Skip to main content

Challenges and solutions for the promotion of medical sciences faculty members in Iran: a systematic review



The faculty promotion system is expected to benefit the faculty, institute, and profession and lead to the sustainable and comprehensive development. This present systematic review aims to investigate the challenges and solutions for the promotion of medical sciences faculty members in Iran.


This study was a systematic review conducted by searching in PubMed, Scopus, Eric, Web of Science, Cochrane, SID, Magiran, and with Persian and English terms in the period from 2015 to 2020. Study selection and data extraction were performed independently by reviewers.


Thirteen articles were included. Challenges and solutions for the promotion of medical sciences faculty members were reviewed and grouped into five main categories: 1. The general regulations for the promotion of faculty members, 2. Cultural, disciplinary, and social activities, 3. Educational activities, 4. Research-technology activities, and 5. Scientific-executive activities.


Despite several modifications to regulations for the promotion of medical sciences faculty members in Iran, this process still encounters challenges because of its complex nature. This article provides tips to policymakers on regulations of promotion for educational activities.

Peer Review reports


As an educational center, a medical sciences university needs committed human resources with special skills and knowledge to achieve its goals. One of the main components of any medical sciences university are faculty who are responsible for training students [1]. Therefore, recruiting and employing capable faculty members, motivating them, and promoting their professional lives are vital to enhance the efficiency of medical education institutions [2]. The regulations for faculty members promotion in medical universities play a substantial role in leading the faculty’s activities and directing policy-making for higher education [3]. The promotion system is one of the most important aspects which affecting the performance of each faculty at the medical universities [4]. These regulations should aim at guiding the faculty for sustainable and comprehensive development [5]. Successful promotion benefits the faculty, institute, and profession [6, 7]. In fact, there is a critical connection between academic development and academic promotion [8].

In different countries, some studies have been conducted on faculty member promotion criteria, structure, and processes. Gardner et al. (2013) discovered issues of time, lack of clarity, and gender disparity concerning faculty members who promoted to full professor rank [9]. Eckhaus et al. (2019) revealed that the faculty found an association that causes harm to their promotion processes as a result of student evaluations [10]. Despite the important role of the academic promotion, evidence show various obstacles to promotion for faculty.

In this way, some of the results showed that the process of faculty promotion in Iran is a stressful process [11]. However, these studies have mainly considered the evaluation and the promotion of faculty members without especially identifying challenges nor providing solutions. So, due to the ambiguities and complexities surrounding faculty member promotion, there is a need to conduct a comprehensive study to look into the various aspects of this issue in more detail. To our knowledge, no systematic review has been published in the regard of challenges and solutions for the promotion of medical sciences faculty members in Iran.

Since policymakers of higher education seek evidence to improve the individual and collective capacities of the higher education institutions, informing their future planning, and considering best possible resources to reinforce or modify the subsequent educational process, these results will capable of capturing the complexities of promotion of medical sciences faculty members. In this regard, the purpose of this systematic research was to investigate the challenges and solutions for the promotion of medical sciences faculty members in Iran.


This was a systematic review exploring the challenges and solutions for the promotion of medical sciences faculty members in Iran. The researchers assessed all the findings related to the criteria required for evaluating faculty member tasks including cultural, social, educational, research-technology, and scientific-executive activities. This study was performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement to ensure the high quality and answer some questions about the challenges in faculty member promotion regulations and provide appropriate solutions [12]. This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Kerman University of Medical Sciences (No. IR.KMU.REC.1400.642).

I. Search strategy

A preliminary list of terms was compiled after an initial review of relevant studies and consultation with experts. A rapid search was carried out using the preliminary list of terms. Then, by reviewing the titles and abstracts of the articles retrieved in the rapid search, the list of terms was finalized, and the SPIDER table was produced (Table 1).

Table 1 SPIDER search strategy

The search was conducted throughout 2015 to 2020. We performed the search in this period of time because the current regulations which is now using for the promotion of the medical sciences faculty members in Iran was updated since 2015. The search was done in PubMed, Scopus, Eric, Web of Science, Cochrane, SID, Magiran, and Also, the websites of journals interested in medical sciences education, including Medical Education Journal, Strides in Development of Medical Education Journal, Hakim Research Journal, Payesh Quarterly, Journal of Health Management and Teb va Tazkiye Quarterly, were also searched. Google Scholar was also involved for more comprehensiveness. A manual search was performed using Backward and Forward Reference Searching to further complete the search strategy. The references of the included articles were reviewed through backward tracing to access the most relevant articles published in previous years, while forward tracing was useful to retrieve articles included in the study. Experts were consulted and the publications on the relevant websites were searched to find out gray literature.

II. Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Studies whose purposes were in line with the research question and were published in Persian or English were included. Studies which described the faculty promotion regulations for non-medical sciences universities were excluded.

III. Quality assessment of the studies

We used the BEME checklist [13], including of 11 indicators, to assess the quality of studies. Each indicator was rated as “met,” “unmet,” or “unclear.” In order to be deemed of high quality, articles should meet at least seven indicators. The quality of the full text of potentially relevant articles was assessed by one author and checked by the second author (MS and MM). Disagreements were fixed through discussion. No study was removed based on the results of quality assessment.

IV. Data analysis

After removing the duplicates, each study potentially meeting the inclusion criteria was independently screened by the two authors (MS and MM). The most related titles were selected, then, the extracted articles were screened for their abstracts. In case of relevance, the full texts were investigated. The full texts of articles were reviewed and coded simultaneously by two researchers, then, they were entered into the MAXQDA 10.2 software. Coding has been done using the inductive approach to extract the findings. To ensure that all the codes were reviewed in the initial stage, the studies were re-reviewed and compared against the final list of codes.


Initially, 1405 articles were identified. In the screening stage, 513 articles were excluded in the screening because of duplication, and 743 articles were deleted by matching the titles and abstracts with the inclusion criteria. In the eligibility stage, 149 articles were assessed by reviewing the full texts. Because of reasons including lack of data, inappropriate target population, not describing method, and full texts not available, 136 articles deleted after reading the full texts. Eventually, 13 articles were included in the study. Of these, 8 were published in Persian, and 5 were in English. The PRISMA diagram for included studies is shown in Fig. 1. The characteristics of the included articles are presented in Table 2.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart of the selection steps

Table 2 Characteristics of the included articles related to the faculty member promotion regulations

Content analysis of the articles related to the regulations for the promotion of faculty members was carried out based on five perspectives: 1. the general content of the regulations for the promotion of faculty members; 2. cultural, disciplinary, and social activities, 3. educational activities, 4. research-technology activities, and 5. scientific-executive activities. The relevant codes were compiled according to Table 3.

Table 3 Codes relevant to the faculty member promotion regulations

General content of the regulations for the promotion of faculty members

According to the most articles reviewed, regulations for promoting faculty members restrict their creativity and interests. In other words, the regulations are more oriented towards an administrative function rather than focusing on the comprehensive promotion of faculty members [14,15,16].

Another challenge to the regulations is that they consider similar conditions for all universities, disciplines and individuals [17, 18]. In fact, there are various needs in the disciplines and also potential capabilities of each area of the country is different. But the regulations assess all these disciplines, universities, and individuals based on the same structure [19]. Moreover, the mission, requirements, special circumstances, resources, and scientific facilities of each university have not been considered.

In addition, the difficulty in measuring abstract concepts and the requirement for faculty members to gain score in all categories are other shortcomings in this regard [11, 20].

Some issues such as lack of transparency, absence of specialized staff in promotion committees, long-term process, unnecessary administrative requirements, and the conflict of interest may be seem as the other challenges [21]. Probably, changing the University Board of Evaluators periodically, close supervision and monitoring them, and establishing an advisory unit to guide and help the applicant faculty for the promotion can address these challenges [22].

Cultural, disciplinary, and social activities

Cultural, disciplinary, and social activities of faculty members are crucial as these members act as role models for their students and society. Few studies have examined these activities, and their results indicate challenges such as lack of transparency in guidelines and rules in evaluating cultural, disciplinary, and social activities and lack of knowledge in faculty about these activities [23]. Proposed solutions for addressing these challenges are including providing the necessary facilities for cultural activities and paying attention to the abilities and interests of each faculty members. Also, acknowledgment the convergence of education and research with moral and spiritual education at universities and providing opportunities for this aspect may be consider as a solution [24].

Educational activities

Due to the vital role of faculty members in universities, the educational activities in the promotion regulations are intrinsic. But most of the results revealed significant challenges in the educational part of promotion regulations. In this regard, we can point out to the prominent number of mandatory teaching credits. The quantity of teaching in the promotion process reflects only the faculty member’s presence in the classroom, and the quality of education is seldom considered. As another challenge, the publication of scientific papers has become a daily concern for faculty members. This leads to decrease the amount of time spent on educational activities and executive responsibilities [18]. Some solutions that can be proposed are including emphasis on employing new methods of teaching and assessment, using more appropriate instructional materials, participation in educational faculty development programs, cooperation in the curriculum development or revision, production of educational materials, and activity in the field of educational management and leadership [11].

Other challenges in educational activities include inefficiency of methods for teaching evaluation [19, 22, 23]. In order to moderate these challenges, more attention ought to be paid to the quality of teaching evaluation by involving different sources and methods of gathering data [11].

Research-technology activities

In spite of the importance of research in improving the performance of universities, some challenges to research-technology activities which prevent the useful application of the potential results of faculty members’ research efforts. The regulations in this category lead faculty to simply produce papers without considering the actual needs of society [11]. Also, focusing on the number of papers instead of quality of them has adversely reduced other research activities such as writing and translating books [15]. Some of the findings revealed that increasing the sustainability and destination of research activities and emphasizing on originality and innovation, are some suggestions to reform regulations of research activities [18].

Scientific-executive activities

Challenges to scientific-executive activities are including lack of interest in accepting executive responsibilities in the university, ignoring the social impact of faculty members activities, and limited chance available to female faculty to occupy managerial positions [25]. Applying strategies such as raising the quality of administrative work, facilitating the functions of the university to achieve its goals can contribute to solve the above challenges [26].


This is the first systematic review highlighted the challenges and solutions for the promotion of medical sciences faculty members in Iran. One of the critical aspects to maintain the quality and efficiency of higher education is the system of faculty member promotion [24, 25]. Based on the results of the reviewed studies, the current criteria of faculty member evaluation lack the ability to depict the quality of faculty members’ efforts and render a comprehensive analysis of their performance [26, 27]. Besides, faculty members have opposed the assessment techniques utilized by the evaluation boards as they generally depend on personal favoritism, slowness of the process, and some cases of injustice [28,29,30]. The promotion of faculty members should be based on an accurate and impartial evaluation to increase their motivation and job satisfaction [31,32,33]. In this regard, some studies have pointed out the need for developing different regulations for the promotion of faculty [34, 35].

One of the solutions for the challenges related to the general contents of regulations is to design and implement faculty development programs about the promotion regulations. These programs impact faculty members at individual and organizational abilities [36, 37], and lead to increase their awareness about the promotion process.

Because of the system governing universities of medical sciences in Iran, cultural and educational activities are mainly considered, and all stakeholders agree on the need to pay attention to these activities. However, challenges related to the abstractness of these concepts and the difficulty of measuring them in the form of academic activities have resulted in negative attitudes towards cultural activities among faculty. The results of previous studies which show a negative attitude towards cultural activities [35] and the inevitable need to develop both appropriate qualitative and quantitative indicators to measure these activities are consistent with the results of our research [33].

The existence of many challenges to educational activities is an alert for policymakers of the higher education promotion system. As reported in some studies, one of the main concerns of faculty members is the lack of attention to the quality of education [38, 26]. Therefore, the educational activities need to evaluate from a qualitative perspective and direct towards innovation, teamwork, and inter professional activities which ultimately aim to improve the organizational development [39, 40].

Due to the value of research in addressing public concerns, it is necessary to direct the relevant activities of faculty members towards responsiveness the needs of society, creating change, advancing the scientific field, and engagement in the national policymaking process [38]. Qualitative review of a limited number of faculty members’ papers would draw more attention to the quality of research instead of concentrating on increasing the number of papers [39].

Although the regulations have generally specified their approach as one that serves the society, in most cases, faculty members deviate from this goal and pursue more executive positions that are far detached from the real needs of society [41]. In fact, the existing system of faculty promotion has an incorrect alignment with the needs of society and is disconnect from the reproducibility of the medical universities [27]. Determining specific criteria in this respect would help faculty members to further focus on improving the quality of the university’s performance in achieving its scientific, disciplinary, and cultural mission. This would assist universities to play a core role in policymaking and service to their society [41]. The regulations should also guide the evaluation of executive scientific activities so that faculty members can place their abilities and knowledge in the service of society in various ways.

Some of the challenges that reported in this review are compatible with the past researches about the academic promotion rules. Dhulkhed et al. [42] discussed that the academic promotion regulation in India has the potential to decrease the quality of teaching and learning process and lead to most effort of faculty be on the research publication to fulfill the promotion criteria. They argued an urgent need to revise the current promotion criteria based on the comprehensive studies in this field. Also, Janjua et al. [43] in exploring the perceptions of faculty regarding the existing promotion criterion in Pakistan reported shortcomings such as unrealistic, inconsistent and biased academic promotion rules and lack of a justified and faired faculty evaluation process.

Due to the absence of a systematic review on challenges and solutions facing the process of promotion of medical sciences faculty members in Iran, one of the strengths in this study is the comprehensive review of all aspects of the promotion regulations. These findings provide guides for educational policymakers to improve the promotion process of medical sciences faculty members in Iran and also the leading countries in science. The information paucity in some articles was as a limitation in the present research.


Reviewing the system of medical sciences faculty member promotion will result in more dynamic education system, promoting the scientific level at universities, and ultimately improving social life. The results of this study will aid as a foundation for creating best practices and redesigning the existing approaches to assessing faculty members.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.


  1. Kruk ME, Gage AD, Arsenault C, Jordan K, Leslie HH, Roder-DeWan S, et al. High-quality health systems in the sustainable development goals era: time for a revolution. Lancet Glob Health. 2018;6(11):e1196–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Eslampanah M, GN. Investigating the status of recruitment, maintaining and promoting the faculty of Islamic Azad University and presenting a suitable model to improve the status of recruitment. Manag J. 2008;77(1):17–29 (Persian).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Houser B, Avila C. Academic transition from high school to college. Int Soc Soc Stud Annu Conf Proc. 2013;1(7):120–7.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Sanfey H. Promotion to professor: a career development resource. Am J Surg. 2010;200(4):554–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Shafian S, Salajegheh M. Faculty members’ promotion: challenges and solutions. Strides Dev Med Educ. 2021;18(1):e1033.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Alperin JP, Nieves CM, Schimanski LA, Fischman GE, Niles MT, McKiernan EC. Meta-research: how significant are the public dimensions of faculty work in review, promotion and tenure documents? ELife. 2019;8(1):e42254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Baker L, Leslie K, Panisko D, Walsg A, Wong A, Stubbs B. Exploring faculty developers’ experiences to inform our understanding of competence in faculty development. Acad Med. 2018;93(2):265–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Blaskova MBR, Matuska E, Rosak-Szyrocka J. Development of key competences of university teachers and managers. Proc Soc. 2015;182:187–96.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Eckhaus E, Davidovitch N. How do academic faculty members perceive the effect of teaching surveys completed by students on appointment and promotion processes at academic institutions? A case study. Int J Higher Educ. 2019;8(1):171–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gardner SK, Blackstone A. Putting in your time: faculty experiences in the process of promotion to professor. Innov High Educ. 2013;38(5):411–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Karimi-Moonaghi H, Zhiani Fard A, Jafarzadeh H, Behnam HR, Tavakol-Afshari J. Experiences of faculty members in relation to the academic promotion process. Strides Dev Med Educ. 2015;11(4):485–99 (Persian).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg. 2021;88:105906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Buckley S, Coleman J, Davison I, Khan KS, Zamora J, Malick S, et al. The educational effects of portfolios on undergraduate student learning: a best evidence medical education (BEME) systematic review. BEME guide no. 11. Med Teach. 2009;31(4):282–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mohammadi Doostdar H, Mirhosseini A. A comparative study of criteria faculty members development in higher education. J Sci Technol Policy Res. 2008;3(1):90–106 (Persian).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Jamali Zavareh B, Nasr Esfahani A, Nili MR. Analysis of faculty promotion regulations: challenges and consequences. Iran Higher Educ. 2018;10(1):79–98 (Persian).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ebrahimpour S. Narrative of women’s experiences in promotion to professorship at universities of Iran. Soc Welf Q. 2017;17(66):53–106 (Persian).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Smith SB, Hollerbach A, Donato AS, Edlund BJ, Atz T, Kelechi TJ. Streamlining appointment, promotion, and tenure procedures to promote early-career faculty success. J Prof Nurs. 2016;32(5):334–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Moher DNF, Cristea IA, Miedema F, Ioannidis JP, Goodman SN. Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure. PLoS Biol. 2018;16(3):e2004089.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. McHale SM, Ranwala DD, DiazGranados D, Bagshaw D, Schienke E, Blank AE. Promotion and tenure policies for team science at colleges/schools of medicine. J Clin Transl Sci. 2019;3(5):245–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Raoufi Kelachayeh SS, Askarian M, Hamidifar F, Rezazadeh BH. Explaining performance evaluation criteria for university faculty members: a qualitative study. J Health Promot Manag. 2020;9(3):72–83 (Persian).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Abolhoseini E, Mobaraki H, Kamali M, Shaarbafchi-Zade N. Relationship between performance evaluation and therapists’ job motivation of rehabilitation centers and public hospitals of Tehran based on Herzberg’s two-factor model. Arch Rehabil. 2018;18(4):316–27 (Persian).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Nasiri Ziba F, Hannani S. The study of occupational motivation of surgical technologists in educational hospitals affiliated to Iran University of Medical Sciences in 2016 and 2017. Paramed Sci Milit Health. 2018;10(13):21–7 (Persian).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Mohammadi M, Norouzi Kouhdasht R, Marzoughi R, Torkzadeh J, Salimi G. Evaluating talent management process of faculty members in Lorestan University of medical sciences: mixed method research. Res Med Educ. 2018;10(3):35–46 (Persian).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gilavand A. Pathology of faculty members’ rank promotion in universities and higher education institutions affiliated to the ministry of health and medical education of the Islamic republic of Iran. Int J Med Res Health Sci. 2016;1(5):25–30.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Niles MT, Schimanski LA, McKiernan EC, Alperin JP. Why we publish where we do: faculty publishing values and their relationship to review, promotion and tenure expectations. PLoS One. 2020;15(3):e0228914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Clark PC, Kimble LP, Bates TA, Marcus JA. Strategies for successful promotion for clinical track nursing faculty. J Prof Nurs. 2020;36(4):200–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ghaem Tajgardoon M, Manzuri SM, Hasanzadeh BK. Scrutinizing the compatibility of social demands and universities faculty recruitment (case study 12 universities in Tehran centralized announcement for faculty recruitment in 1389). IHEJ. 2012;4(16):101–17 (Persian).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Costello BJ, Marshall KL, Schafer T, Phillips S, Hart TC. The utility of hybrid promotion and tenure tracks for dental school faculty. J Dent Educ. 2013;77(6):706–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Gandomkar R, Salsali M, Mirzazadeh A. Factor’s influencing medical education in clinical environment: experiences of clinical faculty members. Iran J Med Educ. 2011;11(3):279–90 (Persian).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Asayesh H, Ghorbani M, Safari R. Effective factors on educational and research activities of the teachers in Golestan University of medical sciences. Iran J Med Educ. 2011;11(3):294–5 (Persian).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Eckhaus E, Davidovitch N. Potential for blocking advancement: teaching surveys for student evaluation of lecturers. Int J Educ Methodol. 2019;5(3):401–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Bunton SA, Mallon WT. The continued evolution of faculty appointment and tenure policies at US medical schools. Acad Med. 2007;82(3):281–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Orhurhu MS, Orhurhu V, Salisu B, Abimbola A, Cohen SP. Factors associated with academic rank among chronic pain medicine faculty in the USA. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2020;1(45):589–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Shattuck J, Hawkins T, Coldren G, Trigger K, Angleberger B, Dankanich N, et al. Pathways to promotion: redesigning a community college faculty promotion process. Commun Coll J Res Pract. 2018;42(1):4–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Didehban H, Mirzazadeh A, Khankeh HR. Exploring the experience of medical faculty members about the challenges of academic faculty promotion system in the Iranian context: a qualitative study. Pak J Med Health Sci. 2021;15(5):1241–8.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Salajegheh M, Gandomkar R, Mirzazadeh A, Sandars J. Identification of capacity development indicators for faculty development programs: a nominal group technique study. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20:1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Salajegheh M, Sandars J, Norouzi A, Mirzazadeh A, Gandomkar R. Psychometric evaluation of a questionnaire to evaluate organizational capacity development for faculty development programs. J Educ Health Promot. 2020;9:233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Raadabadi M, Jafari M, Sadeghifar J, Pourshariati F, Aghili A. Prioritizing the factors affecting job satisfaction among hospitals staff affiliated to Tehran University of Medical Sciences based on analytic hierarchy process. J Ilam Univ Med Sci. 2018;26(1):195–203 (Persian).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Asadi A, Taheri M, Salari A. The survey of educational needs to empower faculties in GUMS. Res Med Educ. 2016;8(2):37–48 (Persian).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Salajegheh M. Organizational impact of faculty development programs on the medical teacher's competencies. J Educ Health Promot. 2021;10:430.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Guillaume RO, Kalkbrenner MT. The utility of self-determination theory in faculty of color’s successful pursuit of tenure and promotion to the rank of associate professor. Int J Educ Res. 2019;1(98):272–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Dhulkhed VK, Kurdi MS, Dhulkhed PV, Ramaswamy AH. Faculty promotions in medical institutions in India: can we improve the criteria? Indian J Anaesth. 2016;60(11):796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Janjua MR, Janjua J, Muazam S, Wajid G. Perceptions of faculty on promotion policy in medical and dental colleges associated with Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Medical University Islamabad, Pakistan. J Pakistan Med Assoc. 2022.

Download references


We thank our colleagues who helped us for their support in the study.


This study is based on a research plan without funding approved at Kerman University of Medical Sciences and the design code is 400000668.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



MS, SN formulated the research idea. MS, SN, and MM reviewed the literature and screened the records. MS, SN, and MM performed the analysis of the data and wrote the manuscript and edited the draft of the paper. All authors approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Somayeh Noori Hekmat.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Kerman University of Medical Sciences (No. IR.KMU.REC.1400.642).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, 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 changes were made. 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 The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Salajegheh, M., Hekmat, S.N. & Macky, M. Challenges and solutions for the promotion of medical sciences faculty members in Iran: a systematic review. BMC Med Educ 22, 406 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI:


  • Iran
  • Faculty
  • Medical
  • Medicine