Contact lens articles in the literature.

We searched the ophthalmic literature of the past 5 years looking for patterns in the publication of contact lens articles. Contact lens articles constituted 2.59% of all ophthalmology articles. We found that a substantial percentage of the articles published in The CLAO Journal and selected optometric journals concerned contact lenses; this, however, was not the case with the major ophthalmology journals (American Journal of Ophthalmology [AJO], Ophthalmology, and Archives of Ophthalmology [Archives]). One recent contact lens development, disposable lenses, was covered by both The CLAO Journal and the major ophthalmology journals, but the coverage differed in that the orientation of the articles in the major ophthalmology journals was essentially negative. Articles about another recent development (rigid gas permeable contact lenses for extended wear), although found in The CLAO Journal, could not be found in the other ophthalmology journals. Finally, when the abstracts of all contact lens articles were reviewed, we found a negative slant to articles published in AJO and Archives. We believe that the major ophthalmology journals present a rather negative view of contact lenses; this, we think, impedes unbiased dissemination of information about new contact lens developments.     

三种眼科学期刊引文分析

目的探讨中、美、英三国主办的三种眼科学期刊引文的引用规律及情报吸收能力。方法采用引文计量分析法统计American Journal of Ophthalmology（AJO）、British Journal of Ophthalmology（BJO）与中华眼科杂志（CJO）2005年刊载的论文所引用的参考文献,从引文数量、引文年代、普赖斯指数、自引率、高被引期刊等多方面进行比较分析。结果AJ0、BJO及CJO篇均引文数量分别为12．67、21．31及11．50,AJO、BJO及CJO的普赖斯指数分别为37．12％、33．47％及44．42％,自引率分别为13．39％、7．54％及9．89％,AJO、BJO及CJO分别引用了1140、1487及724种期刊,前13种期刊总被引频次占全部引文的58．82％、49．51％及46．39％。结论AJO、BJO及CJO各自具有不同的特点。BJO篇均引文数较高,涉猎文献范围广,自引率较低,引用文献半衰期较长;AJO引用期刊相对集中,自引率相对较高;CJO引用文献较新,普赖斯指数较高,自引率适中。     

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.     

中外眼科学术期刊中视力的检测和统计方法比较

目的 比较《中华眼科杂志》（简称C刊）和〈美国眼科杂志〉（简称A刊）上发表的临床科研论文中采用的视力检测方法和统计方法的区别.方法 收集2003-2005年C刊和A刊所有涉及视力的临床科研论文全文.记录每篇论文是否说明视力表类型、视力记录法、是否将小数或分数记录法转换为对数记录法、视力的描述性统计、推断性统计方法、是否使用图表描述视力、是否使用表格列出所有患者的视力等方面资料.计算两种期刊中各自采用的各种方法的比例,并进行比较.结果 C刊3年共刊出论著400篇,有132篇（33.0%）涉及视力;A刊共刊出论著616篇,有358篇（58.1%）涉及视力.C刊和A刊各有77.3%和50.8%的论文没有说明使用的视力表类型.C刊中91.7%的论文采用小数记录法,其中2.6%转换为对数记录法,另外有3.8%的论文直接采用对数记录法：而A刊中74.9%的论文采用分数记录法,其中29.4%转换为对数记录法,另外有14.0%的论文直接采用对数记录法.C刊中采用平均值、标准差和中位数的比例分别为8.3%、6.1%和0%,而A刊分别为31.0%、16.8%和14.0%.C刊使用t检验或方差分析的比例只有5.3%,而A刊为19.0%.C刊采用图表描述视力和用表格列出全部患者视力的比例分别为2.3%和6.8%,A刊则分别为14.2%和24.9%.结论 C刊主要是采用小数记录法,而A刊除了采用分数记录法外,也有相当部分采用对数记录法,或者将分数记录法转换为对数记录法;A刊的论文更多采用平均值、标准差、中位数、t检验、方差分析等统计学分析方法,更多使用图表描述视力和使用表格列出所有患者视力资料.     

Avoiding predatory publishing for early-career ophthalmologists

This article aims at analyzing the impact of predatory publishing in ophthalmology, criteria to identify a legitimate journal, red flags of a predatory journal, sources, and checkpoints available before publishing scientific work in a standard ophthalmology journal. A retrospective review was performed and a list of suspected Ophthalmology predatory journals was extracted through four major so-called blacklists: Beall’s, Cabell’s, Manca’s, and Strinzel’s list. This list of journals was then cross-referenced with the UGC CARE and vetted whitelist of vision science journals to remove the legitimate journals. Moreover, as all the predatory journals are supposed to be open access, all possible types of open-access journals on the Scimago webpage were also searched. A gross estimate in terms of publication cost was searched for, and a list of authentic links to find out a legitimate journal was prepared. Additionally, the methodology by which these predatory journals penetrate legitimate indexes such as PubMed was also evaluated. A total of 51 ophthalmology predatory journals were enlisted. Thirty-eight out of 124 Ophthalmology journals listed on Scimago were open access, and the cost of publishing in predatory journals ranged from USD50–500, which is substantially lower than that in legitimate journals (USD 50–3000). A total of 13 open-access platforms exist, with 10 characteristic red flags to identify a predatory journal. These journals have penetrated legitimate indexes such as PubMed by similar-sounding names to the legitimate journals and have published articles with external funding, which needs indexing. Predatory publishing impacts the quality of research in every field, including Ophthalmology, and must be discouraged.     

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.     

An observational study of the proceedings of the All India Ophthalmological Conference, 2000 and subsequent publication in indexed journals

AIMS: To determine the quality of reporting in the proceedings of the All India Ophthalmological Conference (AIOC) 2000, subsequent rate of publication in an indexed journal and differences between the proceedings and the journal version of these papers. DESIGN: Observational study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All papers presented at the AIOC 2000 were retrieved from the proceedings and assessed for completeness of reporting. To determine the subsequent full publication, a Medline search was performed as of January 2007; consistency between the proceedings paper and the final publication was evaluated. Statistical analysis: Chi square and Fisher's exact tests were used to compare publication rates based on geographical location, subspecialty and study design; Student's t -test was used to compare differences based on the number of authors and sample size. RESULTS: Two hundred papers were retrieved; many failed to include study dates, design or statistical methods employed. Thirty-three (16.5%) papers were subsequently published in indexed journals by January 2007. The published version differed from the proceedings paper in 27 (81.8%) instances, mostly relating to changes in author name, number or sequence. CONCLUSIONS: The overall quality of reporting of scientific papers in the proceedings of the AIOC 2000 was inadequate and many did not result in publication in an indexed journal. Differences between the published paper in journals and in proceedings were seen in several instances. Ophthalmologists should be cautious about using the information provided in conference proceedings in their ophthalmic practice.     

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.     

Highly cited publication performance in the ophthalmology category in the Web of Science database: a bibliometric analysis

AIM: To determine and evaluate the features of highly cited articles (HCAs) in the ophthalmology category in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) from 1991 to 2020. METHODS: The Web of Science Core Collection documents with at least 100 citations from their publication year until December 31, 2020, were evaluated as highly cited. The examined features were the distribution of yearly output and its average number of per publication, HCAs, authors, institutions, journals, and nations. The publication performance of nations and organizations was assessed using six publication indicators. The Y-index was employed to compare the research outputs of various authors. RESULTS: Publications that had cited the most references were highly published in high-impact factor journals. The United States of America came out on top across all six publication indicators, and it was home to eight of the top 10 most productive institutions. The articles written by Breivik et al (2006) and Farrar et al (2001) were highly cited and had a significant impact in 2020. The authors had a higher number of highly cited articles published as corresponding authors than as first authors. CONCLUSION: The findings of the present study highlight the current scope of global research in ophthalmology. The findings can help policy-makers and advisory groups of research centers to develop future policies. In addition, the findings can guide researchers in this field.     

The 100 most influential articles in myopia:a bibliometric analysis

AIM:To identify and characterize the 100 most influential articles in the field of myopia over the last decades.METHODS:Articles on myopia published between January 1975 and March 2020 were searched through the Web of Science Core Collection database.Two independent authors reviewed and determined the 100 most cited articles.The characteristics of each eligible article were recorded,including authors,institutions,countries,journals,publication date,total citations(TCs),annual citations(ACs),research focus and article type.RESULTS:The top 100 most influential articles were published between 1983 and 2016,with 1999 as the most prolific year.The mean number of TCs was 288(range:193-537)and the mean number of ACs was 19(range:7-109).Treatment and epidemiology of myopia were the most important research focus.These articles were published in 21 journals led by Ophthalmology(29%)followed by Investigative Ophthalmology&Visual Science(23%).The number of ACs for articles published in the last ten years was significantly higher than that for the other most-cited articles(44 vs 16,Mann-Whitney U test P<0.01).There is no difference in the number of TCs between original articles and review articles,while the number of ACs for review articles was significantly higher than that for original articles(22 vs 17,Mann-Whitney U test P<0.05).CONCLUSION:This bibliometric analysis can provide us with concise information about the development trend of research in the field of myopia in the past few decades,and provide an important reference for researchers to guide future research.     

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)     

Oculoplastic publication trends in general ophthalmology journals

AIM: To examine the publication trend of oculoplastic articles throughout the last decade in general ophthalmology journals. METHODS: A review of all abstracts published between January 2010 to December 2019 in general, clinical ophthalmic journals was conducted. Articles that were categorized as original articles in general and clinical journals were included in the study. RESULTS: Totally 10 281 abstracts were included. Of them 465 (4.5%) were oculoplastic publications. The mean number of annual-publications was 46.5 and the mean annual-rate of oculoplastic publications was 4.51%. A significant decreasing trend in the number of oculoplastic publication in the last decade was found (P<0.01, R2=0.770). However, there was no significant change in the annual-rate of oculoplastic publications during the last decade (P=0.191, R2=0.203). From the 465 oculoplastic articles: 179 (38.5%) were articles about eyelid diseases, 160 (34.40%) were about orbit diseases, 92 (19.80%) were about lacrimal diseases and 34 (7.30%) were about thyroid eye disease (TED). A significant decreasing trends in the number of orbital and eyelids publications were found (P<0.01, P<0.01). However, there were no significant changes in the annual-rate of orbital, eyelids, TED and lacrimal-diseases publications throughout the last decade. CONCLUSION: Oculoplastic subspecialty deals with a wide range of pathologies in different ages. However, less than 5% of the articles in general, clinical, high impact factor ophthalmology journals are about oculoplastic diseases. One of the best way for ophthalmologists from different subspecilties, nowadays, to be updated, is to read high-impact-factor, general ophthalmology journals. Therefore, it is important that those journals will include articles about breakthroughs in oculoplastic.     

国内学者眼科领域系统评价和Meta分析在SCI期刊的发表情况

目的 统计分析目前国内学者在SCI期刊发表的眼科领域系统评价和Meta分析论文情况，为今后发表此类研究提供参考。设计 描述性研究。研究对象 在PubMed、EMBASE及Cochrane library三大数据库中收录的所有眼科领域的系统评价和Meta分析论文。方法 系统检索PubMed、EMBASE及Cochrane library三大数据库。检索时，限定研究对象为人类，语言为英语，检索时间截止到2017年1月30日。通过阅读标题、摘要及全文，排除重复及不相关研究，将最终符合条件的研究按作者来源、发表年限、疾病类型等进行归类分析。主要指标 作者来源、发表年限、疾病类型。 结果 三大数据库共检索到10 551条题录（PubMed 4214，EMBASE 6155，Cochrane library 182）。排除重复及不相关研究后，最终符合条件的系统评价和Meta分析442篇。此类研究最早发表于2004年，按年发表量排名，前三名分别是：2015（100篇，22.62%）、2014（91篇，20.59%）、2016（90篇，20.36%）。共有来自52个城市的作者参与发表过此类研究，前三名城市分别是：上海（95篇，21.49%）、北京（45篇，10.18%）、广州（38篇，8.60%）。共有126种杂志发表此类研究，前三名杂志分别是：PLoS One (79篇，17.87%)、Molecular Vision（16篇，3.62%）、BMC Ophthalmology（15篇，3.39%）。研究内容以视网膜疾病最多，前三名疾病分别是：视网膜疾病（168篇，38.01%）、青光眼（95篇，21.49%）、屈光手术（47篇，10.63%）。定性系统评价17篇（3.85%），Meta分析425篇（96.15%）。在Meta分析中干预性研究177篇，观察性研究248篇，后者以基因相关研究（137篇）、危险因素（84篇）为主。结论 国内学者在眼科领域系统评价发表量逐年增多，作者主要集中于国内大城市，尤其是上海和北京，研究热点主要是视网膜疾病、青光眼，非干预性研究发表量已超越干预性研究，其中以基因相关研究及危险因素研究为主。     

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）     

近10a中国作者发表在眼科SCI期刊的文章情况调查

自"视觉2020"行动发起已有10a余.尽管中国的文章总量在20强国家中排第五位,但各地区的文章分布尚不清楚.本文比较来自中国三个主要地区:大陆、香港和台湾在这10a内发表在国际期刊上的眼科文章情况.检索2000/2009年的PubMed数据库,分别对文章的数量,影响因子(IF)和顶级杂志发表文章数量进行比较.从2000/2009年,中国发表共计 2 493篇眼科相关文章,其中大陆1 076篇,台湾784篇,香港633篇.三个地区发表的文章数量随时间推移有所增加(从99到491).自2006年开始,大陆发表的文章总数超过了香港及台湾.大陆累计影响因子2 565.108分,高于台湾(1 794.049)和香港(1 544.021),但香港在平均影响因子分值方面最高.通过研究发现,近10a来大陆在SCI期刊发表文章的数量有很大的飞跃,并缩小了与台湾和香港之间的差距.