Search

The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is a widely used metric for ranking journals based on the number of citations garnered by papers published over a specific timeframe. To assess the accuracy of JIF values, I compared citation counts for 30 of my own publications across six major bibliography databases: CrossRef, Web of Science, Publisher records, Google Scholar, PubMed and Scopus. The analysis revealed noteworthy variations in citation counts, ranging from 10% to over 50% between the lowest and highest citation counts. Google Scholar records the highest citation numbers, while PubMed reported the lowest. Notably, Web of Science, whose citation data are used in JIF calculations, tend to underestimate citation counts compared to other databases. These observations raise concerns about the accuracy of JIF calculation based on Web of Science's citation data. The real JIF values for most journals would differ from those annually reported by Clarivate's journal citation reports (JCR). These citation discrepancies underscore the importance of comprehensive data collection and the necessity to include additional citation sources. Not because a paper is cited in one journal rather than another should it have a less or more citation weight. Ultimately, one citation remains one citation, regardless of its origin. Clarivate Analytics may thus need to consider integrating all citation sources for more accurate JIF values. Alternatively, Google Scholar could potentially develop its own journal or citation impact based on its extensive journal citation records. However, while making adjustments to how the Journal Impact Factor is calculated can make it more mathematically precise, it doesn't address the fundamental biases built into the metric. Even with refinements, the Journal Impact Factor will remain skewed due to how it's defined and used.

Importance: The description of racial and ethnic data in human trials is relatively unregulated, leading to potential confusion with and inconsistent reporting of these data., Objective: To determine the frequency and use of racial and ethnic data in the ophthalmology literature in 2019., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included all full-length human studies published between January and December 2019 in the American Journal of Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmology, and Ophthalmology., Main Outcomes and Measures: Whether race or ethnicity was included in the data or analysis, how the categorization was described in the methods and results, specific racial and ethnic categories used, and whether and how the categories were determined., Results: A total of 547 articles were identified during the study period, 484 (88% ± 2.7%) of which reported background demographic information, including patient age and sex. Only 233 (43% ± 4.1%) reported race and/or ethnicity. Of those articles, 72 (31% ± 5.9%) categorized it as race, 51 (22% ± 5.3%) ethnicity, 56 (24% ± 5.4%) race/ethnicity, 21 (9% ± 3.7%) race and ethnicity, 12 (5% ± 3.0%) descent, 12 (5% ± 2.9%) population, and 5 (2% ± 2.0%) ancestry; in 21 (9% ± 3.8%) it was not defined. Only 30 studies (13% ± 4.4%) described how it was determined in the methods or results, most frequently by self-report (77% ± 3.9%). A total of 78 races and/or ethnicities were defined., Conclusions and Relevance: While most articles during the study period reported background demographic information, few included race and ethnicity and only a fraction of those described how these data were determined. The categories used were heterogeneous and often inconsistent. These findings suggest the need for increased and more standardized reporting of ethnic and racial demographic data in the ophthalmology literature.

Importance: Because women remain underrepresented in leadership positions in medicine, including ophthalmology, knowledge of sex composition of ophthalmic journal editorial and professional society boards seems warranted., Objectives: To investigate the sex composition of ophthalmic journal editorial and professional society boards and compare the publication productivity and number of citations of male vs female board members., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, the SCImago Journal Rank indicator was used to identify the 20 highest-ranked ophthalmology journals. Faculty members from each ophthalmic subspecialty were surveyed within a US academic ophthalmology department to identify 15 influential ophthalmology societies. The 2018 board members of each journal and society were identified from the journals' and societies' official websites, and the sex of each individual was recorded. Information regarding journals and societies was collected from October 1 to December 31, 2018. The Scopus database was accessed in January 2019 and then used to find each member's h-index and m-quotient., Main Outcomes and Measures: The h-index, defined as the highest number of an author's publications that received at least h number of citations, was calculated for each board member. The m-quotient, which accounts for varying lengths of academic careers, was calculated by dividing the h-index by the number of years since first publication., Results: Of the 1077 members of ophthalmic journal editorial and society leadership boards, 797 (74.0%) were men and 280 (26.0%) were women. Among the 24 editors in chief of the 20 journals investigated, 23 (95.8%) were male. Thirteen of the 15 professional society presidents (86.7%) were men. Male board members had significantly higher median h-indexes (male vs female journals: 34 [interquartile range {IQR}, 23-47] vs 28 [IQR, 19-40], P < .001; male vs female societies: 27 [IQR, 15-41] vs 17 [IQR, 8-32], P = .006), median publication numbers (male vs female journal board members: 157 [IQR, 88-254] vs 109 [IQR, 66-188], P < .001; male vs female society board members: 109 [IQR, 57-190] vs 58 [IQR, 28-139, P = .001), and median citations (male vs female journal board members: 4027 [IQR, 1897-8005] vs 2871 [IQR, 1344-5852], P < .001; male vs female society board members: 2228 [IQR, 1005-5069] vs 1090 [IQR, 410-2527], P = .003). However, the median m-quotients for male and female board members were comparable (male vs female journal board members: 1.2 [IQR, 0.8-1.6] vs 1.1 [IQR, 0.8-1.5], P = .54; male vs female society board members: 1.0 [IQR, 0.7-1.4] vs 0.9 [IQR, 0.6-1.3], P = .32)., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that the sex composition on journal editorial and professional society boards in ophthalmology is consistent with the sex composition of ophthalmologists in the US, as reported by the Association of American Colleges, but that editor in chief and society president positions are male dominated despite the apparent equality in academic productivity.

Previous studies in several fields of medicine, including general ophthalmology, have revealed a positive results bias, demonstrating an association between the results of a trial and the impact factor (IF) of the journal in which it was published. We hypothesized that randomized clinical studies in pediatric ophthalmology with positive results have a greater chance of publication in journals with a higher IF than those with negative results. We analyzed 174 randomized, controlled trials conducted in the field of pediatric ophthalmology, which were retrieved from PubMed. Each study was classified as having either a positive or a negative result. A positive result was defined as a study in which there was a statistically significant difference between groups (P < 0.05). No difference was found in IF between negative and positive outcomes, after statistically adjusting for the number of subjects and year of publication. We concluded that, unlike general ophthalmology, positive results bias probably does not occur in the field of pediatric ophthalmology., (Copyright © 2018 American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The aim of this study is to evaluate the current practice of statistical analysis of eye data in clinical science papers published in British Journal of Ophthalmology ( BJO ) and to determine whether the practice of statistical analysis has improved in the past two decades. All clinical science papers (n=125) published in BJO in January-June 2017 were reviewed for their statistical analysis approaches for analysing primary ocular measure. We compared our findings to the results from a previous paper that reviewed BJO papers in 1995. Of 112 papers eligible for analysis, half of the studies analysed the data at an individual level because of the nature of observation, 16 (14%) studies analysed data from one eye only, 36 (32%) studies analysed data from both eyes at ocular level, one study (1%) analysed the overall summary of ocular finding per individual and three (3%) studies used the paired comparison. Among studies with data available from both eyes, 50 (89%) of 56 papers in 2017 did not analyse data from both eyes or ignored the intereye correlation, as compared with in 60 (90%) of 67 papers in 1995 (P=0.96). Among studies that analysed data from both eyes at an ocular level, 33 (92%) of 36 studies completely ignored the intereye correlation in 2017, as compared with in 16 (89%) of 18 studies in 1995 (P=0.40). A majority of studies did not analyse the data properly when data from both eyes were available. The practice of statistical analysis did not improve in the past two decades. Collaborative efforts should be made in the vision research community to improve the practice of statistical analysis for ocular data., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Purpose: To assess scientific production related to ophthalmology and vision in Latin America during the period from 2006 to 2015., Methods: The PubMed, Lilacs (Bireme), Google Scholar, SciELO, and Medigraphic databases were evaluated for this retrospective, descriptive, and comparative study., Results: A total of 1,510 articles was identified. Brazil was the leader in quantitative production in ophthalmology, averaging 85.4 articles per year. Mexico was in second place with 27.4, and Argentina was in third place with 11.1 articles per year. Forty-one percent of articles were published in English, 28.1% dealt with the subspecialty of the retina, and 63% were published by researchers affiliated with universities. The frequency of male first authors was 58.9%, and the journal Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia accounted for 36.42% of the identified articles., Conclusions: Brazil stands in first place in Latin America in ophthalmologic scientific production. Nearly half of the researchers in ophthalmology in Latin America included in our study were listed in databases other than PubMed.

Purpose: To calculate the growth rate of the biomedical literature on eye neoplasms and to assess which journals, countries, and continents are the most productive., Methods: PubMed was used to search for articles published from 1966 to 2012. Total number of articles per year was fitted to a linear equation as well as an exponential curve. To identify the core journals and predict the number of journals containing articles related to eye neoplasms, Bradford's law was applied. For each country and each continent, the gross domestic product (GDP) index (publications per $1 billion USD of GDP) and the population index (publications per million inhabitants) were calculated., Results: A total of 27,943 references were retrieved. The growth in the number of publications showed a linear increase with a yearly average growth rate of 2.08%, which was lower than for the whole PubMed database (3.59%). Using Bradford's law, 17 core journals were identified, among which 2 journals produced more than 1000 articles (JAMA Ophthalmology and American Journal of Ophthalmology). Europe was the most productive continent, followed by North America and Asia. The United States was by far the predominant country in number of publications, followed by Germany and the United Kingdom. However, population and GDP indexes showed that absolute production did not reflect the production per capita or economic efficiency., Conclusions: This bibliometric study provides data contributing to a better understanding of the eye neoplasm research field.

Purpose: To determine the main current research interests of scientists working in the contact lens field., Methods: All articles published in the 2011 issues of all journals included in the Journal Citation Reports subject category Ophthalmology were inspected to expose those papers related to the contact lens field. Information regarding source journal was obtained and authorship details were recorded to determine the top most prolific authors, institutions and countries. A comprehensive list of key words was compiled to generate a two-dimensional term map in which the frequency of occurrence of a particular term is defined by label size and the distance between two terms is an indication of the relatedness of these terms, based on their co-occurrences within groups of key words. Clusters of related terms were also identified., Results: Visual examination of all articles uncovered a total of 156 papers, published in 28 different journals. Contact Lens & Anterior Eye, Eye & Contact Lens and Optometry and Vision Science had 27 articles each. The most prolific authors and institutions revealed the predominance of countries with long research tradition in the contact lens field. Ten different word clusters or areas of interest were identified, including both traditional, yet unresolved issues (e.g., comfort or dry eye), and the latest research efforts (e.g., myopia control)., Conclusions: These findings, which revealed contact lenses to be a fertile area of research, may be of relevance to new researchers as well as to those interested in exploring the latest research trends in this scientific discipline., (Copyright © 2013 Spanish General Council of Optometry. Published by Elsevier Espana. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To analyze the self-citation rate (SCR) of ophthalmology journals, determine its possible effect on a journal's impact factor (IF) and compare the SCR of subspecialty journals versus general ophthalmology journals., Method: A retrospective consecutive study of ophthalmology journals listed in the Journal Citations Report (JCR) 2013. We retrieved these parameters from each journal's report: IF, total citations, self-citations, SCR and IF without self-citations (corrected IF)., Results: A significant correlation was detected between the number of self-citations and publications (R(2) = 86.3, p = 0.000). Subspecialty journals had a significantly higher SCR than general journals (p = 0.017). No significant difference was found in terms of IF and corrected IF between general and subspecialty journals (p = 0.260 and p = 0.108, respectively). No significant correlation between IF and SCR was detected (p = 0.099). The corrected IF was inversely correlated with SCR (R(2) = -32.6, p = 0.013). An inverse correlation was detected between SCR and IF in the 29 ophthalmology journals with the lowest IF (R(2) = -57.3, p = 0.001)., Conclusion: Unlike other fields of medicine, the IF of an ophthalmology journal does not correlate with its SCR. Self-citation is found more often in journals with a low corrected IF and is inversely correlated with IF in the bottom half., (© 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Objective: Publication speed of peer-reviewed journals may play a major role in early dissemination of knowledge and may raise the citation index. In this study, we evaluated the publication speed of ophthalmology journals., Design: Observational study., Participants: Observational study of bibliometric data in published ophthalmology journals., Methods: A list of ophthalmic journals featured in the 2010 Journal Citation Report was obtained on September 1, 2011. A total of 12 articles were chosen randomly from each of these journals published between January and December 2010. Median publication time and interquartile range (IQR) were obtained from the full texts of the published articles., Main Outcome Measures: Time lag between submission and revision, acceptance, and publication of the manuscripts was calculated. Correlation between publication time lag and journal impact factor as well as advance online publication was analyzed., Results: A total of 51 ophthalmic journals were included. There was no statistically significant difference in the impact factors of journals based on their reporting of submission, revision, or acceptance times of the manuscripts (both P>0.05, Wilcoxon test). The median peer review and publication time of all ophthalmology journals was 133 days (IQR, 100.5-171.5) and 100 days (IQR, 62.9-166.3), respectively. There was no correlation between the journal impact factors and publication time lag (Spearman correlation). Approximately half of the ophthalmology journals (n = 26; 50.98%) published online in advance. Journals with advance online publication had higher impact factors compared with those without this feature (median, 1.692 [IQR, 1.05-2.80] vs. 1.02 [0.39-1.53]; P = 0.015, Mann-Whitney U test). For journals with advance online publication, the median time from acceptance to advance online publication (74.3 days [IQR, 48.3-115 days]) was significantly shorter than the median time between acceptance and print publication (170.75 days [IQR, 101.4-217 days]; P<0.001, Wilcoxon test)., Conclusions: Publication time lag in ophthalmology journals was not correlated with journal impact factors. Advance online publication facility was provided by only half of the ophthalmology journals published in 2010. Journals with advance online publication had a higher impact factor compared with those without this feature., Financial Disclosure(s): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article., (Copyright © 2013 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the research productivity of Canadian ophthalmology departments in terms of research volume, impact, funding, and cost-efficiency, and compare these measures with the top 6 U.S. departments., Design: Systemic review., Methods: Using the Web of Science, we obtained the number of peer-reviewed research articles and citations in which an author listed an ophthalmology department (or affiliated university or hospital) from 2001 to 2010 in the top 10 ophthalmology and vision sciences journals, as well as the Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology. Federal research funding received from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and National Institutes of Health was also obtained., Results: The 3 universities that produced the highest number of articles were the University of Toronto (UofT), McGill University, and the University of British Columbia (UBC). UofT also produced the largest number of citations, followed by UBC and Dalhousie University. For the number of citations per article, the top 3 were the University of Ottawa, Dalhousie University, and the University of Calgary. McGill University, the University of Montreal, and UofT received the most federal funding. The 3 Canadian universities with the lowest funding (cost) per article were UofT, UBC, and McMaster University. The top contributors to the Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology from 2001 to 2010 were UofT, the University of Ottawa, and McGill University., Conclusions: Larger Canadian departments tended to generate higher research volume and obtained more federal funding, but smaller departments also contributed significantly, and sometimes surpassed larger departments, in terms of research impact and cost-efficiency. The top 6 U.S. departments generated higher research volume and received more federal research funding than their Canadian counterparts. However, when research impact and cost-efficiency were examined, Canadian departments performed similar to the top U.S. departments., (Copyright © 2013 Canadian Ophthalmological Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to characterize the literature associated with the dry eye field., Methods: An advanced search using Thomson Reuters Web of Science's Science Citation Index yielded 7,225 unique articles related to dry eye disease. All results underwent visual inspection to ensure that the final list included only literature associated with dry eye in some way. The most frequently cited articles were characterized by number of citations, author, institution, country of origin, year of publication, and source title., Results: The h-index (Hirsch index) of literature associated with dry eye was 100. The two most frequent topics among the top 25 cited articles were lacrimal gland structure and physiology and treatment methods for ocular surface disease. The top-cited author, institution, country, and source title were Kazuo Tsubota, Harvard University, the United States, and Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, respectively. The most highly cited article associated with the dry eye field (n=1, 180) was "Preliminary criteria for the classification of Sjogrens syndrome - Results of a prospective concerted action supported by the European Community," authored in 1993 by C. Vitali., Conclusions: This analysis reviewed the citation frequency of the top-cited articles related to dry eye disease. This information aids understanding of the history and development of dry eye research, in addition to the impact and characteristics of the contributors to the field., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To determine the association between language and number of citations of ophthalmology articles published in Brazilian journals., Methods: This study was a systematic review. Original articles were identified by review of documents published at the two Brazilian ophthalmology journals indexed at Science Citation Index Expanded - SCIE ["Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia (ABO)" and "Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia (RBO)"]. All document types ("articles" and "reviews") listed at SCIE in English (English Group) or in Portuguese (Portuguese Group) from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2009 were included, except: "editorial materials"; "corrections"; "letters"; and "biographical items". The primary outcome was the number of citations through the end of second year after publication date. Subgroup analysis included likelihood of citation (cited at least once versus no citation), journal, and year of publication., Results: The search at the web of science revealed 382 articles [107 (28%) in the English Group and 275 (72%) in the Portuguese Group]. Of those, 297 (77.7%) were published at the ABO and 85 (23.3%) at the RBO. The citation counts were statistically significantly higher (P<0.001) in the English Group (1.51 - SD 1.98 - range 0 to 11) compared with the Portuguese Group (0.57 - SD 1.06 - range 0 to 7). The likelihood citation was statistically significant higher (P<0.001) in the English Group (70/107 - 65.4%) compared with the Portuguese Group (89/275 - 32.7%). There were more articles published in English at the ABO (98/297 - 32.9%) than at the RBO (9/85 - 10.6%) [P<0.001]. There were no significant difference (P=0.967) at the proportion of articles published in English at the years 2008 (48/172 - 27.9%) and 2009 (59/210 - 28.1%)., Conclusion: The number of citations of articles published in Portuguese at Brazilian ophthalmology journals is lower than the published in English. The results of this study suggest that the editorial boards should strongly encourage the authors to adopt English as the main language in their future articles.

Purpose: To compare clinical trials published in Brazilian journals of ophthalmology and in foreign journals of ophthalmology with respect to the number of citations and the quality of reporting [by applying the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement writing standards]., Methods: The sample of this systematic review comprised the two Brazilian journals of ophthalmology indexed at Science Citation Index Expanded and six of the foreign journals of ophthalmology with highest Impact Factor® according ISI. All clinical trials (CTs) published from January 2009 to December 2010 at the Brazilians journals and a 1:1 randomized sample of the foreign journals were included. The primary outcome was the number of citations through the end of 2011. Subgroup analysis included language. The secondary outcome included likelihood of citation (cited at least once versus no citation), and presence or absence of CONSORT statement indicators., Results: The citation counts were statistically significantly higher (P<0.001) in the Foreign Group (10.50) compared with the Brazilian Group (0.45). The likelihood citation was statistically significantly higher (P<0.001) in the Foreign Group (20/20 - 100%) compared with the Brazilian Group (8/20 - 40%). The subgroup analysis of the language influence in Brazilian articles showed that the citation counts were statistically significantly higher in the papers published in English (P<0.04). Of 37 possible CONSORT items, the mean for the Foreign Group was 20.55 and for the Brazilian Group was 13.65 (P<0.003)., Conclusion: The number of citations and the quality of reporting of clinical trials in Brazilian journals of ophthalmology still are low when compared with the foreign journals of ophthalmology with highest Impact Factor®.

Objective: To assess the standardization of meta-analyses reports on eye diseases published in Chinese journals in recent ten years., Methods: Meta-analyses manuscripts on eye diseases published in Chinese-language journals from January 2000 to September 2010 were retrieved through the following databases: Wanfang Data, VIP Information, CNKI and Chinese Bio-medicine Database, along with manual database search. The manuscripts translated from foreign-language meta-analyses reports or repetitive publications were excluded. All enrolled manuscripts were then analyzed item by item according to the checklist of QUOROM statement and MOOSE guidelines., Results: 50 manuscripts were finally enrolled into the present quality appraisal study, including 32 meta-analyses manuscripts of randomized control trail (RCT) studies and the other 18 meta-analyses manuscripts of observational studies. Out of the 32 manuscripts evaluated with QUOROM statement, only 8 (25.0%) manuscripts included flow chat describing the process of selection, 18 (56.3%) manuscripts included sensitivity analyses and 9 (28.1%) included bias evaluation part. Out of the 18 manuscripts evaluated with MOOSE guidelines, only 6 (33.3%) included comprehensive relative literatures search strategy, 4 (22.2%) included sensitivity analyses and 8 (44.4%) included bias evaluation section., Conclusion: The standardization of meta-analyses reports on eye diseases published in Chinese journals needs to be improved.

Objective: To investigate the authors, the institution and endemic distribution of these authors of Chinese Journal of Ophthalmology, and understand the current situation and problems in the field of Ophthalmology., Methods: Using the bibliometrics methods, we analyzed the authors, the co-authors and the core authors of papers published between 2000 to 2009. The distribution of institution and region and highly quantitative organization were also analyzed., Results: The 2495 papers were published by the Journal within 10 years. 1091 authors (72.68% of total first authors) published only one paper. There were 705 (28.26%) papers from 105 (7.00%) core authors. There were 2238 papers with one or more co-authors, the cooperative rate and degree were 89.70% and 3.91, respectively. 257 papers were written by single author, which accounted for 10.30% of total papers. According to the distribution of Province, Beijing was the first of rank with 726 (29.10%) papers, the second was Guangdong Province by 335 (13.43%) papers, Shanghai was the third with 257 (10.30%) papers. The number of papers from affiliated hospital, provincial or municipal hospitals, county hospitals, military hospitals were 1853 (74.27%), 227 (9.10%), 17 (0.68%) and 164 (6.57%), respectively. 1391 (55.75%) papers were from 16 high-productivity institutes., Conclusions: Authors of the Chinese Journal of Ophthalmology are from widely distributed area and have a highly cooperative rate, but the distribution was disproportion. The core authors are active and talented, who have a great influence on this journal. The highly-productivity Province are Beijing, Guangdong and Shanghai, even the authors were from widely distributed area.

Objective: The purpose of our study was to evaluate Slovenia's contribution to research in ophthalmology over a period of 18 years (1991 - 2009) including not only ophthalmologists but also other researchers. The aim of the study was to determine the relative contribution, quantitatively and qualitatively, to research in ophthalmology and to determine the trend over the period. The first authors as well as their institutes were evaluated., Methods: A bibliometric analysis was performed using the database of the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) 2007 report. All articles published in the top 45 ophthalmology journals listed in the ISI 2007 report were analysed., Results: A total of 187 170 articles have been published in these journals in the given period of time. Slovenia's ophthalmologists and other researchers published 75 articles or 0.040 % of all publications. The articles were published in 21 of the 45 listed journals. Two were excluded from the study because they were only abstracts. In 8 articles the first author was not a Slovenian ophthalmologist. At the end, 65 articles remained in the study. 22 different Slovenian ophthalmologists were found as first author among these journals. Comparing ophthalmologists and other researchers, ophthalmologists produced 57 from 65 articles or 87.69 %. 13 from 22 ophthalmologists had published only one paper, accounting for 22.8 % (13 of 57) of total first authors. There were 47 articles with one or more co-authors (82.5 %) and 10 papers with a single author, which represent 17.5 % of total papers. There was only one first author who issued more than 10 articles (13 from 57 or 22.8 %). All the contribution came from two university clinical centres, Ljubljana (27 articles or 47.37 %) and Maribor (30 articles or 52.63 %). Three authors contributed to 45.6 % of all papers. Two-thirds of articles were published in English and one-third in German language., Conclusions: Although the number of articles published by Slovenia's ophthalmologists is increasing over the last 8 years there is a need to increase the quality and quantity of clinical research in ophthalmology and to involve more ophthalmologists in research work to support these trends., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Objective: To assess the publication volume of Canadian ophthalmology departments over a 5-year period, 2005-2009., Design: Systematic review of the literature., Methods: MEDLINE was searched for papers published from 2005 to 2009 where the designated affiliation corresponded to a Canadian ophthalmology department. The papers were sorted by year, university, and study design. A total impact score (the impact factor of the journal multiplied by the number of papers published in that journal per year) was also calculated for each university., Results: In the 5-year period there was an increasing trend in the total number of published ophthalmology papers. The University of Toronto had the highest number of published papers (224), followed by the University of British Columbia (143) and McGill University (120). The Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology published the most papers, followed by Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. The most frequent study design category was basic science research and a total of 11 different randomized controlled trials were retrieved., Conclusions: The publication volume of Canadian ophthalmology researchers increased significantly from 2005 to 2009 with larger institutions accounting for the majority of published papers. Like researchers in other countries, Canadian ophthalmology researchers preferred to publish in domestic journals.

We screened 32 ophthalmology journals that had published articles during the period from 1850 through 1949 to identify top-cited articles in the field of ophthalmology (hereafter referred to as citation classics) using the online database Science Citation Index Expanded (Thompson Reuters, Chicago, Illinois). The 101 most frequently cited articles were published in 16 journals. Archives of Ophthalmology had the most top-cited articles (n = 31), followed by American Journal of Ophthalmology (n = 24) and Albrecht von Graefe's Archiv für Ophthalmologie (n = 9). These articles originated from 14 countries, with the United States publishing the majority (n = 58). Most of the citation classics are clinical studies on topics such as rubella cataract, retinopathy of prematurity, keratoconjunctivitis sicca, sympathetic ophthalmia, and the first report of eponymous diseases (eg, Leber hereditary optic neuropathy, Duane retraction syndrome, and Stargardt disease). A considerable number of these articles were ignored initially and for several decades after publication, but, like the classic fairy tale Sleeping Beauty, they have been rediscovered. Our study provides a historical perspective on the classic papers in the literature that are still influential in ophthalmology.

Objective: To determine whether the concept of open access affects how articles are cited in the field of ophthalmology., Design: Type of meta-analysis., Participants: Examination of 480 articles in ophthalmology in the experimental protocol and 415 articles in the control protocol., Methods: Four subject areas were chosen to search the ophthalmology literature in the PubMed database using the terms "cataract," "diabetic retinopathy," "glaucoma," and "refractive errors." Searching started in December of 2003 and worked back in time to the beginning of the year. The number of subsequent citations for equal numbers of both open access and closed access (by subscription) articles was quantified using the Scopus database and Google search engine. Number of authors, article type, country/region in which the article was published, language, and funding data were also collected for each article. A control protocol was also carried out to ascertain that the sampling method was not systematically biased by matching 6 ophthalmology journals (3 open access, 3 closed access) using their impact factors, and employing the same search methodology to sample open access and closed access articles., Main Outcome Measures: Number of citations., Results: The total number of citations was significantly higher for open access articles compared to closed access articles for Scopus (mean 15.2 versus 11.5, P < .0005, Mann-Whitney U = 20029, and Google (mean 6.4 versus 4.0, P < .0005, Mann-Whitney U = 21281). However, univariate general linear model (GLM) analysis showed that access was not a significant factor that explained the citation data. Author number, country/region of publication, subject area, language, and funding were the variables that had the most effect and were statistically significant. Control protocol results showed no significant difference between open and closed access articles in regard to number of citations found by Scopus: open access: mean = 17.8; SD (standard deviation) = 23.70; closed access: mean = 19.1; SD = 20.31; Mann-Whitney test, P = 0.730, Mann-Whitney U = 20584., Conclusions: Unlike other fields of science, open access thus far has not affected how ophthalmology articles are cited in the literature.

Background: The German contribution to the worldwide publication activity in ophthalmology had not yet been explored properly., Methods: A quantitative bibliometric analysis of ophthalmologic publications for the years 1993-2007 was performed using the online database of the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI). The analysis used eight selected search words as well as publication activities of 45 journals in the ISI category "ophthalmology.", Results: The analysis according to search words revealed a proportion of 9.9% for ophthalmologic publications from Germany and a proportion of 8.9% according to journal-specific publication activities. The contribution of publications from Germany in English-language journals was 5.9%. Approximately two-thirds of the German publications were written in English and one-third in German. Germany ranked second behind the United States in absolute publication numbers but was behind other Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian countries when the numbers were adjusted for population size., Conclusion: German ophthalmologic publications have reached an appreciable level in the international literature.

We screened 46 ophthalmology journals to identify the most frequently cited articles using the Science Citation Index Expanded (1975 to 2006). The 100 most-cited articles were published in 13 journals, most in the Archives of Ophthalmology (n = 30), followed by Ophthalmology (n = 27) and the American Journal of Ophthalmology (n = 11), and originated from 10 countries, led by the United States (n = 86). The topics covered by these classic articles included epidemiology of age-related macular degeneration and glaucoma, description of new diseases including cytomegalovirus retinitis, optical coherence tomography, hypotensive medications in glaucoma, laser photocoagulation to treat diabetic retinopathy and subfoveal choroidal neovascularization, photorefractive surgery, and vitrectomy to treat idiopathic macular hole. The most frequently cited articles provide a historical perspective in the scientific advancement of ophthalmology during the last 3 decades.

Purpose: To investigate the outcome of manuscripts submitted to the American Journal of Ophthalmology (AJO) between July 23, 2002 and December 31, 2003., Design: Observational series., Methods: Data were collected on all Full-Length Articles and Brief Reports submitted to the AJO. Data were recorded for rejected or withdrawn manuscripts about the date of submission and decision, category of decision, type of article, manuscript region of origin, alternate journal of manuscript, date of publication, and impact factor and immediacy index of the subsequent journal. Corresponding data were collected from the manuscripts accepted over the same period. The Advanced PubMed online database was searched to determine if the rejected or withdrawn manuscripts were published elsewhere. The impact factor and the immediacy index of the journal of the subsequent journal was then recorded and compared with those of the AJO, using the year 2004 for comparison., Results: Of 2,026 manuscripts submitted, 1,444 were rejected by the AJO or withdrawn by the authors and 50% of these were subsequently published elsewhere in a PubMed listed journal. The rejected or withdrawn articles were typically published in lower impact journals, most commonly in general ophthalmology journals in the author's region or in subspecialty journals, although several were published in higher impact journals. The 727 articles were published in 94 different journals and usually with an extended delay., Conclusions: Rejection of a manuscript by the AJO does not preclude publication, but rejected manuscripts are published more often in journals that serve a smaller readership and are cited less frequently, although exceptions exist.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare citation patterns in the clinical binocular vision literature of optometry and ophthalmology., Methods: The author conducted citation analysis of two current clinical binocular vision textbooks from optometry and two from ophthalmology and of articles published in the years 2000 to 2004 in optometry and ophthalmology journals. Topical parameters for inclusion of sources were diagnosis and management of nonstrabismic binocular vision disorders, diagnosis and management of nonpresbyopic ocular accommodation disorders, and procedures for examining such conditions. These topical parameters were chosen because they are areas in which the diagnostic procedures and treatment options available to members of the two professions are not delineated by their respective scopes of practice., Results: The most frequently cited journals in the optometric publications were optometry journals (63% of citations in the optometry textbooks and 58% in the optometry journal articles). The most frequently cited journals in the ophthalmology publications were ophthalmology journals (79% of citations in the ophthalmology textbooks and 49% in the ophthalmology journal articles). Each discipline also cited a greater variety of journals from within its own field than was cited by the other discipline. The journal with the highest total number of citations was Optometry and Vision Science (280) followed by Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics (73), American Journal of Ophthalmology (68), Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science (62), and Optometry (61)., Conclusions: Optometry and ophthalmology sources show more citations to materials from their own discipline than from their fellow discipline in the area of nonstrabismic binocular vision disorders and nonpresbyopic accommodative disorders. Reasons may include lack of awareness of the literature of the other discipline, bias toward the literature of one's own discipline, or bias against the literature of another discipline. It is also likely that the diagnostic and management strategies of the two professions are significantly different, although scope of practice would not constrain the range of strategies for the conditions chosen as the topical matter for consideration in this study. The journals found to be most frequently cited in this study should help to identify the core journals in this area of clinical binocular vision.

Purpose: The study aimed to measure the scientific production in Ophthalmology and Vision (O&V) in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay over a period of 10 years (1995-2004), in order to find out temporal evolution and variations in this field of research., Methods: PubMed / Medline was used to retrieve records on O&V research literature. The search strategy included keywords, country in the affiliation field and publication date. Data were extracted from each citation and recorded in a spreadsheet. Subsequent analysis focused on type and main topic of publication, journals where articles had been published, and evolution of research done on animals and humans., Results: A total of 1,216 citations were retrieved. Brazil had the largest number of authored publications with an average annual production of 82.4, followed by Argentina with 31.0, Chile 6.4, Uruguay 1.6, and Paraguay 0.2. The ratio of articles on O&V relative to publications involving Health Science ranged from 1.0 to 2.3. The frequency of publications almost tripled from 1995 to 2004. Research on humans showed a significant increase in Argentina and Brazil., Conclusions: Results provide initial benchmarks on O&V publication rates in countries in South America that may be useful to follow research trends.

Purpose: To investigate the frequency of citation and quotation errors in the ophthalmic literature., Design: Analysis of 200 references from 100 papers published in 10 ophthalmic journals., Methods: A sample of 20 references was randomly selected from each of the 10 journals and each reference was checked for accuracy. Quotations were categorized as totally, partially, or not accurate., Results: There were 35 citation errors in 32 references, only four of which were errors in PubMed. Thirty quotations of references were not accurate; 20 were partially accurate., Conclusions: Citation and quotation errors are relatively common within the ophthalmic literature. This may be improved through technical editing.

Background: Evidence-based medicine requires careful appraisal of published data derived from experimental and clinical studies. Based on classification of biomedical research reports, evidence levels can be determined and recommendations for therapeutic decisions can be made., Methods: A classification system for clinical studies was developed. It was evaluated in classifying the reports published in Der Ophthalmologe during 2003-2004 (study design: descriptive cross-sectional study, case series)., Results: In the 2-year interval, 70 longitudinal and 95 cross-sectional studies were published. The vast majority of the longitudinal studies were interventional cohort studies. Not considering case reports, 73% of the original articles were longitudinal prospective studies, 1% were retrospective (case-control) studies, and 26% were cross-sectional studies., Conclusions: The study design of all published articles could be classified using the classification system. This classification system proves to be applicable in the context of clinical studies in ophthalmology and may be helpful in the process of critical appraisal of the literature and synthesis of clinical evidence and an evidence-based recommendation.