RESUMEN
Purpose: To determine the publication rates of free papers and posters presented at the All India Ophthalmic Conference (AIOC) 2010 in peer‑reviewed journals up to December 2015 and compare this with publication rates from AIOC2000 published previously. Methods: A thorough literature search was conducted using PubMed, Google Scholar, and the general Google search engine by two independent investigators. The title of the paper, keywords and author names were used to “match” the AIOC free‑paper with the published paper. In addition, the “purpose,” “methods,” and “outcome measures” between the two were studied to determine the “match.” Results: A total of 58 out of 394 free‑papers (14.7%) from AIOC2010 were published till December 2015 compared to 16.5% from AIOC2000. Out of these, 52 (90%) were published in PubMed indexed journals. Maximum publications were seen in pediatric ophthalmology (50%) followed by glaucoma (24.4%) and cornea (23.8%). Fifteen out of 272 posters (5.5%) were published; orbit/oculoplastics had the highest poster publications (13%). Excluding papers in nonindexed journals and those by authors with international affiliations, the publication rate was approximately 12%. Conclusion: The publication rate of free papers from AIOC2010 has marginally reduced compared to AIOC2000. Various causes for this such as lack of adequate training, motivation, and lack of incentives for research in the Indian scenario have been explored, and measures to improve this paradigm have been discussed. It will be prudent to repeat this exercise every decade to compare publication rates between periodic AIOC, stimulate young minds for quality research and educate policy makers toward the need for developing dedicated research departments across the country.
RESUMEN
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.
RESUMEN
Objective: The objective was to conduct a bibliometric analysis of Indian ophthalmic papers published from 2001 to 2006 in the peer-reviewed journals, to assess productivity, trends in journal choice, publication types, research funding, and collaborative research. Materials and Methods: We searched PubMed for articles indicating both vision-related content and author affiliation with an Indian research center. We identified research collaborations and funding from indexing for research support, and classified articles as reporting basic science, clinical science, or clinically descriptive research. Impact factors were determined from Journal Citation Reports for 2006. Results: The total number of published articles that were retrieved for the years 2001 to 2006 was 2163. During the six-year period studied, the annual output of research articles has nearly doubled, from 284 in 2001 to 460 in 2006. Two-thirds of these were published in international journals; 41% in vision-related journals with 2006 impact factors; and 3% in impact factor journals which were not vision-related. Fifty percent of the publications came from nine major eye hospitals. Clinical science articles were most frequently published whereas basic science the least. Publications resulting from international collaborations increased from 3% in 2001 to 8% in 2006. The focus of the journal with the highest number of publications corresponds to the most common cause of bilateral blindness in India, cataract. Conclusion: This bibliometric study of publications of research from India in the field of ophthalmic and vision research shows that research productivity, as measured in both the number of publications in peer-reviewed journals and qualitative measures of those journals, has increased during the period of this study.