Search

Objectives: The focus of this study was to assess and compare the h-indexes of editorial board members from eight ophthalmology journals in Türkiye and explore the potential correlations between these indexes and the sub-specialties of board members. Methods: Conducted in December 2023, this cross-sectional study utilized publicly available data from Google Scholar (GS), Web of Science, and Scopus. The h-index and number of publications by editorial board members from eight Turkish ophthalmology journals were analyzed. Statistical analysis for this study involved the use of SPSS, employing descriptive statistics, one-way analysis of variance, and post hoc tests for group comparisons. Results: Of the 415 editorial board members, 26 were not ophthalmologists and 12 worked abroad; the credentials of 10 could not be verified. A total of 367 authors were evaluated, revealing significant differences in publication numbers and h-indices among the different subspecialties. Notably, the retinal specialists demonstrated higher productivity. Variability in citation counts was observed across databases, with GS having the widest range. Differences were also noted in the publication and h-index among the editorial boards of different journals. Conclusion: The h-index and number of publications effectively reflected the active status of ophthalmology authors. This study contributes valuable information regarding Turkish ophthalmology journals and their editorial boards, serving as an inspiration for young ophthalmologists. These findings underscore the diverse successes of ophthalmologists across subspecialties, encouraging the exploration of less-explored areas in academic pursuits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Pakistan Journal of Ophthalmology is celebrating its 40th volume, marking a significant milestone for the Ophthalmological Society of Pakistan. The journal's journey began in 1947, shortly after Pakistan gained independence, when ophthalmologists from East and West Pakistan came together to form the society. The journal has undergone various changes in leadership and publication locations over the years, but it has remained a valuable resource for the ophthalmology community in Pakistan. It is recognized nationally and internationally and is included in the Directory of Open Access Journals and Scopus. The journal's success is attributed to the dedication of its editors, members of the society, authors, and reviewers. [Extracted from the article]

Purpose: To analyze the publication patterns of Pakistan Journal of Ophthalmology (PJO) for the last 24 years from 1995 to 2018. Study Design: Descriptive Bibliometric analysis. Place and Duration of Study: Medical Libraries, College of Applied Medical Sciences and College of Science & Health Profession, King Saud bin Abdul Aziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh Saudi Arabia. June 2018 to April 2019. Material and Methods: The data for the study was retrieved from websites of Pakistan Journal of Ophthalmology (PJO) and Pak Medi Net for statistical analysis in MS Excel 2010 version. The data was analyzed by dividing the studied period into two parts; a) first 12 years (1995 - 2006) and b) the last 12 years (2007 - 2018) for better understanding. This study examined 855 articles published in 24 volumes with 8.9 articles per issue from 1995 to 2018 contributed by 2816 authors. Results: A gender-wise comparison among the contributing authors revealed 2378 males (84.4%) and 437 females (15.5%). It was also revealed that 141 (16.4%) articles were written by a female as the first author during the studied period. Majority of the articles (n = 734, 85.8%) were written by multiple authors instead of single authors (n = 121, 14.1%). Maximum number of articles were published in the year 2014 & 2018 (48 articles in each volume) and minimum number of articles were published in 1995 and 1997 (20 articles in each volume). Conclusion: This study finds that Pakistan Journal of Ophthalmology (PJO) is published regularly and over the last 24 years has gained the confidence of researchers, institutes, and readers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers miscellaneous information about the journal, including aims and scope, editorial board, and table of content.

The article presents a table of content for a 2018 issue of the periodical, along with a list of its editorial board members, including Robert Casson, Salmaan Al-Qureshi, and Anne Brooks; and copyright information.

Purpose: Properly conducted controlled clinical trials (CCTs) provide the highest level of evidence for optimising decision-making in healthcare. Electronic search strategies do not exhaustively retrieve them, because of issues related to indexing, exclusion of journals in languages other than English, among others. A handsearch approach is therefore warranted. We aimed to identify all CCTs published in Ophthalmology journals in Spain, to describe their main features, and to submit them to the Cochrane Register of CCTs (CENTRAL). Methods: After identifying all Spanish Ophthalmology Journals, we conducted a systematic handsearch following Cochrane guidelines. When appropriate, results were compared against electronic searches. A descriptive analysis was completed, including risk of bias assessment. Results: We identified 18 eligible journals; 10 074 original articles, editorials, letters to the editor, abstracts and conference proceedings were assessed via handsearching for inclusion. Of these, 136 were subject to title and abstract screening, after which 102 were classified as CCTs. We identified three articles via electronic searches that had not been detected via handsearch, for a total of 105 CCTs. Among these, the most investigated pathologies were cataracts (32/105; 30.5%) and glaucoma (23/105 21.9%). Regarding risk of bias, 104/105 (99.0%) were deemed as “high risk of bias”, mainly due to flaws in sequence generation and allocation concealment. 15/105 (14.3%) mentioned conflicts of interest, half of which had something to declare. No CCT reported adherence to CONSORT. Conclusion: Spanish Ophthalmology journals publish a low number of CCTs, with limited methodological quality. Handsearching was more sensitive than the electronic searching. Abbreviations CCT: Controlled clinical trial [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A front cover of the journal "Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology" along with the information on editorial board consisting Chandra Bala, Christine Younan, and John Landers and table of content including correctable visual impairment, follow-up after implantation, and early impairment.

Purpose Evidence-based medicine is guided by our interpretation of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that address important clinical questions. Evaluation of the robustness of statistically significant outcomes adds a crucial element to the global assessment of trial findings. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the robustness of ophthalmology RCTs through application of the Fragility Index (FI), a novel metric of the robustness of statistically significant outcomes. Design Systematic review. Methods A literature search (MEDLINE) was performed for all RCTs published in top ophthalmology journals and ophthalmology-related RCTs published in high-impact journals in the past 10 years. Two reviewers independently screened 1811 identified articles for inclusion if they (1) were a human ophthalmology-related trial, (2) had a 1:1 prospective study design, and (3) reported a statistically significant dichotomous outcome in the abstract. All relevant data, including outcome, P value, number of patients in each group, number of events in each group, number of patients lost to follow-up, and trial characteristics, were extracted. The FI of each RCT was calculated and multivariate regression applied to determine predictive factors. Results The 156 trials had a median sample size of 91.5 (range, 13–2593) patients/eyes, and a median of 28 (range, 4–2217) events. The median FI of the included trials was 2 (range, 0–48), meaning that if 2 non-events were switched to events in the treatment group, the result would lose its statistical significance. A quarter of all trials had an FI of 1 or less, and 75% of trials had an FI of 6 or less. The FI was less than the number of missing data points in 52.6% of trials. Predictive factors for FI by multivariate regression included smaller P value ( P < 0.001), larger sample size ( P = 0.001), larger number of events ( P = 0.011), and journal impact factor ( P = 0.029). Conclusions In ophthalmology trials, statistically significant dichotomous results are often fragile, meaning that a difference of only a couple of events can change the statistical significance. An application of the FI in RCTs may aid in the interpretation of results and assessment of quality of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia is the property of Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The importance of transparency with financial ties in biomedical research is widely recognized, and most peer-reviewed journals require declarations of Conflicts of Interest (COI). Nonetheless, variability in the consistency of declarations of COI has been sparsely assessed. To assess consistency and rates of COI declarations in the ophthalmic literature and the effectiveness of journal COI policies. We analyzed consistency and completeness of declaration of COI in the ophthalmic literature and compared the levels of completeness to specific journal requirements. Six-hundred forty-two peer reviewed articles satisfied the inclusion criteria. In 64%, COIs were unreported, in 25% declaration of COI was incomplete, and 11% of the articles reviewed had complete declaration of COI. Of the 33 journals in which the most frequently published authors’ articles appeared, 10 required the authors to complete the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) form or an equivalent form, but this did not affect the rates of COI declaration. In a random sampling of the most frequently published authors in the field of ophthalmology, declaration of COI was low and highly inconsistent. Requiring a standardized COI form has no significant effect on the rate of accurate COI reporting. Our findings lend support to the growing body of literature that shows that journals and editors may need to take a more active role in ensuring accurate and consistent COI reporting. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Purpose To review abstracts presented at five consecutive meetings of the European College of Veterinary Ophthalmologists ( ECVO), and identify abstract characteristics that affect the probability of their publication in peer-reviewed journals. Methods An online search was conducted for peer-reviewed publications ( PRPs) stemming from abstracts from five ECVO meetings (2008-2012). Time to publication and journal were noted. Effects of ocular tissue/discipline, species, type of presentation and study, funding acknowledgment and affiliation, professional qualifications, and nationality of the first and last authors on probability of publication were analyzed. Results Of presented abstracts, 29% (87/299) were published as PRPs in Veterinary Ophthalmology ( n = 50), other veterinary journals ( n = 22), and nonveterinary journals ( n = 15). During the 5 years studied, there was no significant difference between the impact factor of Veterinary Ophthalmology and the 25 other journals in which PRPs were published ( P = 0.369). Median time to PRP acceptance or publication was 468 days. Independent variables most significant in determining the probability of PRP were oral presentation ( P = 0.002), resident authorship ( P < 0.0001), and species ( P = 0.002), with food animal abstracts having the highest odds ratio. Ocular tissue/discipline ( P = 0.13) and type of study ( P = 0.33) did not affect publication probability. Funding acknowledgment ( P = 0.02), author nationality ( P = 0.02), and academic affiliation ( P = 0.04) were also significant factors. Conclusions Publication rate of ECVO abstracts is lower, but time to publication is similar, compared with most biomedical meetings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article profiles several ophthalmologists who serve as editors for "Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology" journal. An overview of the educational and career background of Dennis S. C. Lam, director of the State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology of Sun Yat-sen University, Jonathan S. Myers, director of the Glaucoma Service of Wills Eye Hospital and Jay J. Meyer, senior lecturer at the University of Auckland, is provided.

The article offers various information regarding journal including editorial board members such as Anders Behndig, Anders Heijl, and Jesper Hjortdal; table of content, and copyright and photocopying policies of journal.

A table of contents for the December 2016 issue of the journal "Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology" is presented.

An author index for Volume 9 (2016) of the "Journal of Innovative Optical Health Sciences," is presented.

An author's index for 2016 issue of the periodical "Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology" is presented.

The article presents the front cover of the periodical; a list of its editorial board members, including G. Sybren de Hoog, Carol A. Kauffman, and Stephane Bretagne; along with the copyright information of the periodical.

Purpose: To test whether there is an association between the growth in the number of ophthalmic journals in the past years and their mean and maximum impact factor (IF) as a common sign of scientific proliferation.Methods: Using data from the 2013 Journal Citation Report database a study of the major clinical medical fields was conducted to assess the correlation between the number of journals and maximum IF in a given field in the year 2013. In the field of ophthalmology, we examined the correlation between year, number of journals, mean IF and maximum IF in the field of ophthalmology throughout the years 2000-2013.Results: In the major medical fields, a positive correlation was found between the number of journals and the maximum IF (quadratic R2 = 0.71, P< 0.001). When studying the field of ophthalmology a positive correlation between the number of journals and mean IF (R2 = 0.84, P< 0.001) and between number of journals and maximum IF (R2 = 0.71, P< 0.001) was detected.Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the variation in the IF can be explained by the number of journals in the field of ophthalmology. In the future, the formation of additional ophthalmology journals is likely to further increase the IFs of existing journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose To evaluate trends in the prevalence of women authors in ophthalmology in recent years. Design Cohort study. Participants Authors listed in publications of 6 leading ophthalmology journals between January 2002 and December 2014. Methods Using the PubMed search engine, we conducted an observational study of trends in gender distribution of all authors in 6 leading ophthalmology journals between January 2002 and December 2014. In multiauthored articles, the first listed author often is the lead investigator and the last author is the senior author. Therefore, the full names and positions (first, middle, or last) of all authors in every article were collected. A Google-based name identifier was used to assign the gender of authors. Main Outcome Measures Proportion of women authors throughout the study period in all journals, general ophthalmology versus subspecialty journals, and basic science versus clinical research journals. Furthermore, we assessed the proportion of women in different authorship positions (first, middle, and last). Results A total of 102 254 authors from 23 026 published articles were analyzed. There was a significant rise over time in the percentage of women authors, with a steeper slope for first authors than for last authors ( P <0.001), although in 2014, women authors were less than the 50% mark in all categories of authorship. The rise in the percentage of women authors was similar in basic and clinical research, but was steeper for first authorship than for last authorship ( P <0.001). In all 3 authorship positions (first, middle, or last), women's contributions consistently were higher in basic research publications. The rise in the percentage of women authors was significantly steeper for general journals than for subspecialty journals ( P <0.001). There was no significant rise for last authorship in subspecialty journals. In all 3 authorship positions, the proportion of women was consistently higher in general ophthalmology journals than for subspecialty journals. Conclusions Despite an overall increase in the contribution of women to the field of ophthalmology, contributions to articles published in subspecialty ophthalmology journals and the proportion of women listed as last authors on overall articles published in ophthalmology journals are still low. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

No abstract available [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors offer comments on the decline in numbers of case reports/series published in ophthalmic/ophthalmology journals. Topics covered include how the focus on evidence-based medicine contributed to the decline in the status of case reports, emergence of evidence-based case report in the late 1990s, factors influencing the reduction in the number of published case reports and the role of online and open-access medical publishing as a platform for case reports.

No abstract available [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To track citation patterns in ophthalmic journals and contrast them with major medical and surgical journals from 1997 to 2009. In addition, we want to familiarize the ophthalmic community with bibliometrics indices. Materials and Methods: Data retrieved from Institute for Scientific Information and related websites include 2-year journal impact factor JIF, 5-year impact, Eigenfactor score, H-factor, Article Influence score, and SCImago factor. Results: JIF rose steadily around 10% annually in ophthalmic journals, and likewise for major medical and surgical journals. JIF correlated with recent bibliometric indicators like 5-year impact, H index, and SCImago factor but not with Eigenfactor. Ophthalmic journals publishing reviews, basic science, or large volume on broad range of topics ranked at the top for JIF, while subspecialty journals tended to have low JIF. JIF of subspecialty journal Retina rose from 0.740 (rank 23) in 2000 to 3.088 in 2007 (rank 6). Conclusions: JIF tends to rise annually by 10% in medical, surgical, and ophthalmic fields. Journals publishing reviews, basic science, or large volume on broad range of topics rank at the top for JIF. The rapid rise of JIF for Retina unlike other subspecialties that stayed status quo is multifactorial: Change in editorial policies (introduction of review articles and omission of case reports) and technological advances in the retinal field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An author index for the December 2014 issue of the journal "Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology" is presented.

The table of contents for the December 2014 issue of the journal "Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology" is presented.

No abstract available [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 (R2 = 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 (R2 = -32.6, p = 0.013). An inverse correlation was detected between SCR and IF in the 29 ophthalmology journals with the lowest IF (R2 = -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 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An author index for the 2013 issue of the journal "Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology" is presented.

The table of contents for the January/February 2013 issue of the journal "Clinical & Experimental Ophthalmology" is presented.

No abstract available [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

No abstract available [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Eye diseases with increasing mortality are common health problems that affect people of all ages and demographic backgrounds. In this study, we study the publication characteristics in international ophthalmic journals of the US, the UK, Germany, Australia, Japan, and China. Methods: Articles published in 53 ophthalmic journals from 2000 to 2011 were retrieved from the PubMed database. We recorded the number of articles published each year, analyzed the publication type, and evaluated the accumulated and average impact factors (IFs), and the distribution of articles in ophthalmic journals in relation to IFs. The characteristics of publication outputs from China and other top-ranking countries were compared. Results: The total number of articles increased significantly during the past 12 years, with an increase of 51.0%. The growth in the annual number of articles from the US, the UK, Australia, and China showed a significantly positive trend. Publications from the US exceeded those from any other country and had the highest IFs, largest number of total citations of articles, and the most articles published in leading ophthalmic journals. During the past 12 years, China contributed 3.5% of the total publications, and the number of Chinese articles showed a more than 6-fold increase (from 99 to 605, R2 =0.947, P<0.001). The numbers of IFs and citations of articles originating in China were mostly lower than for other top-ranking counties. Conclusions: Research on ophthalmic journals has maintained an upward growing trend from 2000 to 2011. Chinese ophthalmology research has developed rapidly, but the gap still exists between China and other top-ranking countries for the advanced level of research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The table of contents for volume 47, 2012 of the journal "Ophthalmic Research: Journal for Translational and Clinical Research" is presented.

The authors collected the numbers of citations and downloads from 2005 to 2009 of papers in five Chinese general ophthalmological journals: Recent Advances in Ophthalmology, Chinese Ophthalmic Research, Ophthalmology in China, Journal of Clinical Ophthalmology and Chinese Journal of Practical Ophthalmology, published in 2005 from the Chinese Academic Journals Full-text Database and the Chinese Citation Database in Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) to determine the correlation between download and citation and the peak time of download frequency (DF). The citations from 2000 to 2009 of papers published in 2000 were collected to determine the peak time of citation frequency (CF) of medical papers. There is a highly positive correlation between DF and CF (r=4.91, P=0.000). Serials Review 2011; 37:157-161. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Statistical analysis of data can be complex and different statisticians may disagree as to the correct approach leading to conflict between authors, editors, and reviewers. The objective of this article is to provide some statistical advice for contributors to optometric and ophthalmic journals, to provide advice specifically relevant to clinical studies of human vision, and to recommend statistical analyses that could be used in a variety of circumstances. In submitting an article, in which quantitative data are reported, authors should describe clearly the statistical procedures that they have used and to justify each stage of the analysis. This is especially important if more complex or ‘non-standard’ analyses have been carried out. The article begins with some general comments relating to data analysis concerning sample size and ‘power’, hypothesis testing, parametric and non-parametric variables, ‘bootstrap methods’, one and two-tail testing, and the Bonferroni correction. More specific advice is then given with reference to particular statistical procedures that can be used on a variety of types of data. Where relevant, examples of correct statistical practice are given with reference to recently published articles in the optometric and ophthalmic literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author reflects on the developments and objectives of the "Indian Journal of Ophthalmology (IJO). He stresses that the said publication has improved and matured as the field of ophthalmology evolves. The author discusses the concept of the journal's new logo, in relevance to the publication's developments. He also emphasizes the goal of the journal, which is to conduct quality research on eye diseases.

Compiled by John H. Pula. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article provides an overview of significant milestones in EMDR history over the first 20 years. A chronological outline lists key events, documenting important publications, conferences, and humanitarian efforts. This is followed by a list of countries in which EMDR currently has an active presence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The majority of ophthalmology and visual science journals reject more original manuscripts than they accept. Submissions to Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology were analysed over a 12-month period with the aim of identifying common reasons for editorial rejection of manuscripts. Methods: A content analysis was carried out of reviewer and section editor comments of all rejected manuscripts (original papers) submitted to Clinical 0mp; Experimental Ophthalmology between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2008. Comments were categorized by reasons for rejection. Results: A total of 662 manuscripts were submitted to Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology via ScholarOne Manuscripts from 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2008 with a final decision date of up to 1 April 2009. The overall rejection rate for these manuscripts was 73.6%. The most common reason for rejection of manuscripts was ‘does not add to current literature’, followed by ‘poor methodology’, ‘problematic control groups’, ‘poor English and grammar/poorly organized’, ‘needs further work/clarification’ and ‘simultaneous submission to another journal/plagiarized’; the remainder had either no readily categorized reason stated or were grouped into an ‘other’ category. Discussion: Understanding why original research work is rejected can be invaluable to an author's publishing career. The categories that emerged from this content analysis are reflected in other literature on the topic, therefore the flaws in manuscripts rejected by Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology appear to be both common and avoidable. Armed with this knowledge an author may strive towards a more ‘rejection-proof’ manuscript when submitting to ophthalmology and visual science journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To analyse the pattern of change in publication content and citations generated by a mid-ranking ophthalmology journal as it evolved from the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Ophthalmology (ANZJO) to its successor, Clinical 0mp; Experimental Ophthalmology (CEO). Methods: The Science Citation Index was used to analyse the publications of ANZJO and CEO over two 10-year periods (1990–1999 and 2000–2009, respectively). Publication and citation patterns were analysed in terms of source authors, institutions and countries. As a secondary measure, journal impact factors (JIFs) were retrieved from the Journal Citation Reports at the end of each period. Results: Over the specified periods, 859 articles published in ANZJO were cited 1210 times, and 1529 articles published in CEO were cited 5374 times. Australia was the largest contributing country to both journals; however, the proportional contributions from other countries including New Zealand, UK, USA, India and China increased significantly in CEO. Articles were cited by authors from 793 institutions in 60 countries for ANZJO and 2997 institutions in 95 countries for CEO. The contribution by key authors (identified as the top 10 most-published authors) towards total journal publications was 24% in ANZJO, but only 16% in CEO; however, these publications were responsible for 26.6% and 28.8% of the total citations, respectively. With respect to the most recent JIFs, ANZJO was 0.433 in 1999 (ranked 33 of 43 journals) and CEO was 1.35 in 2008 (ranked 27 of 48 journals). Conclusion: CEO has substantially increased the number of publications, citation counts and international sources compared with its well-established predecessor, ANZJO, over the assessed periods. CEO also appears to have a higher international profile with increasing citations counts from more countries. This evolution from a regional, to a more international, journal has been substantial and is reflected by a significant increment in JIF, and a modest increase in overall JIF-ranking, for CEO. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND/AIM: To investigate the effect of masking the author’s identity to peer reviewers on reviewer bias in an ophthalmic subspecialty journal. DESIGN: A retrospective study of 531 manuscripts, involving 1182 masked reviews, submitted to Journal of American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus from 2000 to 2005. METHODS: Data were extracted from recommendation forms completed by each referee during review. Investigated variables consisted of reviewer’s knowledge of author identity, recommendation (accept, revise, or reject publishing), eventual manuscript status (published or not), review quality, gender, country, medical practice setting (academic or private) and editorial board status. RESULTS: This study involved the largest number of manuscripts ever used to evaluate the importance of author masking. Reviewer’s knowledge of the author’s identity had no effect on review quality. However, proportionally fewer manuscripts were published when there was no idea of the author’s identity, compared with when it was allegedly known or suspected (p<0.0001). Manuscripts had lower recommendation scores when there was no idea of the author’s identity compared with when allegedly known (p = 0.0001) or suspected (p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Reviewers were more favourable when they allegedly knew or suspected the author’s identity. Double-masking may improve the quality of biomedical publishing or at least reduce reviewer bias for effectively masked manuscripts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To survey the disclosure policy for authors, peer reviewers, and editors in English-language ophthalmology journals. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Participants: English-language ophthalmology journals. Methods: All indexed English-language ophthalmology journals were identified. The journals'' websites were reviewed for published conflict-of-interest disclosure policies for authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In cases where no policy was found, the journal''s editor was contacted directly to confirm if a policy existed. Main Outcome Measures: The existence of conflict-of-interest policy for authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Results: Forty-two English-language ophthalmology journals were identified. Web-based published conflict-of-interest policies were found for authors in 33 (79%), for peer reviewers in 3 (7%), and for editors in 2 (5%) of the 42 journals. After contacting those journals with no published policies, these numbers increased to 37 (100%) of 37 for authors, 18 (60%) of 30 for peer reviewers, and 10 (33%) of 30 for editors. Seven journals with published disclosure policies for authors, but not for peer reviewers or editors, did not respond to the survey, and a further 5 journals without any published disclosure policy did not respond to the survey. Journals with a higher impact factor were more likely to have a web-based published disclosure policy for peer reviewers and a disclosure policy for editors. Conclusions: Most English-language ophthalmology journals have a conflict-of-interest policy for authors; however, they are not publicly available in 21% of journals. Conflict-of-interest policies for peer reviewers and editors are less common and are more likely not to be published compared with those for authors. Financial Disclosure(s): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The article discusses research investigating the accuracy of research citations in ophthalmic periodicals. The authors note the importance of providing references and citations in research but comment that the accuracy of citations is often not verified. They note previous research regarding editing and citation accuracy for medical journals and describe their study, in which references from peer-reviewed research printed in ophthalmic and optometry periodicals from different publishers were analyzed. Typographical errors for author names and article titles, as well as errors in dates and page numbers and missing data, were noted. The study revealed that prepublication checking of references reduces error rates.