Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Journal of Academic Ophthalmology 2020; 12(02): e284-e291
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1721070
Research Article

Speed of Online and Print Peer-Reviewed Ophthalmology Publications and Correlation to Journal Bibliometric Measures

Ronaldo Nuesi
1   Department of Ophthalmology, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida
2   Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Florida International University, Miami, Florida
,
John Y. Lee
1   Department of Ophthalmology, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida
,
Ajay E. Kuriyan
3   Department of Ophthalmology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Retina Service/Mid Atlantic Retina, Wills Eye Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
,
Jayanth Sridhar
1   Department of Ophthalmology, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to explore the relationship between publishing speeds and peer-reviewed journal bibliometric measures in ophthalmology.

Methods Journal Citation Reports and Scopus Database were accessed for identification of journal bibliometric measures in ophthalmology. Twelve randomly selected articles from 2018 for all identified journals were studied. All outcome measures were extracted from the full text of articles and correlated with journal bibliometric measures. Statistical analysis was performed on measured parameters in comparison to a previous study.

Main Outcomes and Measures Journal impact factor, Eigenfactor score, and CiteScore were correlated with time from submission or acceptance of manuscripts to online and print publication. The correlation between study design and publishing speeds was also assessed.

Results A total of 55 journals were included for a total of 657 articles. Online publications were significantly faster than print publications for almost every journal (p < 0.001). Laboratory experimental studies had significantly shorter times from submission to online publication (p = 0.002) and acceptance to online publication (p < 0.001) compared with observational and interventional studies. Journal impact factor was positively correlated to publishing speed from acceptance to online publication (p = 0.034). CiteScore was positively correlated to speed from submission to print publication (p = 0.04), acceptance to print publication (p = 0.013), and acceptance to online publication (p = 0.003). Eigenfactor score was not statistically significant when correlated with any outcome measures.

Conclusion Online publication has increased speed of dissemination of knowledge in the ophthalmology literature. Despite reporting higher numbers of submissions every year, ophthalmology journals with higher bibliometric measures of impact tend to publish peer-reviewed articles faster than journals with lower impact scores. Study design of an article may affect its speed to publication.

Keywords

publication speed - ophthalmology - bibliometric - journal impact factor - Eigenfactor score - CiteScore


Publication History

Received: 16 August 2020

Accepted: 14 September 2020

Article published online:
26 November 2020

© 2020. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Brink PA. Article visibility: journal impact factor and availability of full text in PubMed Central and open access. Cardiovasc J Afr 2013; 24 (08) 295-296
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Chen H, Chen CH, Jhanji V. Publication times, impact factors, and advance online publication in ophthalmology journals. Ophthalmology 2013; 120 (08) 1697-1701
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Roldan-Valadez E, Orbe-Arteaga U, Rios C. Eigenfactor score and alternative bibliometrics surpass the impact factor in a 2-years ahead annual-citation calculation: a linear mixed design model analysis of Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging journals. Radiol Med (Torino) 2018; 123 (07) 524-534
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Roldan-Valadez E, Salazar-Ruiz SY, Ibarra-Contreras R, Rios C. Current concepts on bibliometrics: a brief review about impact factor, Eigenfactor score, CiteScore, SCImago journal rank, source-normalised impact per paper, h-index, and alternative metrics. Ir J Med Sci 2019; 188 (03) 939-951
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Franchignoni F, Özçakar L, Negrini S. Basic bibliometrics for dummies and others: an overview of some journal-level indicators in physical and rehabilitation medicine. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2018; 54 (05) 792-796
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Kianifar H, Sadeghi R, Zarifmahmoudi L. Comparison between impact factor, Eigenfactor metrics, and scimago journal rank indicator of pediatric neurology journals. Acta Inform Med 2014; 22 (02) 103-106
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Van Noorden R. Controversial impact factor gets a heavyweight rival. Nature 2016; 540 (7633): 325-326
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Kumar A, Cheeseman R, Durnian JM. Subspecialization of the ophthalmic literature: a review of the publishing trends of the top general, clinical ophthalmic journals. Ophthalmology 2011; 118 (06) 1211-1214
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Schachat AP, Bartley GB. Faster is better. Ophthalmology 2013; 120 (08) 1513-1514
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Morris ZS, Wooding S, Grant J. The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. J R Soc Med 2011; 104 (12) 510-520
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Redden E. Rush to publish risks undermining COVID-19 research. Available at: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/06/08/fast-pace-scientific-publishing-covid-comes-problems. Accessed September 30, 2020
    PubMed
  • 12 Marinho PM, Marcos AAA, Romano AC, Nascimento H, Belfort Jr R. Retinal findings in patients with COVID-19. Lancet 2020; 395 (10237): 1610
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Vavvas DG, Sarraf D, Sadda SR. et al. Concerns about the interpretation of OCT and fundus findings in COVID-19 patients in recent Lancet publication. Eye (Lond) 2020
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Ollé C, Borrego Á. A qualitative study of the impact of electronic journals on scholarly information behavior. Libr Inf Sci Res 2010; 32 (03) 221-228
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Bauchner H. The rush to publication: an editorial and scientific mistake. JAMA 2017; 318 (12) 1109-1110
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Rawlinson C, Bloom T. New preprint server for medical research. BMJ 2019; 365: l2301
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 van Eck NJ, Waltman L, van Raan AF, Klautz RJ, Peul WC. Citation analysis may severely underestimate the impact of clinical research as compared to basic research. PLoS One 2013; 8 (04) e62395
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Smith C, Baveja R, Grieb T, Mashour GA. Toward a science of translational science. J Clin Transl Sci 2017; 1 (04) 253-255
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Archambault É, Larivière V. History of the journal impact factor: contingencies and consequences. Scientometrics 2009; 79 (03) 635-649
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Okagbue HI, Teixeira da Silva JA. Correlation between the CiteScore and Journal Impact Factor of top-ranked library and information science journals. Scientometrics 2020; 124 (01) 797-801
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Nestor MS, Fischer D, Arnold D, Berman B, Del Rosso JQ. Rethinking the journal impact factor and publishing in the digital age. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol 2020; 13 (01) 12-17
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Fersht A. The most influential journals: impact factor and Eigenfactor. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2009; 106 (17) 6883-6884
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Casadevall A, Fang FC. Causes for the persistence of impact factor mania. MBio 2014; 5 (02) e00064-e14
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Abdollahi M, Gasparyan AY, Saeidnia S. The urge to publish more and its consequences. Daru 2014; 22 (01) 53
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Guraya SY, Norman RI, Khoshhal KI, Guraya SS, Forgione A. Publish or Perish mantra in the medical field: A systematic review of the reasons, consequences and remedies. Pak J Med Sci 2016; 32 (06) 1562-1567
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar