentation: Towards professional knowledge management in sample surveys. In E. de Leeuw, J. Hox, \u0026amp; D. Dillman (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eInternational handbook of survey methodology\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 443\u0026ndash;460). Taylor \u0026amp; Francis.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMohler, P. P., Hansen, S. E., Pennell, B.-E., Thomas, W., Wackerow, J., \u0026amp; Hubbard, F. (2010). A survey process quality perspective on documentation. In J. A. Harkness, M. Braun, B. Edwards, T. P. Johnson, P. P. Mohler, ... \u0026amp; T. W. Smith (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eSurvey methods in multinational, multiregional, and multicultural contexts\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 299\u0026ndash;314). Wiley.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePeters, M., \u0026amp; Passchier, J. (2006). Translating instruments for cross-cultural studies in headache research. \u003cem\u003eHeadache, 46\u003c/em\u003e(1), 82\u0026ndash;91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-4610.2006.00298.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePym, A. (2024). Trade-offs in translation effects. \u003cem\u003eTarget\u003c/em\u003e. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.23010.pym\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSon, J. (2018). Back translation as a documentation tool. \u003cem\u003eTranslation and Interpretation, 10\u003c/em\u003e(2), 89\u0026ndash;100.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSousa, V. E. C., Matson, J., \u0026amp; Dunn Lopez, K. (2017). Questionnaire adapting: Little changes mean a lot. \u003cem\u003eWestern Journal of Nursing Research, 39\u003c/em\u003e(9), 1289\u0026ndash;1300. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945916678212\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSterie, A. C., \u0026amp; Bernard, M. (2019). Challenges in a six-phase process of questionnaire adaptation: Findings from the French translation of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale. \u003cem\u003eBMC Palliative Care, 18\u003c/em\u003e(1), Article 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-019-0422-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eToury, G. (1995). \u003cem\u003eDescriptive translation studies-and beyond. \u003c/em\u003eJohn Benjamins.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eValdez, D., Montenegro, M. S., Crawford, B. L., Turner, R. C., Lo, W. J., \u0026amp; Jozkowski, K. N. (2021). Translation frameworks and questionnaire design approaches as a component of health research and practice: A discussion and taxonomy of popular translation frameworks and questionnaire design approaches. \u003cem\u003eSocial Science \u0026amp; Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, 278, 113931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113931\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVenuti, L. (1995). \u003cem\u003eThe translator\u0026rsquo;s invisibility: A history of translation. \u003c/em\u003eRoutledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWild, D., Grove, A., Martin, M., Eremenco, S., McElroy, S., Verjee-Lorenz, A., \u0026amp; Erikson, P. (2005). Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: Report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. \u003cem\u003eValue in Health, 8\u003c/em\u003e(2), 94\u0026ndash;104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":true,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"research-integrity-and-peer-review","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"ripr","sideBox":"Learn more about [Research Integrity and Peer Review](http://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com)","snPcode":"41073","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/41073/3","title":"Research Integrity and Peer Review","twitterHandle":"@RIPRJournal","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"documentation practice, survey translation, research transparency, Iran","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7326457/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7326457/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study systematically investigates documentation gaps in survey translation within validation studies conducted by Iranian researchers, emphasizing the critical importance of transparency in cross-cultural instrument adaptation. Using Behr and Zabal\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e) three-level documentation framework, 644 eligible studies were analyzed to assess the completeness of reported translation procedures. The findings reveal a pronounced imbalance: while the translation process itself is frequently documented, both preparatory (input) and resultant (output) stages are largely neglected. This selective reporting obscures essential information about translation validity, undermining methodological rigor and the replicability of research. Extending the analysis through Chesterman\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) professional norms-accountability, communication, and relation-the study demonstrates that adherence to these norms is insufficient across all documentation levels. The results highlight several priorities for the field: the need for comprehensive documentation protocols, the integration of documentation practices into translator training, and the development of standardized templates that capture both formal and context-specific details. These documentation gaps not only risk marginalizing translators\u0026rsquo; intellectual contributions but also threaten the integrity of cross-cultural research. Importantly, the patterns observed in Iran echo systemic challenges faced in other low- and middle-income countries, indicating that improving documentation standards is a global imperative for advancing transparency, equity, and quality in translation research worldwide.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Lost in Documentation: Professional Norms and the Gaps in Survey Translation Transparency","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-08-21 08:12:42","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7326457/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Major revision","date":"2025-11-25T12:00:12+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"","date":"2025-08-21T13:20:15+00:00","index":0,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-08-13T12:18:10+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-08-12T10:29:01+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Research Integrity and Peer Review","date":"2025-08-11T13:35:44+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"research-integrity-and-peer-review","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"ripr","sideBox":"Learn more about [Research Integrity and Peer Review](http://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com)","snPcode":"41073","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/41073/3","title":"Research Integrity and Peer Review","twitterHandle":"@RIPRJournal","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"27d2c6ff-f2ad-4d99-ae90-5129ddf54a6c","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 21st, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-20T16:08:05+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-7326457","link":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00192-4","journal":{"identity":"research-integrity-and-peer-review","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Research Integrity and Peer Review"},"publishedOn":"2026-04-13 15:57:54","publishedOnDateReadable":"April 13th, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-08-21 08:12:42","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00192-4","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00192-4","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7326457","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7326457","identity":"rs-7326457","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}