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.     

《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。     

中华眼科杂志1999至2004年载文被引分析研究

目的从文献引证的角度透视中华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）提供的资料和数据,采用文献计量学方法,对中华眼科杂志载文被CMCI来源期刊引用的情况进行统计分析及评价。结果单篇平均被引次数为4．17次,被引频次较高的论文数占载文量的多数。被引作者群分布在我国的32个省、直辖市、自治区,其中北京、广东、上海居前列。有354种期刊引用中华眼科杂志,被引率49．96％,自引率8．87％。结论中华眼科杂志所载论文质量和被引率均较高,已形成具有独立风格和特色且相对稳定的研究体系。该刊不仅是我国眼科学研究领域最重要的信息源之一,也是我国医学领域的主要核心期刊。     

The top 100 papers in dry eye – A bibliometric analysis

Purpose

Citation analysis represents one of the best currently available methods for quantifying the impact of articles. Bibliometric studies list the ‘‘best sellers’’ in a single field of interest. The purpose of the present study was to identify and analyze the most frequently cited papers in dry eye research that may be of high interest for researchers and clinicians.

Ophthalmology and vision science research. Part 1: Understanding and using journal impact factors and citation indices

In an increasingly "publish or perish" clinical and academic environment, all clinicians and clinician-scientists involved in research must have a firm understanding of the measures commonly used to assess the quality of scientific journals and, by default, those extended to grade individual articles and authors. The publication of research is a vital part of clinical and experimental research, and citation analyses of research publications have increasingly been adopted as a means of assessing the apparent quality of journals and the research published therein. In the first of a series of articles for those embarking on ophthalmic and vision science research, this paper discusses the key features of citation analysis, concentrating on the 2004 Journal Citation Report figures for the field of ophthalmology that include 42 ophthalmology, vision science, physiological optics, and optometry journals. The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) calculates a number of parameters including citation counts, Journal Impact Factor (JIF), Immediacy Index, and cited/citing half-life. This article discusses the methods of calculation and possible uses along with current controversies and potential abuses. The JIF and its relevance, potential bias, and limitations are discussed in depth as it has become the most widely used analysis of journal quality. The possible alternatives to ISI citation analysis are presented, and we conclude that citation analysis can be considered a reasonable measure of journal research quality only if used correctly.     

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.     

The 101 most frequently cited articles in ophthalmology journals from 1850 to 1949

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.     

Citation patterns in the optometric and ophthalmologic clinical binocular vision literature.

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.     

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。     

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2004年引文分析

目的研究中华眼科杂志文献引用规律及我国眼科学研究领域科研人员的文献利用与需求特征。方法采用引文计量分析法,统计中华眼科杂志2001至2004年间刊载的926篇论文所引用的参考文献(引文)。结果926篇论文中,有引文的论文共850篇,引文率为91．79％,篇均引文8．05条;引文中期刊912种(91．97％),图书266种(7．85％);普赖斯指数35．50％;期刊自引626条,自引率8．40％。被引用频次居前17位的中、外文期刊的引文量占总引用期刊引文量的54．03％。结论中华眼科杂志涉猎文献范围广,引文类型以期刊为主,语种以英文文献为多,引文的外文语种结构较为单一,研究引用文献比较滞后,文献半衰期较长,专业人员利用近5年内新文献的能力有待于进一步提高。     

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)     

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。     

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）     

Citation analysis and journal impact factors in ophthalmology and vision science journals

Citation analysis has evolved over the last 50 years as one parameter for assessing the quality of research published in scientific, technology and social science journals. This is based on the assumption that influential research is widely cited by other scientists and clinicians. With the advent of the Internet, Journal Citation Reports from the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI-JCR) have become widely available to individuals and institutions. In an increasingly competitive research environ-ment, aspects of citation analysis have been suggested as simple proxy, objective measures to evaluate the research quality of a journal, published articles, research institutions and even individual researchers. This review article provides an overview of citation analysis, including definitions, uses of these reports, and related controversies and potential abuses. As it has become the most commonly used indicator, there is a particular focus on the use of the Journal Impact Factor (JIF). This is a widely quoted measure indicating the frequency with which the average article published in a journal of interest will be quoted within a specified time frame that therefore allows approximate comparisons of journals within a particular field of interest. Given the relative paucity of information in this area, emphasis is placed on citation analysis within ophthalmology, in particular in regard to the 43 ophthal-mology, vision science and optometry journals that are listed in the ISI-JCR 2001 reports.     

Philosophical direction of ‘ophthalmic epidemiology'

Published in this second issue of Ophthalmic Epidemiology is a review article by Dr. David H. Sliney entitled ‘Epidemiological studies of sunlight and cataract: the critical factor of ultraviolet exposure geometry'. Ultraviolet radiation as a risk factor for cataract development is a hot and hotly debated controversy with conflicting results presented in a number of superb research studies by experienced ophthalmic epidemiologists. This review article by Dr. Sliney offers some insight as to why the results of these epidemiologic studies are not uniformly consistent; he points out some of the pitfalls associated with instruments we use to measure ultraviolet radiation in population-based studies, and the importance of considering the circumstances under which ultraviolet exposure to the human eye is measured, whether it be by direct measurement of ultraviolet light impinging upon the eye, questionnaire of ultraviolet light exposure history, tables of resident area of sunlight or ultraviolet A, B, or C exposure or by other modalities of ultraviolet determinations. Using the information provided by Dr. Sliney in this review article may help future investigators improve the precision of instruments used in epidemiologic studies to quantify ultraviolet light impinging upon the human eye. Improvement of the precision of collected data can only reduce the variance of findings among studies on the association of ultraviolet radiation as a cause of age-related cataract. A similar issue is raised by Christen and associates in the article published in this same issue of Ophthalmic Epidemiology, ‘Confirmation of self-reported cataract in the Physicians’ Health Study', a well-conducted and well-respected study, that points out the need for independent confirmation of self-reported cataracts as recorded by questionnaire, to improve the accuracy of diagnosis of a disease whose risk factors are under investigation. A dictum taught me by my mentors at Johns Hopkins University, Drs. Philip Sartwell and George Comstock, that because of the imprecision and variance of epidemiologic measurement instruments, it takes many studies ‘like swallows to make a spring’ to confirm risk-factor relationships to a given disease. The often cited, numerous controversial studies on the association of cigarette smoking and lung cancer which were published long before it became clear that cigarette smoking was the major risk factor in that disease, emphasize the role of multiple studies in confirming an association between risk factor and disease, even when it is readily obvious in hind sight. I personally feel that review articles, published in ophthalmic journals, serve an essential function in the advancement of ophthalmic research. Periodic review articles on a particular ocular disease, by summarizing the known infomation about that particular disease up to that point in time, help current investigators plan future research based upon the balanced review of past knowledge. No current ophthalmic or epidemiologic journal is committed to consistently publishing those review articles necessary to provide a readily available repository of critical information, presented in a balanced perspective by experts in the field, for citation by researchers to further future research advances in particular fields of ophthalmic epidemiologic investigation.

The stimulus for Dr. Sliney's article came from the recent World Health Organization Report of an Informal Consultation on ‘The Effects of Solar UV Radiation on the Eye', convened by the WHO Prevention of Blindness Programme and the w HO Division of Environmental Health. This consultative study was stimulated in part by substantiated observations of ozone depletion at both polar regions of the earth and the logical question of what the potential effect of increased ultraviolet radiation on the eye in these areas may be, based upon the known ultraviolet exposure data currently available. Dr. Thylefors, Head of the WHO Prevention of Blindness Programme, has allowed Ophthalmic Epidemiology to publish portions of this consultative report in order to disseminate, to the general ophthalmic community, this ‘state-of-the-art’ information on the relationship of ultraviolet radiation and potential ocular damage. The article by Dr. Sliney, who contributed to the WHO report, is just the first of several review articles to be published on this subject by Ophthalmic Epidemiology; the putative relationship of ultraviolet exposure to cataract development has importent environmental, social, economic and health-related importance. Dr. Paul Dolin, a member of the w HO consultative team, has written an article, accepted in the next issue of Ophthalmic Epidemiology, which provides suggested epidemiologic studies that might help us in further investigation of the relationship of ultraviolet radiation and cataract development. Professor Gordon Johnson, also a contributor to the WHO consultation, has submitted a review paper on ultraviolet light exposure and its overall effect on the eye and adnexa, except for cataract and macular degeneration, which will be published in a future issue of Ophthalmic Epidemiolgy.

One of the reasons I accepted the major undertaking necessary to bring ‘Yet another Journal’ into the field of ophthalmic information overload, comes from my exasperation from attending many meetings over my 25 years as an ophthalmic epidemiologist where I felt that important papers and posters were presented and I wished that I were able to review in detail the methodology, results and discussion of the research presented; papers that were stimulating, provocative, controversial, methodologic, with negative results, positive results, or otherwise, which I thought worthy of publication to advance the field of ophthalmic epidemiologic research. I have seen research on specific areas repeated by subsequent investigators because no such repository of knowledge, where past research, be it positive or negative, could be found, had been published. Most ophthalmic and epidemiologic journals cannot, with their wide obligations to broad areas of readership, publish all the ‘nuts-and-bolts’ articles essential to provide the repository of information necessary to ophthalmic epidemiologists. These are the articles that need to be published, review and original articles, that form the basic building blocks which current researchers in ophthalmic epidemiology can use as foundations for future investigations. Ophthalmic Epidemiology is committed to providing the repository of information upon which new ideas can evolve based upon the building blocks of the past. Part of this foundation is the depository provided by review articles, special topics, methodologic studies, and negative results which I will encourage, so that others in our footsteps do not repeat our repetitious failures and successes out of ignorance, but can use our past footsteps to lead the march to future advances in the conquest of world blindness.     

Bibliometric analysis of research relating to refractive cataract surgery over a 20-year period: from 2003 to 2022

AIM: To investigate the research trend on refractive cataract surgery, compare the contributions of different countries, institutions, journals, and authors in the past 20y, and explore its potential research hotspots. METHODS: All publications were extracted relating to refractive cataract surgery from 2003 to 2022 from Web of Science. Document types were limited to original articles and reviews, and the language was limited to English. Quantitatively and qualitatively of the publications were analyzed through Microsoft Excel and GraphPad Prism. VOSviewer and CiteSpace were used for bibliometric and visualized analysis. RESULTS: A total of 2090 publications were enrolled. The United States contributed the most publications (434, 20.8%), followed by China (345, 16.5%) and England (163, 7.80%). Publications from the United States were cited more frequently (9552 citations) with the highest H-index of 48. China ranked second in the total number of publications, the papers were not cited that frequently (3237 citations), and the H-index ranked sixth (H-index=29). Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery published the most papers (333, 15.9%), and the University of London had the highest number of publications (75, 3.59%). Dick HB from Germany published the most papers. Corneal astigmatism-related research, cataract surgery method-related research, postoperative visual-quality relate to research, and postoperative complications-relate research are the hotspots in this field. The most significant limitation was that the database was updated frequently and the latest publications were not included. CONCLUSION: The bibliometric analysis shows a brief summarization of the contribution of the authors, institutions, countries, and journals. Corneal astigmatism, cataract surgery method, postoperative visual-quality and postoperative complications related researches have become the emerging hotspots, which can give a direction in the future researches.     

中华眼科杂志2005至2009年刊出论文被引情况分析

目的利用文献计量学方法研究中华眼科杂志2005至2009年刊出论文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)提供的资料和数据,采用文献计量学方法,对中华眼科杂志2005至2009年刊出论文被来源期刊引用的情况进行统计分析及评价.结果2005至2009年共刊出论文1358篇,共695篇被引2333次,篇均被引次数为3.36次.被引文章作者分布在我国的26个省、市、自治区以及我国香港、澳门,还有两篇被引文献的作者来自美国,其中北京、上海、广东、山东居前列,分别有202、93、82、69篇文章被引用.按被引文章作者单位划分,中山大学中山眼科中心被引频次(349次)排第一,首都医科大学北京同仁医院同仁眼科中心位居第二(265次).除本刊自引外,还被国际眼科杂志、眼科、中国实用眼科杂志等300多种期刊所引用.结论中华眼科杂志所载论文质量和被引率均较高,在我国眼科学研究领域具有较强的影响力.