Analysis of the publication volume of Canadian ophthalmology departments from 2005 to 2009: a systematic review of the literature

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 mos1 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.     

Citation analysis of the most influential authors and ophthalmology journals in the field of cataract and corneal refractive surgery 2000-2004

Purpose: To identify the most published authors on the topics of ‘cataract’ and ‘LASIK’, the journals in which they publish, and the citation patterns of the most‐cited articles by these authors over a 5‐year publication period. Methods: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI) was used to identify the 30 most‐published authors in ‘cataract’ and ‘laser in situ keratomileusis’ (LASIK) (2000–2004 inclusive). SCI was subsequently used to analyse the recorded articles for each author in terms of source journal, the most commonly cited articles and citation source. Results: Of the 30 most‐published authors in the fields of cataract and LASIK, the USA was the most well‐represented source country, accounting for 33%; 20% were from Australia, and 17% from Austria. Germany and Japan each contributed 7%. Eighty per cent of the publications produced by these 30 authors (2000–2004) were in 10 journals, of which the Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (JCRS) published more than one‐third. Of the three most‐cited articles for each author, the greatest number were published in JCRS (35.6%). The citation count of the articles had a weak correlation to the journal impact factor of the source journal; however, the self‐citation rate of these articles did not. Conclusions: The USA and Australia together were the source of more than half of the most‐published authors on cataract and LASIK and the majority of articles published by the 30 most prolific authors were published in only 10 journals. The impact factors of the publication journals preferred by these authors are influenced by the article citation counts, not vice versa.     

中华眼科杂志2001至2004年载文分析

目的探讨中华眼科杂志的载文规律。方法利用文献计量学方法对中华眼科杂志刊载文献篇数、发文栏目、引文频率、基金资助、发表时滞等情况进行统计分析。结果中华眼科杂志2001至2004年共发表了926篇论文和16篇信息报道,共计942篇。集中刊载在24个栏目,载文的引文率达89．98％,获得基金资助的比率较其20世纪90年代有较大提高,获基金资助论文占全部发文数量的19．53％,论文发表时滞较长。结论中华眼科杂志的专业学术水平高,是国内眼科学研究领域的核心杂志。建议增加出版频率或增加版面。(中华眼科杂志,2005,41：652-655)     

Publication and citation analysis of the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Ophthalmology and Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology over a 10‐year period: the evolution of an ophthalmology journal

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 and 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.     

Redundant publications in scientific ophthalmologic journals: the tip of the iceberg?

OBJECTIVE: The number of scientific publications is often used to measure scientific achievement. This practice can motivate unethical conduct, such as redundant or duplicate publications, defined as publication of the same scientific contents in more than 1 journal. The aim of this study was to estimate the amount of redundant publications in ophthalmologic journals. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of published literature. METHODS: We developed an electronic search engine for redundancies to estimate the amount of duplicate publications in scientific journals. When redundancies reached a given degree (matching score), the articles were screened manually based on authors, titles, and abstracts. We applied this method to the 22 433 articles that were published between 1997 and 2000 in 70 ophthalmologic journals indexed by MEDLINE. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The number of duplicate publications with a matching score of 0.6 or more, the number of involved journals, and the number of authors. RESULTS: Redundancies reached a matching score of 0.6 or more in 13 967 pairs of articles. Out of them, a sample of 2210 was reviewed manually. We found 60 redundant articles and estimated that 1.39% of the publications were redundant. Thirty-two journals and an estimate of 1092 authors were involved. In 5% of cases, the scientific conclusions were modified. CONCLUSIONS: Because of the restrictive selection process, the impracticability of detecting all redundant publications, and the estimated amount of duplicates increases with lower matching scores, we regard our estimate to be the tip of the iceberg. Duplicate publications have several negative impacts, but neither peer reviewers nor editors can protect their journal from them completely. Several deterrents for duplicate publications are possible, but as long as publications remain the central requirement for academic advancement, a solution seems unlikely. Nevertheless, it is the responsibility of all those who care about objective research and evidence-based medicine to address this problem-not only in ophthalmology.     

北京同仁眼科中心临床部2008-2010年发表论文情况分析

目的 分析北京同仁眼科中心临床部所发论文的特点,为个人及单位增强科研实力提供建议。设计 回顾性研究。研究对象 2008年1月~2010年12月北京同仁眼科中心临床部在北京同仁医院登记存档的第一作者及通信作者学术论文。方法 统计分析论文数量、构成、期刊类型分布及作者职称和发文类型等。主要指标 论文数量、种类、期刊类型分布、研究内容、作者职称和发文类型。结果 北京同仁眼科中心临床部2008-2010年共发表论文533篇,其中SCI文章88篇（16.51%）,中华系列94篇（17.64%）,核心期刊304篇（57.04%）。其中2008、2009、2010年分别发文172篇、195篇、166篇,SCI文章分别为19篇、29篇、40篇。SCI期刊约62种,核心期刊44种。文章类型以临床研究为主（244篇）,基础研究（101篇）、专科护理（60篇）、教学管理（9篇）等也均有涉及。533篇论文中,498篇（93.43%）由中、高级职称人员撰写。结论 北京同仁眼科中心临床部近年发表论文数量整体趋势相对平稳,发文质量不断提高,反映专业水平和科研实力层次多、角度广。高级职称专家和中青年技术骨干为主要发文群体。（眼科,2012,21：132-135）     

北京市眼科研究所2013-2015年科技论文发表情况

目的 分析北京市眼科研究所2013-2015年科技论文发表情况,为科研工作的发展和管理提供参考。设计 回顾性研究。研究对象 2013年1月1日至2015年12月31日北京市眼科研究所作为第一完成单位发表的中英文科技论文。方法 对2013-2015年各年度科技论文发表的分布（SCI、中华、核心、非核心）,水平（影响因子）,研究类型（临床、基础、流行病）,研究方向,第一作者的年龄、职称、学位在各年度和期刊类型的分布情况,科研项目对论文的支持等情况进行统计描述。主要指标 论文数量、论文性质、期刊类型分布、研究类型、研究方向、第一作者年龄、职称和学位。结果 北京市眼科研究所3年间共发表科技论文292篇,其中2013、2014、2015年分别发表论文90篇、92篇和110篇。SCI收录期刊论文120篇（41.1%）、中华系列91篇（31.2%）、核心期刊68篇（23.3%）、非核心期刊13篇（4.5%）。三年间每年发表收录在SCI期刊的论文平均单篇影响因子为3.0~3.1,论文以临床研究类型为主,主要研究方向是青光眼和眼底病。＜30岁年龄组和45岁以上年龄组是作为第一作者发表文章的主要人群。具有博士学位的人员发表论文数量最多,121篇（46.9%）。具有硕士学位的人员发表的论文SCI收录比例最高,占67.6%（25篇）。研究生作为第一作者发表论文数量最多,82篇（31.8%）;其次是正高级职称人员,74篇（28.7%）。中级职称人员发表SCI收录期刊论文29篇（占总SCI论文数的28.7%）。发表论文标注的资助项目出现频次共计288次,主要来自国家自然科学基金、北京市科技新星和首都卫生发展科研专项。 结论 2013-2015年间发表论文的数量和质量整体趋势稳中有升,高影响因子论文数量有待提升。正高级职称人员是发表科技论文的主力。国家级科研项目等多渠道基金资助对科技论文的发表有积极的推动作用。     

2000/2007年我国弱视文献的计量分析

目的:从文献计量学角度统计我国2000/2007年公开发表的弱视相关文献,分析弱视文献的表现特点并总结弱视基础与临床研究发展现状和趋势。方法:利用中国学术期刊网提供的期刊全文数据库进行检索,以弱视为主题词和篇名检索2000/2007年公开发表的医药卫生期刊,对检索出的文献使用文献计量学方法进行统计、分析研究。结果:共检索出以篇名为检索词的相关文献962篇,文献呈逐年增长趋势。文献内容以临床研究为主,发表量集中在广东、山东、河南等地区。结论:在我国弱视研究与治疗仍处于起步阶段,基础研究相对滞后。总体发展呈上升趋势,文献质量在不断提高。     

Publication languages of Impact Factor journals and of medical bibliographic databanks (reprint)

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: A preference for English-language sources during determination of Journal Impact Factors (IF) was discussed, IF being published in the annual Journal Citation Reports (JCR). The JCR are derived from data in Science Citation Index (SCI). The aim of this study was, therefore, (i) to review publication countries and languages in JCR, (ii) publication languages in SCI in comparison to further recognised medical bibliographic databanks. METHODS: Searching (i) countries and languages in JCR Science-Editions 1997 and 1998, (ii) language distributions in publication years 1995 - 2000 in bibliographic databanks SCI, MEDLINE (ME) and EMBASE (EM). RESULTS: (i) Almost 70 % journals in JCR 1997 and 1998 were published in USA, United Kingdom, or The Netherlands. Of two language options present, a number of English-classified journals contained > 90 % articles in other languages, whereas > 90 % publications in English could occur in Multi-Language (ML) journals, thereby complicating statistical comparisons. 83,9 % JCR-periodicals in 1997 and 85,6 % in 1998 were classified English. English/ML ratios increased exponentially with increasing IF. (ii) 95,5 % of the articles documented 1995 - 2000 in whole SCI and in our constructed SCI segment "Medicine and related areas" were written in English, compared to 88,5 % in ME and 89,8 % in EM. The SCI Medicine segment was 15 % more comprehensive than either MEDLINE or EMBASE. Highly significant differences of language distributions in SCI vs. MEDLINE and especially SCI vs. EMBASE were observed. Retrieval rates in SCI of German-, French-, Japanese- and Chinese-language medical papers published in 2000 were impressively augmented by EMBASE and MEDLINE. CONCLUSIONS: (i) Anglo-American publishers" countries and English-language journals prevail in JCR with respect to numbers and IF levels. Publication language English favours citation frequency. (ii) Of databanks studied, SCI shows a maximum preference for English-language sources, thereby causing an English Language Bias during IF derivation.     

中华眼科杂志2001至2006年作者发表论文及其被引情况分析

目的从文献引证角度透视中华眼科杂志的作者发表论文和被引情况。方法依据《中国生物医学期刊引文数据库》（CMCI）,采用文献计量方法对中华眼科杂志作者发表论文和被引情况进行统计分析及评价。结果中华眼科杂志2001至2006年间,共有990名第一著者发表论文1513篇,其中来自479人的705篇论文被引用2611次。发表1篇论文的作者有748人,占第一作者人数的75．6％,发表4篇以上的核心作者50人,发表论文325篇（21．5％）。按作者地区划分,北京地区发表论文412篇（27．2％）,被引666次,居首;广东地区发表论文235篇（15．5％）被引632次,居第二位。按作者单位划分,17个论文多产单位发表论文851篇（55．6％）,被引1611次（61．7％）;其中中山大学中山眼科中心发表论文198篇,被引526次,居机构排名首位;首都医科大学北京同仁眼科中心发表论文140篇,被引237次,居第二位。结论中华眼科杂志所载文献被引用比例较高,拥有一支实力雄厚、对刊物影响力较大、学术造诣较深的活跃核心作者队伍,作者群地区分布范围广,发表论文较多的地区是北京、广东、上海。     

中国大陆地区发表在SCI期刊上的眼科随机对照试验报告质量评价

背景按照循证医学（EBM）的理念对医学临床研究进行随机对照试验（RCT）能够为医疗决策提供重要证据,国际编辑组织提供的临床试验报告统一标准（CONSORT）是医学临床研究者正确撰写RCT报告的指南。目前中国临床研究人员对RCT的评价和使用方法了解的还不够。目的采用2010版CONSORT对中国大陆地区眼科研究者在SCI期刊上所发表的有关眼科疾病的RCT报告的方法学质量进行评价,为RCT报告的正确撰写提供方法学介绍。方法在PubMed平台检索中国大陆眼科研究者在SCI期刊上发表的眼科RCT研究文章,检索文献截止至2013年3月,由2位评阅者对检索的文献独立评分,统计所纳入文献对于CONSORT各项条目的符合率,根据CONSORT的发表和修订年份对文章进一步分层分析。结果共纳入60篇眼科研究相关的RCT文献,研究中的干预措施以手术类为主（34／60）,共有44篇文献设立了2个研究组,样本量的中位数为76．0。纳入的文献中,仅有22％的文章（13／60）在文题中标注了RCT。绝大多数文章在摘要和背景部分进行了合理描述,仅4篇文章提出了试验的假设,占7％。在方法部分,仅12篇文章报告了如何计算样本量,有41篇报告了资料收集的场所和地点,仅6篇文章提到了中期分析和中止原则。2010版CONSORT声明发表后,中国大陆地区所发表的RCT报告对随机化的描述并未显著改善（RR=1．06,95％CI：0．62～1．82）,对盲法进行描述的报告仅占42％（25／60）。结论中国大陆地区发表在SCI期刊上的RCT报告还存在较多问题。严格按照CONSORT声明设计并报告高质量的RCT有助于真实、客观地反映中国眼科临床研究的现状,提高中国大陆地区眼科临床试验的质量,并为眼科临床工作提供指导。     

2012-2016年中文青光眼相关文献的计量学分析

目的 探讨2012-2016年我国中文青光眼相关文章的整体情况。设计 文献计量学分析。研究对象  2012-2016年中文的青光眼相关文献。方法 利用中国学术期刊、万方电子期刊、中国生物医学文献数据库联合检索2012-2016年我国的中文青光眼相关文献,利用文献计量学的方法,对所发表的相关文献的论文数量及年代、发文机构、核心作者、期刊分布情况进行统计描述,对文献的关键词进行文本挖掘词云和聚类分析,以归纳青光眼领域的研究热点。主要指标 文献的年份分布、作者单位分布、作者分布、所属期刊分布、关键词聚类分析。结果 共检索到青光眼相关中文论文8332篇,自2014年起文献发表呈下降趋势（1707篇,1781篇,1698篇,1611篇,1535篇）。发表文章数量前三的单位是北京同仁医院（205篇）、中山眼科中心（109篇）、复旦大学附属眼耳鼻喉科医院（78篇）。发表文章前三的作者是王宁利（65篇）、李建军（37篇）、孙兴怀（30篇）。刊载文献数量最多的期刊是国际眼科杂志（622篇）。近五年青光眼研究的热点是晶状体与青光眼的关系及青白联合手术、原发性闭角型青光眼的治疗及白内障手术在抗青光眼中的应用、急性闭角型青光眼的降眼压治疗及临床护理、抗青光眼手术（包括小梁切除术、复合式小梁切除术、房角分离手术等）的临床效果及并发症、相干光断层扫描在青光眼中的应用。结论 文献计量学分析可有效归纳我国青光眼相关文章发表的大体状况,我国中文青光眼相关文章发表有下降趋势,原发性闭角型青光眼的研究仍是近五年我国眼科的研究热点。     

《中国斜视与小儿眼科杂志》载文被引分析研究

目的从文献引证的角度了解《中国斜视与小儿眼科杂志》的学术水平和期刊质量。方法依据中国生物医学期刊引文数据库(CMCI),采用文献计量学方法对《中国斜视与小儿眼科杂志》载文被CMCI来源期刊引用的情况进行统计、分析及评价。结果载文被引1261次,单篇论文平均被引次数为2.97次,被引作者群的地域分布29个省、市和自治区,北京、山东、广东等地区居于前列,有214种期刊引用该刊。结论该刊是我国斜视与小儿眼科医学研究领域重要的信息源之一,是我国眼科学研究领域的主要期刊。     

我国4种眼科学术期刊中视力相关问题的统计与分析

目的 了解《中华眼科杂志》《中国实用眼科杂志》《中华眼底病杂志》《眼视光学杂志》4种期刊中有关视力方面问题的统计.方法 仔细阅读2008年在这4种期刊中刊出的所有论文,记录每一篇论文的特征,包括是否提及视力、是否以视力作为结果、使用的视力表类型、视力检查细节、远近视力、视力矫正方式、视力记录法、视力的描述性统计等,采用Excel 2003软件对数据进行分类、整理、归纳和求百分比.结果 2008年这4种期刊共发表论文1111篇,提及视力的有476篇,以视力为结果的有237篇.在这237篇中,51篇提到其所使用的视力表类型,其中国际标准视力表占43.1%,标准对数视力表占29.4%;155篇提到了视力矫正方式,以最佳矫正为主;213篇在论文中体现了其所使用的视力记录法,小数记录法占75.1%,5分记录法占10.1%;216篇论文对视力进行了描述性统计,对视力进行分级的占66.7%,以均数±标准差表示的占24.5%.结论 国内眼科学术期刊在书写视力检查细节方面,特别是对视力数据的描述性统计方面还存在较大问题.加强我国眼科医生的眼视光学基础知识培训迫在眉睫,同时相关期刊编辑也需重视对该方面问题的审读.     

我国眼科学科技核心期刊2010-2014年主要学术指标对比研究

目的 探究我国眼科学科技核心期刊2010-2014年学术影响力的发展趋势。设计 回顾性资料分析。研究对象 我国眼科学科技核心期刊。方法 以2011-2015年中国科技引证报告（核心版）收录的眼科学科技核心期刊的主要学术指标为来源数据,比较我国眼科学科技核心期刊的总被引频次、影响因子、他引率、基金论文比和综合评价总分等指标。主要指标 期刊总被引频次、影响因子、他引率、基金论文比、综合评价总分。结果 2010-2014年,《中华眼科杂志》历年总被引频次均位居所有中国眼科学科技核心期刊首位,分别为2318、2584、2717、2616、2278;《国际眼科杂志》发文总量12 336篇位居第二位,近年来各项指标提升快;5年影响因子平均值位居前5位的分别是《中华眼科杂志》、《中华眼底病杂志》、《眼科新进展》、《中国斜视与小儿眼科杂志》、《眼科》,且其综合评价总分也相对较高,平均值分别为79.58、41.28、45.20、26.24、38.88。结论 我国眼科学科技核心期刊主要学术指标差异明显,但各自仍有上升空间。（眼科, 2016, 25： 413－417）     

Redundant publication of clinical trials on herpetic keratitis

PURPOSE: To examine reported clinical trials on herpes simplex virus epithelial keratitis as a case study for the configuration and possible motives of overlapping publications in the ophthalmic literature. DESIGN: Cross-sectional bibliometric survey. METHODS: One hundred and forty-four reports of 98 randomized clinical trials that formed the framework for a systematic review on dendritic and geographic keratitis were assembled by electronic and manual searching of biomedical journals and transactions, excluding meeting abstracts. Overlapping reports were identified by comparing methods and results. Main articles giving the most detailed results among overlapping reports were contrasted with trial reports without duplication. Annual citation rates since publication were estimated from the number of times each report was cited by subsequent scientific articles indexed in an online citation database. RESULTS: Sixty-one articles were published once, while 83 articles overlapped in 23 clusters, of which 14 (50%) lacked bibliographic cross-reference. Of 55 secondary reports, 34 (62%) had a smaller sample size than their corresponding main report. Secondary articles were less likely to appear in an ophthalmological publication than main reports (P < .001) and were later cited less often (P = .01). Compared to trial reports published once, main articles with an overlapping report had a significantly higher citation rate (P = .04). CONCLUSION: Overlapping publications of therapeutic trials on herpetic keratitis often had undisclosed or fragmentary interconnections. Subsequent authors cited articles having an overlapping report more often than trials published once.     

Research contributions in ophthalmology: Australia's productivity

Background: In 2000, the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Ophthalmology (ANZJO) changed title to Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology. At this time, a review of Australia's contributions to the literature over the previous 21 years appears timely. Bibliometric indicators are used extensively to assess research performance as they offer views of a field that might not otherwise be apparent. The aim of this study was to explore publication output data to construct a picture of ophthalmology that may be of benefit to researchers and ophthalmologists. Methods: Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index databases were used to collate data on ophthal­mology research literature from 1980 to 2000. Subsequent analysis particularly focused on Australia's contribution to this literature, including publication frequency vis‐à‐vis the world, collaboration, and the journals in which Australian researchers frequently publish. These data were also compared with other countries of similar scientific stature or language. Results: Since 1980, Australia has ranked in the top 10 nations contributing to world ophthalmology research. Its contribution was close to world average in the 1980s, but increasing numbers of researchers and papers show Australia exceeding the world average during the 1990s. Most ophthalmology research collaboration by Australians is within Australia. Although fewer in number, collaborative papers with overseas researchers include 28 other countries. Data on the journals in which Australians publish show that Australian researchers continue to exhibit a preference for publication in their own regional journals. Conclusions: This paper, one of a series on the literature of the vision sciences, provides some initial benchmarks on Australia's standing and contribution to the field of ophthalmology research.     

Bibliometric trends in ophthalmology 1997-2009

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.