Lost in documentation: professional norms and the gaps in survey translation transparency.

Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Search Log in Dashboard Publications Account settings Log out Search… Search NCBI Primary site navigation Search Logged in as: Dashboard Publications Account settings Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide PERMALINK Copy As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice Res Integr Peer Rev . 2026 Apr 13;11:8. doi: 10.1186/s41073-026-00192-4 Search in PMC Search in PubMed View in NLM Catalog Add to search Lost in documentation: professional norms and the gaps in survey translation transparency Marziyeh Sadeghzadeh Marziyeh Sadeghzadeh 1 Salman Farsi University of Kazerun, Kazerun, Fars Iran Find articles by Marziyeh Sadeghzadeh 1 , Nasimeh Nouhi Jadesi Nasimeh Nouhi Jadesi 1 Salman Farsi University of Kazerun, Kazerun, Fars Iran Find articles by Nasimeh Nouhi Jadesi 1, ✉ Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 Salman Farsi University of Kazerun, Kazerun, Fars Iran ✉ Corresponding author. Received 2025 Aug 11; Accepted 2026 Feb 6; Collection date 2026. © The Author(s) 2026 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ . PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13072526  PMID: 41968351 Abstract Introduction This study systematically investigates documentation gaps in survey translation within validation studies conducted by Iranian researchers, framing these gaps as a critical, yet overlooked, research integrity concern. Transparent reporting is foundational not only for methodological rigor but for enabling meaningful peer review and trust in cross-cultural findings. Methods Using a comprehensive framework that assesses documentation across three phases (input, translation process, and output), we analyzed the completeness of reported translation procedures. We further evaluated these practices against established professional standards for translation- specifically, the norms of accountability, communication, and fidelity- which align with core research integrity principles. Results The findings reveal a pronounced and systemic imbalance: while the translation process itself is frequently documented, both preparatory (input) and resultant (output) stages are largely neglected. This selective reporting constitutes a significant transparency deficit, obscuring essential information about translation validity and severely compromising the methodological scrutiny central to peer review . Discussion and conclusion The results directly inform interventions to bolster research integrity , as neglecting thorough documentation creates an unrecoverable information gap for peer reviewers. This prevents proper evaluation of translation validity- a core methodological checkpoint . Therefore, the proposed priorities (e.g., mandatory reporting templates for input briefs and output decisions) are targeted interventions to make the translation process auditable . These gaps systematically exclude evidence of translators' intellectual labor and cultural mediation, eroding the transparency necessary for reproducing or trusting cross-cultural findings . The consistent pattern in Iran, mirroring LMIC (Low- and Middle-Income Country) challenges, confirms that standardizing documentation is a prerequisite for equitable peer review , ensuring that the methodological foundations of cross-cultural research, specifically translation validity, are rendered auditable and subject to effective peer review- a core safeguard of research integrity. Keywords: Documentation practice, Survey translation, Research transparency, Iran, Research integrity, Peer review Introduction Research journals are increasingly promoting scholarly practices that emphasize transparency, openness , and reproducibility, which are expected to enhance both the efficiency and credibility of published research [ 12 ]. These practices form the foundation of research integrity, enabling informed peer review and ensuring that published findings are trustworthy and transparent. One often overlooked aspect of methodological rigor is the translation process of research instruments into a different language, culture, and context. 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. Moreover, it is important to recognize that the ramifications of inadequate translation and cultural adaptation extend well beyond the study that first develops the instrument. When other researchers adopt previously translated and validated questionnaires, any flaws in that initial translation are carried forward into later work- a process identified by Heggestad et al. [ 17 ] as a “cascading effect”. A fundamentally flawed translation, therefore, compromises the integrity of all subsequent data, irrespective of how strong the instrument’s reported statistical characteristics may seem, because it can be argued that participants were not actually responding to the questions originally posed. Moreover, the imperative for transparency in survey translation is especially urgent in global health and social research concerning the Middle East, a region of pivotal importance yet often underrepresented in the initial development of measurement tools. For nations like Iran, where high-quality research depends primarily on instruments translated from English or other dominant languages, the integrity of the entire local knowledge base hinges on this foundational step. Failures in translation do not merely introduce local error; they systematically compromise the regional evidence, with direct consequences for policy, practice, and scientific understanding. Critically, this means that the reliability of data informing key regional health priorities, from disease burdens to mental health interventions, is fundamentally contingent upon the transparency and rigor of the translation process. 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 the survey translation process [ 4 , 5 , 21 ]. Behr and Zabal [ 6 ] 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; hence, creating a critical, identifiable point of intervention for peer review. By requiring and evaluating comprehensive translation documentation, reviewers can ensure that only methodologically sound instruments enter the scholarly literature. For documentation to be truly effective, Mohler et al. [ 20 ] emphasize that it must meet three key criteria: adequacy, precision, and detail, while remaining economical in its execution. Additionally, Behr et al. [ 7 ] underscore the importance of ensuring such documentation is easily accessible and available for cross-referencing in future research applications. Consequently, this study posits that inadequate translation documentation constitutes a critical failure in the accountability chain of research . It creates a systemic vulnerability where peer review, the primary guarantor of published research integrity, is disarmed at a fundamental methodological checkpoint. Behr and Zabal [ 6 ] 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 [ 6 ] 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 Open in a new tab Valdez et al. [ 31 ], 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 [ 6 ], thereby offering a nuanced examination of current practices in this specific academic context. Moreover, the three-level documentation framework [ 6 ] aligns closely with Chesterman’s [ 14 ] 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. Existing frameworks provide a taxonomy for documentation, but the literature rarely investigates what the absence of this documentation signifies. This gap obscures a core integrity concern: the auditability of research. By systematically mapping reported practices against these frameworks, this study exposes a critical, often invisible flaw. This flaw undermines peer reviewers' ability to assess validity. This directly compromises the internal validity that peer review seeks to verify and, on a systemic level , undermines the collective trust in cross-cultural evidence. Hence, this study is guided by the following research questions, structured according to Behr and Zabal's [ 6 ] three-level documentation framework and Chesterman’s [ 14 ] professional translation norms: To what extent have survey validation studies by Iranian researchers documented: Input-level factors (source materials, preparatory work)? Process-level factors (procedural steps, quality controls)? Output-level factors (final instruments, validation records)? How do the observed documentation patterns reflect: Adherence to/violation of professional translation norms (accountability, communication, relation)? 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 professional research integrity. 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 Bluemke [ 9 ] 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, with a focus on the relevance to research integrity and peer review. 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 [ 19 ] 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. [ 1 ] 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 [ 22 ] 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 the current translation methods used in the field but also established clear practice recommendations. 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. [ 31 ] 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 recommended adopting approaches that prioritize maximal cultural input, ideally through collaboration with diverse teams that include cultural, linguistic, and subject-matter experts. This call for disclosure highlights that transparent translation documentation is not merely a technical detail but a prerequisite for the critical appraisal and replication of research- core functions of the peer-review system. Adopting a distinct perspective, Son [ 25 ] 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). Son's [ 25 ] reconceptualization of back-translation as a documentation tool valuably shifts its purpose from validation to transparency. This reframing provides the rationale that peer reviewers need to assess the validity of adaptations, rather than accepting them as opaque deviations. 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 [ 14 ] professional translation norms, this research moves beyond descriptive reporting to reveal how systemic documentation failures undermine transparency and create an unreviewable methodological black box, reflecting 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. Although the reviewed literature establishes the importance of methodology and identifies specific reporting gaps, it predominantly frames translation documentation as a matter of technical best practice. A critical synthesis reveals a significant gap: few studies explicitly position these documentation failures as a fundamental breach of research integrity that systematically undermines the peer-review process. The present study addresses this gap by analyzing documentation practices not merely as technical omissions, but as failures in accountability and transparency that compromise the evaluability and trustworthiness of published research. Moreover, few studies examine how these documentation failures specifically compromise the evidence base in high-stakes, under-represented regions like the Middle East, where reliance on translated instruments is pervasive. In addition, while existing scholarship has addressed documentation in general, there is a paucity of systematic analysis focused on how these practices function -or fail- within specific high-stakes regional contexts like the Middle East. Understanding the state of translation documentation in such settings is not only a matter of methodological interest but a core research integrity issue, as it determines the reliability of data that inform regional and global health priorities. Methods This study conducts a systematic audit of transparency in survey translation documentation by applying the Behr and Zabal [ 6 ] framework to a corpus of published literature. 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" and “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 644, meeting all inclusion criteria. The inclusion criterion specifying peer-reviewed journals functioned as a quality filter to exclude predatory publications. This was operationalized by including only studies published by established academic publishers (e.g., those listed in Table 2 ) or in recognized national journals, all of which employ formal editorial and peer-review procedures. Table 2. A representation of field and journal type of the studies included in the dataset Field Percentage out of 644 Number Medicine 50.6% 326 Non-medicine 49.4 318 Publishers and Journals 1. Iranian Journals published in English 28% 180 2. BMC journals 12% 78 3. Springer journals 12% 78 4. Elsevier journals 10% 64 5 Wiley journals 6% 39 6. Tylor and Francis journals 5% 32 7. Brieflands journals 4% 26 8. Frontiers Media journals 3% 19 9. Sage journals 3% 19 10. Routledge 3% 19 11. Dove Press journals 2% 13 12. Oxford University Press journals 1% 6 13. other 11% 71 Open in a new tab 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 [ 6 ] 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 [ 6 ] 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 [ 14 ] translation professional norms. To operationalize Chesterman's [ 14 ] 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) This normative analysis allows us to evaluate the ethical and communicative sufficiency of the documentation provided- that is, whether it furnishes peer reviewers and readers with the necessary information to judge the translation's credibility and the researchers' accountability. 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. Before independent coding, the researchers conducted a calibration exercise to ensure a shared understanding of the coding framework. This involved both researchers independently applying the draft coding scheme to a pilot sample of 20 articles, followed by a structured meeting to compare coding decisions, discuss interpretive discrepancies, and refine category definitions. This process ensured consistency before the researchers proceeded to code the main dataset independently. Following this calibration phase and through iterative consensus-building sessions, the research team compared coded data and resolved discrepancies. To ensure inter-coder reliability, a subset of 20% ( n = 128) 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 the Social 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 a diverse range of academic disciplines, with medicine predominating (50.6% of the studies, n = 326). The remaining 49% ( n = 318) spanned psychology, psychiatry, education, management, and related fields. Regarding publication venues, 28% ( n = 180) appeared in Iranian journals publishing in English, while the majority (72%, n = 464) were published in international journals, as demonstrated in Fig. 1 . Fig. 1. Open in a new tab Prisma chart demonstrating study selection Results This study systematically examined the documentation practices of survey translation processes in validation studies published by Iranian researchers, utilizing Behr and Zabal's [ 6 ] 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 . Fig. 2. Open in a new tab A representation of the percentage of translation validation studies across 2000–2023 in the dataset ( n = 644) 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 [ 14 ]. 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 [ 6 ] 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% ( n = 268) of researchers employed established translation guidelines, adhering to their systematic procedures. This moderate adoption rate suggests that approximately half of Iranian scholars reviewed for this study ( n = 322) approach survey translation with the methodological rigor it requires. In contrast, others may overlook the importance of standardized protocols in cross-cultural adaptation. The current findings align with Danielsen et al. [ 15 ], who reported a comparable guideline implementation rate of 36.8%. Table 3. The percentage of survey translation guideline types used by Iranian researchers Guideline Percentage (out of 644) Number N = 644 No guideline 53.5% 345 A specified guideline 41.7% 268 1. Beaton et al. [ 3 ] 11% 716 2. WHO 9% 58 3. Wild et al. [ 34 ] 5% 32 4. Guillemin et al. [ 16 ] 4% 26 5. International Quality of Life Assessment 3% 19 6. Bullinger et al. [ 11 ] 3% 19 7. Brislin [ 10 ] 3% 19 8. International Test Communication (ITC) 0.8% 5 9. Chen et al. [ 13 ] 0.5% 3 10. Ware & Gandek [ 33 ] 0.5% 3 11. Polit & Yang [ 23 ] 0.5% 3 12. Jones et al. [ 18 ] 0.5% 3 13. Sousa & Rojjanasrirat [ 26 ] 0.3% 2 14. The MAPI linguistic validation process 0.3% 2 15. Tsang et al. [ 30 ] 0.3% 2 A combination of two or more 4.8% 31 Open in a new tab Among Iranian researchers utilizing translation guidelines, certain frameworks emerged as particularly prominent: Beaton et al.'s [ 3 ] methodology appeared most frequently (11%, n = 71), followed by WHO (World Health Organization) guidelines (9%, n = 58), Wild et al.'s [ 34 ] approach (5%, n = 32), and Guillemin et al.'s [ 16 ] protocol (4%, n = 26). 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. 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 [ 6 ]. 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%, n = 644). 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 [ 6 ]: 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%, n = 638) 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% ( n = 170) 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% ( n = 148) 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%, n = 540), correlation analysis (51.6%, n = 332), confirmatory factor analysis (50%, n = 322), content validity indices (25.5%, n = 164), intra-class correlation (26.2%, n = 169), and exploratory factor analysis (33.1%, n = 213). 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%, n = 638) and Cronbach's alpha (83.9%, n = 540) closely aligns with Danielsen et al.'s [ 15 ] 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 revealed different patterns of implementation, including pilot testing (38.4%, n = 247), face validity assessment (27.7%, n = 178), cognitive debriefing interviews (7.2%, n = 46), and introspective debriefing interviews (0.6%, n = 4). The notably low adoption of interview-based methods suggests 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% ( n = 341) 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%, n = 46) and introspective debriefing interviews (0.6%, n = 4) may reflect insufficient awareness of these techniques among Iranian researchers. As Sousa, Matson, and Lopez [ 27 ] 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% ( n = 225) of researchers simply sought permission to translate the instrument (as recommended by certain guidelines), while a smaller subset (12%, n = 77) 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% ( n = 174) of studies documented the individuals involved in the translation process, while 26% ( n = 167) 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%, n = 470) or reviewers (74% = 477). This suggests room for improvement in documenting personnel to ensure methodological transparency in survey translation studies. Documentation of “output” level Behr and Zabal [ 6 ] 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% ( n = 76) 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. [ 8 ] and Behr and Shishido [ 5 ]: 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% ( n = 425) 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% ( n = 169) 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% ( n = 62). 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%, n = 76), suggests researchers may view such information as unimportant for methodological reporting. However, as Sterie and Bernard [ 28 ] 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 [ 6 ] 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 The findings of this analysis reveal systematic gaps in translation documentation that have direct consequences for research integrity and the peer review process . Answering our initial 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 [ 6 ] 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 ( out of 644 articles) Input Briefing document 0% of the articles Guidelines 53% of the articles ( n = 341) 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 ( n = 644) Source/target culture 0% of the articles Material/workload 0% of the articles Steps Translation Single translation 99% of the articles ( n = 638) Double translation 1% of the articles ( n = 6) Split translation 0% of the articles Review 27% of the articles ( n = 174) Harmonization 23% of the articles ( n = 148) Pretesting Quantitative 100% = use of at least one quantitative method reported Content validity (CVI or CVR) 25/2% of the articles ( n = 162) Cronbach’s alpha 83.9% of the articles ( n = 540) Correlation with other questionnaires 51,6% of the articles ( n = 332) Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 26.2% of the articles ( n = 169) Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) 33.1% of the articles ( n = 213) Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) 50% of the articles ( n = 322) Test–retest 21% of the articles ( n = 135) Qualitative 56.% documented at least one qualitative method Pilot 38.4% of the articles ( n = 247) Face validity 27.7% of the articles ( n = 178) Cognitive debriefing interview 7.2% of the articles ( n = 46) Introspective debriefing interview 0.6% of the articles ( n = 4) Other quality control Back translation 97% of the articles ( n = 625) Interaction with the questionnaire developer(s) Seeking Permission from questionnaire developer(s) 35% of the articles ( n = 225) Seeking approval from questionnaire developer(s) 12% of the articles ( n = 77) Persons Translation personnel 27% of the articles ( n = 174) Review personnel 26% of the articles ( n = 167) 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 ( n = 425) Measurement adaptation 24.3% of the adaptations ( n = 156) Construct adaptation 9.7% of the adaptations ( n = 62) Changes to existing translation Not applicable Open in a new tab The findings suggest that the omission of the input and output stages remains entirely hidden from view, removed from peer or reader assessment. This pattern effectively reduces the peer reviewer's window into the research process to the “translation” column alone, asking them to validate an outcome without sight of its inputs or output details. 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 [ 14 ]. Table 5 presents a norm-based reinterpretation of the above findings, aligning each level of documentation with Chesterman's three norms. Table 5. Survey translation documentation analyzed through Chesterman’s [ 14 ] 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 ✗ Open in a new tab (✓ = 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%, n = 268) further compounds this issue. While WHO and Beaton et al. [ 3 ] 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 [ 31 ] 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% ( n = 625) of studies) but neglected qualitative rigor. While quantitative validation metrics like Cronbach’s alpha (83.9%, n = 540) and confirmatory factor analysis (50%, n = 322) dominated reporting, qualitative methods such as cognitive interviews (7.2%, n = 46) were severely underutilized. This reflects a disciplinary bias toward statistical legitimacy-a pattern observed in LMIC (Low- and Middle-Income Countries) contexts [ 15 ]-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%, n = 174) obscure how linguistic and cultural conflicts were negotiated. The reliance on single forward translations (99%, n = 638)-despite evidence that team-based approaches reduce error rates [ 5 ]-suggests institutional pressures to prioritize efficiency over best practices. While this aligns with Toury’s [ 29 ] 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 [ 25 ]. 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 [ 24 ] "value trade-offs," where institutional pressures for rapid publication clash with methodological rigor. While Iranian researchers’ reliance on single forward translations (99%, n = 638) and back-translation (97%, n = 625) 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% ( n = 592) 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% ( n = 425) 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 [ 32 ] 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 [ 28 ] note, undocumented challenges, such as untranslatable idioms or ambiguities in response scales, 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. This omission represents more than a neglect of the 'relation norm'; it actively withholds from peer reviewers and future users the contextual data needed to assess the robustness of the translation and the potential for bias, thereby making a full evaluation of the study's methodological soundness impossible. When viewed through the lens of Venuti’s [ 32 ] 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 [ 29 ] 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. The findings resonate with Valdez et al.'s [ 31 ] global analysis of translation disclosure rates, revealing structural inequities in methodological transparency across under-resourced settings. The study's most striking finding- that 66% ( n = 425) 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%, n = 638) and minimal harmonization (23%, n = 148), which mirrors the TRAPD protocols standard in high-income countries, requiring teams of translators and cultural consultants, and remains 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%, n = 625), over more rigorous but time-consuming methods like cognitive interviews (7.2%, n = 46) or detailed adaptation rationales (11.8%, n = 76). 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 74% ( n = 477) 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% ( n = 540) reporting Cronbach's alpha) over qualitative rigor (only 7.2% ( n = 46) conducting cognitive interviews), a tendency also documented in Latin American studies, where 68% ( n = 438) favored statistical validity. Cultural marginalization manifests in the 66% ( n = 425) of undocumented adaptations to Persian collectivism, comparable to the 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 [ 2 ] adapted committee method, which achieved 60% cost reductions while maintaining quality standards. Besides, the pressure to publish in international journals without the resources for rigorous documentation creates a systemic vulnerability, where studies may pass peer review based on statistical results alone, while the foundational, culturally-sensitive work of translation remains unaudited and unscrutinized- a significant gap in the integrity infrastructure of global research. These constraints do not merely create practical difficulties; they force a trade-off where the integrity-enhancing aspects of documentation are sacrificed to meet the basic imperative of publication. The justification for this lack of thorough documentation can be mainly traced to Iran's research ecosystem. The prevailing tradition is that the translation phase is often perceived not as a critical, documentable methodological process but as a simple technical task, reducing it to an act of linguistic substitution rather than a series of deliberate, reportable cross-cultural negotiations. Consequently, the genre-specific demands of survey translation- which require transparent documentation of conceptual adaptations, cultural rationales, and decision pathways- are neither understood nor prioritized. This deficit is reinforced within Iranian academic training programs, where theses supervisors and curricula frequently take the translation phase of questionnaire validation studies for granted, suggesting a lack of expertise in translation methodology. Instruction overwhelmingly focuses on quantitative validation metrics (reliability, factor analysis) as proxies for rigor, while neglecting to teach documentation as the essential practice that makes the translation process auditable, reproducible, and transparent. This creates a cycle in which researchers are trained to verify an instrument statistically but not to expose its developmental logic. Our findings- extensive quantitative reporting alongside absent input and output documentation- are a direct manifestation of these embedded features of the local research culture. Moreover, journal editors and reviewers have not been sensitized to the necessity of documenting all phases of research instrument translation. Without access to comprehensive training programs like the European Social Survey's TRAPD guidelines or adequate institutional support, the 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. Moreover, these ecosystem pressures have disproportionate consequences for fields like global health. When researchers in Iran translate a mental health or quality-of-life instrument without documenting critical phases, the resulting data, which may inform regional health assessments and resource allocation, are built on obscured methodological foundations. This creates an integrity gap at the source, one that peer reviewers and systematic reviewers outside the linguistic context are ill-equipped to identify, potentially leading to evidence-based policies and practices derived from flawed instruments. Building on this analysis, it is important to recognize that the Iranian context is not a limitation but a strategically insightful one. The high reliance on translated instruments for a major yet globally minoritized language like Persian creates a context where the pressures, compromises, and resultant documentation gaps inherent in cross-cultural research are brought into sharp relief. The systemic patterns observed here are therefore highly instructive for understanding the broader integrity challenges faced whenever research crosses dominant linguistic boundaries. 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. Finally, building on this foundational cross-disciplinary analysis, a valuable next step for future studies would be to employ a comparative approach to determine if documentation practices and transparency levels differ significantly between fields (e.g., clinical medicine versus social sciences) or across different instrument formats (e.g., Likert-type scales versus qualitative interview protocols). Identifying such disciplinary nuances would allow for more targeted research integrity interventions and the development of field-specific reporting guidelines. Conclusion This study systematically mapped survey translation documentation practices across Iranian validation studies. The findings demonstrate a consistent and systematic pattern: while procedural aspects of translation are frequently reported, critical documentation of preparatory (input) and evaluative (output) phases is largely absent. This selective reporting creates a significant transparency deficit. It limits the information available for peer reviewers to assess methodological validity and undermines the reproducibility of cross-cultural research. The identified gaps are not isolated; their prevalence suggests they are an embedded feature of the current research practice in this context. These results highlight that comprehensive documentation is a fundamental component of methodological rigor, not an optional detail. Ensuring transparent reporting of all translation phases is therefore crucial for enabling meaningful peer review and for fostering equitable scholarly standards, particularly for research from linguistically marginalized contexts that heavily rely on translated instruments. Acknowledgements We appreciate the authors who provided us with their published articles. 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 Authors’ contributions All authors participated in the conceptualization, development of methodology, analysis, and final write-up. all the stages were conducted collaboratively. Funding This study received no funding. Data availability The raw data table is available at Zenodo repository, https://zenodo.org/records/16779153?token=eyJhbGciOiJIUzUxMiJ9.eyJpZCI6IjM3OGQ2YzM4LWEyYTctNDU0MS1iNzY5LWEyZDcwZGQ0ZDM4MyIsImRhdGEiOnt9LCJyYW5kb20iOiJjMTYxYzFmZjM4MGNmMGFmZDBlYWYyMWJlYWQxM2M4NiJ9.c75A_MrLeCPQDdJ8fZ5ZfqxPgDUnfqshHrEgy4cniOqxdhYlfL1gcT7gOx_6npIIBGzp5W-AOsHjIG2NDO03RQ 10.5281/zenodo.16779153. 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. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Footnotes Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. References 1. Andrade L, Borges K, Raponi MB, Felix M, Castro S, Barbosa M. Translation methods of instruments to sign language: an evidence-based proposal. Texto Contexto Enferm. 2018;26(4):e20170022. 10.1590/0104-07072017002210017. [ Google Scholar ] 2. Barrera Jr. M, Castro FG. A heuristic framework for the cultural adaptation of interventions. Clin Psychol Sci Pract. 2006;13(4):311–6. 10.1111/j.1468-2850.2006.00043.x. 3. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. <article-title update="added">Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures: Spine. 2000;25(24):3186–91. 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 4. Behr D. What to consider and look out for in survey translation. Mannheim, Germany: GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences. 2023. 10.15465/gesis-sg_en_043. 5. Behr D, Shishido K. The translation of measurement instruments for cross-cultural surveys. In: Wolf C, Joye D, Smith TW, Fu Y-C, editors. The SAGE handbook of survey methodology. Sage Publications; 2016. pp. 268–86. 10.4135/9781473957893.n19. 6. Behr D, Zabal A. Documenting survey translation. Mannheim, Germany: GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences. 2020. 7. Behr D, Dept S, Krajčeva E. Documenting the survey translation and monitoring process. In: Johnson TP, Pennell B-E, Stoop I, Dorer B, editors. Advances in comparative survey methods: Multinational, multiregional and multicultural contexts (3MC). John Wiley & Sons; 2019. p. 341–56. [ Google Scholar ] 8. Bluemke M, Partsch M, Saucier G, Lechner C. Human character in the IPIP: Towards shorter, more content-valid, and cross-culturally comparable IPIP-VIA character strength scales. PsyArXiv. 2021. 10.31234/osf.io/k79qf. 9. Bluemke M, Partsch MV, Saucier G, Lechner CM. TRAPD Approach (IPIP-VIA-R) [Public Info]. 2021. Retrieved from osf.io/yz87n. 10. Brislin RW. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. J Cross-Cult Psychol. 1970;1(3):185–216. 11. Bullinger M, Alonso J, Apolone G, Leplège A, Sullivan M, Wood-Dauphinee S, Fukuhara S. Translating health status questionnaires and evaluating their quality: The IQOLA project approach. J clin epidemiol. 1998;51:913–23. Retrieved from http://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(98)00082-1/pdf . [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] 12. Catalá-López F, Ridao M, Tejedor-Romero L, Caulley L, Hutton B, Husereau D, et al. Transparency, openness and reproducible research practices are frequently underused in health economic evaluations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023;165:110024. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.10.024. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 13. Chen HY, Boore JR. Translation and back-translation in qualitative nursing research: methodological review. J clin nurs. 2010;19(1-2):234–9. 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.02896.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] 14. Chesterman A. Memes of translation: The spread of ideas in translation theory. In: Rev. ed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company; 2016. 15. Danielsen AK, Pommergaard HC, Burcharth J, Angenete E, Rosenberg J. Translation of questionnaires measuring health related quality of life is not standardized: a literature based research study. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):e0127050. 10.1371/journal.pone.0127050. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 16. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46:1417–32. 10.1016/0895-4356(93)90142-N. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 17. Heggestad ED, Scheaf DJ, Banks GC, Monroe Hausfeld M, Tonidandel S, Williams EB. Scale adaptation in organizational science research: a review and best-practice recommendations. J Manage. 2019;45(6):2596–627. 10.1177/0149206319850280. [ Google Scholar ] 18. Jones PS, Lee JW, Phillips LR, Zhang XE, Jaceldo KB. An adaptation of Brislin's translation model for cross-cultural research. Nurs res. 2001;50(5):300–4. 10.1097/00006199-200109000-00008. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] 19. Maneesriwongul W, Dixon JK. Instrument translation process: a methods review. J Adv Nurs. 2004;48(2):175–86. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03185.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 20. Mohler P, Pennell B-E, Hubbard F. Survey documentation: Towards professional knowledge management in sample surveys. In: de Leeuw E, Hox J, Dillman D, editors. International handbook of survey methodology. Taylor & Francis; 2008. p. 443–60. [ Google Scholar ] 21. Mohler PP, Hansen SE, Pennell BE, Thomas W, Wackerow J, Hubbard F. A survey process quality perspective on documentation. In: Harkness JA, Braun M, Edwards B, Johnson TP, Mohler PP, Smith TW, editors. Survey methods in multinational, multiregional, and multicultural contexts. New Jersey: Wiley; 2010. pp. 299–314. 22. Peters M, Passchier J. Translating instruments for cross-cultural studies in headache research. Headache. 2006;46(1):82–91. 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2006.00298.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 23. Polit DF, Yang FM. Measurement and the measurement of change: A primer for the health professions. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer; 2016. 24. Pym A. Trade-offs in translation effects. Target International Journal of Translation Studies. 2024. 10.1075/target.23010.pym. [ Google Scholar ] 25. Son J. Back translation as a documentation tool. Transl Interpre. 2018;10(2):89–100. [ Google Scholar ] 26. Sousa VD, Rojjanasrirat W. Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: a clear and user-friendly guideline. J eval clin pract. 2011;17(2):268–74. 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] 27. Sousa VEC, Matson J, Dunn Lopez K. Questionnaire adapting: little changes mean a lot. West J Nurs Res. 2017;39(9):1289–300. 10.1177/0193945916678212. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 28. Sterie AC, Bernard M. Challenges in a six-phase process of questionnaire adaptation: findings from the French translation of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale. BMC Palliat Care. 2019;18(1):38. 10.1186/s12904-019-0422-9. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 29. Toury G. Descriptive translation studies-and beyond. John Benjamins; 1995. [ Google Scholar ] 30. Tsang S, Royse CF, Terkawi AS. Guidelines for developing, translating, and validating a questionnaire in perioperative and pain medicine. Saudi j anesth. 2017;11(Suppl 1):S80–9. 10.4103/sja.SJA_203_17. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] 31. Valdez D, Montenegro MS, Crawford BL, Turner RC, Lo WJ, Jozkowski KN. 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. Soc Sci Med. 2021;278:113931. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113931. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 32. Venuti L. The translator’s invisibility: a history of translation. Routledge; 1995. [ Google Scholar ] 33. Ware JE Jr, Gandek B. Overview of the SF-36 Health Survey and the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project. J clin epidemiol. 1998;51(11):903–12. 10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00081-x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] 34. Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A, et al. 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 Health. 2005;8(2):94–104. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. Data Availability Statement The raw data table is available at Zenodo repository, https://zenodo.org/records/16779153?token=eyJhbGciOiJIUzUxMiJ9.eyJpZCI6IjM3OGQ2YzM4LWEyYTctNDU0MS1iNzY5LWEyZDcwZGQ0ZDM4MyIsImRhdGEiOnt9LCJyYW5kb20iOiJjMTYxYzFmZjM4MGNmMGFmZDBlYWYyMWJlYWQxM2M4NiJ9.c75A_MrLeCPQDdJ8fZ5ZfqxPgDUnfqshHrEgy4cniOqxdhYlfL1gcT7gOx_6npIIBGzp5W-AOsHjIG2NDO03RQ 10.5281/zenodo.16779153. Articles from Research Integrity and Peer Review are provided here courtesy of BMC ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (1.2 MB) Cite Collections Permalink PERMALINK Copy RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Cite Copy Download .nbib .nbib Format: AMA APA MLA NLM Add to Collections Create a new collection Add to an existing collection Name your collection * Choose a collection Unable to load your collection due to an error Please try again Add Cancel Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top