C L I N I C A L
A N D
E X P E R I M E N T A L
OPTOMETRY EDITORIAL
Two decades on Clin Exp Optom 2013; 96: 521–522 H Barry Collin AM PhD DSc Hon DUniv FRCPath School of Optometry and Visual Science, University of New South Wales, Kensington, NSW, Australia E-mail: [email protected]
Having completed 20 years as Editor of Clinical and Experimental Optometry, it is an appropriate time for reflection on what changes have occurred and what achievements have been made. In the year 1993, as I was in the transition to become the editor, Clinical and Experimental Optometry looked very different. The cover and general layout were updated in the September issue of 1994. The number of issues was the same; however, the number of pages was only 236 in 1993 compared with 2012, when the journal consisted of 660 pages, with just a few less in 2013 (592 pages). The size of our journal is not limited by the number of submitted manuscripts but by the costs of production and the desire to maintain a high standard. While we were inviting authors to submit manuscripts in 1993, we now have a rejection rate of close to 90 per cent. A total of 29 original papers were published in 1993 and this has expanded to 84 in 2013. Our Australian academics and colleagues were the main source of papers in 1993, with only three papers (10 per cent) coming from overseas countries and two of these were submitted from Hong Kong, which has since adopted Clinical and Experimental Optometry as its official journal. The other overseas paper was from the United States of America. The source of the papers has changed significantly. Of the 84 original papers published in Clinical and Experimental Optometry in 2013, only 21 (25 per cent) came from Australian institutions (26 in 1993). The number of published papers from overseas countries has increased from three papers from two countries in 1993 to 63 papers from 27 countries in 2013, with authors from a total of 35 countries over the last few years.
DOI:10.1111/cxo.12115 These authors come from all of the main regions of the world and include numerous ophthalmologists and vision scientists. Other successes have been many. In 2002, Clinical and Experimental Optometry was acknowledged as having sufficiently high scientific merit for inclusion in Index Medicus/ MEDLINE, which was a momentous step for the journal.1 In October 2006, we were informed that Clinical and Experimental Optometry had been accepted for coverage by ISI, giving it status as a peer-reviewed journal of scholarly substance and granting it an ‘impact factor’ from 2008.2 Clinical and Experimental Optometry, the official journal of Optometrists Association Australia for 96 years, has also become the official journal for the New Zealand Association of Optometrists (since 2001), the Hong Kong Society of Professional Optometrists (since 2002) and the Singapore Optometric Association (since 2012), making it the leading optometric journal for the Asian Pacific region. In achieving these accomplishments, special thanks are due to Optometrists Association Australia, to Professor Barry Cole, Chairman since 2002 and to the Editorial Board for their support over the last two decades. Sandra Shaw has been the Production Editor throughout my time as Editor and has been responsible for the maintenance and improvement of the quality of our journal, a momentous achievement. One thing has not changed. In my first Editorial,3 I stated ‘Over the last few months, we have seen the extent of the animosity between optometry and ophthalmology and the measures, which were used by the Royal Australian College of Ophthalmologists in its endeavour to prevent the development of co-operation between the two professions.’ A similar statement could be made today in view of the conflict regarding the role of optometrists in the management of glaucoma. The future brings new challenges. We must manage a smooth transition to an ‘online journal’, which appears to be an
© 2013 The Author Clinical and Experimental Optometry © 2013 Optometrists Association Australia
inevitable progression for all scientific journals. We must continue to improve the quality of Clinical and Experimental Optometry by attracting more manuscripts from renowned scientists and clinicians and we must make it more readable and hence more available to scientists and clinicians in related scientific fields. To achieve this last goal, I have one special aim. Although some jargon specific to the field is essential to all professions, the use of abbreviations by many authors is excessive and this makes some manuscripts incomprehensible to those in other fields and even to practitioners and academics with interests in different sub-specialties of our own profession. Acronyms are not specific to a particular profession and any abbreviation has numerous meanings, for example, a search for MD reveals the following, inter alia, macular degeneration, muscular dystrophy, mean difference, molecular dynamics, managing director, Doctor of Medicine, Maryland et cetera. Familiarity with the terms MDS, DNS, NDS, DNP, DNSS, PNP, QST, NCCA in one short paragraph of a recent proffered manuscript must be difficult even for those working in the field. I find the use of excessive acronyms to be an indication of laziness and even arrogance on behalf of the authors and no doubt, some readers may desist from reading a paper due to confusion interpreting these abbreviations. I concur fully with the concept presented by Wiseman,4 that except for a relatively short list of well-known and acceptable abbreviations (such as VA, IOP, MRI, RE, LE et cetera in the ophthalmic field), journals should ‘require all other words to be spelled out in full throughout the text.’ Wiseman4 also states that in medicine, many abbreviations are no longer acceptable due to the possibility of confusion with potentially dangerous consequences to the patients.
Clinical and Experimental Optometry 96.6 November 2013
521
Editorial Collin
THANKS TO OUR COLLEAGUES All who read this journal are indebted to the authors who publish in Clinical and Experimental Optometry and to those who contribute to its production. I thank our Production Editor, Ms Sandra Shaw, our
Carla Abbott Julie Albietz Andrew Anderson Philip Anderton Mitchell Anjou Nicola Anstice James Armitage Paul Artes Luke Arundel Lisa Asper David Atchison Lauren Ayton Simon Backhouse Nigel Barnett Jacqueline Beltz Sharon Bentley Jan Bergmanson Shmuel Berhman Jyotirmay Biswas Alex Black Gavin Boneham Mei Ying Boon Ian Breadon Brian Brown Adrian Bruce Phillip Buckhurst Bang Bui Andrew Carkeet Jill Carlton Leo Carney Joseph Chakman Steve Chambers Henry Chan Neil Charman Angela Chen Jennifer Chen Jianjun Chen Isabella Cheung
Journal Administrator, Nicholas Walker, and our Associate Editors, Sharon Bentley, Leo Carney, Erica Fletcher, Ian Gutteridge, Robert Jacobs, Richard Lindsay, Scott Read and Catherine Suttle for their hard work and dedication to our journal. In 1993, there were 36 referees who assisted in the peer-review assessment of
Peggy Chiang Catherine Chiarelli Pauline Cho Patrick Chu Hyewon Chung Anthea Cochrane Gillian Cochrane Barry Cole August Colenbrander Michael Collins Ben Connell Miriam Conway Stacey Coulter Jennifer Craig Sheila Crewther Stephen Dain Shaban Demirel Michael Doughty Laura Downie Nathan Efron Gamal Elhiti David Elliott Frank Eperjesi Bruce Evans John Flanagan Erica Fletcher Marcela Frazier Timothy Fricke Lars Frisén Jeffry Gerson Claude Giasson Paul Gifford Harilaos Ginis Vijaya Gothwal Pinakin Gunvant Ian Gutteridge Kirsten HamiltonMaxwell
REFERENCES 1. Collin HB. It’s been a good year for the journal. Clin Exp Optom 2002; 85: 331–332. 2. Collin HB. A birthday gift for Clinical and Experimental Optometry. Clin Exp Optom 2007; 90: 1–2. 3. Collin HB. Little has changed in a lifetime. Clin Exp Optom 1994; 77: 45. 4. Wiseman JC. Ludicrous use of acronyms. Intern Med J 2013; 43 613–614.
Luisa Mayer Colm McAlinden Charles McGhee Allison McKendrick Charles McMonnies Andrew Metha Edoardo Midena Michel Millodot Sasan Moghimi Bruce Moore Ian Morgan John Mountford Paul Murphy Marc Myers Kovin Naidoo Genevieve Napper Maria Nilsson Lisa Nivison-Smith Olalekan Oduntan Susan Ormonde Eric Papas Hetal Patel Matthew Pearce Konrad Pesudovs Michael Pianta Alexander Poon David Pye Thomas Raasch Hema Radhakrishnan Jacqueline Ramke Scott Read Helen Robbins Danielle Robertson Mark Roth Alan Saks Geoff Sampson Gordon Sanderson Padmaja Sankaridurg
Katrina Schmid Ronald Schuchard Leo Semes Alyra Shaw Neil Shuey Haris Sideroudi Fiona Stapleton David Stephensen Niall Strang Graham Strong Michael Sullivan-Mee Laurie Sullivan Catherine Suttle Gerard Sutton Peter Swann Dun-Xian Tan Marc Taub Ben Thompson Phillip Turnbull Thomas van den Berg Kirstan Vessey Stephen Vincent Gianni Virgili Jeffrey Walline Jeffrey Weaver Ann Webber Anne Weymouth Arnold Wilkins Mark Willcox Graham Wilson James Wolffsohn Vickie Wong George Woo Joanne Wood Maurice Yap Graeme Young Steven Zantos
5. Swann P. Thanks to our colleagues. Clin Exp Optom 1993; 76: 190.
Clinical and Experimental Optometry 96.6 November 2013
522
Shirin Hassan Lin He Peter Hendicott Robert Hess Arthur Ho May Ho Shelley Hopkins Jinhai Huang Flavia Huygens D Robert Iskander A Jonathan Jackson Robert Jacobs Isabelle Jalbert Alexandra Jaworski Andrew Jobling Kate Johnson Barbara Junghans Lisa Keay Nancy Keir Jyoti Khadka Rekha Khandelwal Sieu Khuu Patricia Kiely Jim Kokkinakis Sannapaneni Krishnaiah Graham Lakkis Andrew Lam Keziah Latham Richard Lindsay Julie-Anne Little Nicola Logan Michael Loughnan Jan Lovie-Kitchin Michele Madigan Luke Mahon Edward Mallen Christian Mardin Ankit Mathur
proffered manuscripts for Clinical and Experimental Optometry.5 This number has increased to 188 reviewers in 2013 and I thank the following for their generous contributions to another successful year for Clinical and Experimental Optometry.
© 2013 The Author Clinical and Experimental Optometry © 2013 Optometrists Association Australia
A N D
E X P E R I M E N T A L
OPTOMETRY EDITORIAL
Two decades on Clin Exp Optom 2013; 96: 521–522 H Barry Collin AM PhD DSc Hon DUniv FRCPath School of Optometry and Visual Science, University of New South Wales, Kensington, NSW, Australia E-mail: [email protected]
Having completed 20 years as Editor of Clinical and Experimental Optometry, it is an appropriate time for reflection on what changes have occurred and what achievements have been made. In the year 1993, as I was in the transition to become the editor, Clinical and Experimental Optometry looked very different. The cover and general layout were updated in the September issue of 1994. The number of issues was the same; however, the number of pages was only 236 in 1993 compared with 2012, when the journal consisted of 660 pages, with just a few less in 2013 (592 pages). The size of our journal is not limited by the number of submitted manuscripts but by the costs of production and the desire to maintain a high standard. While we were inviting authors to submit manuscripts in 1993, we now have a rejection rate of close to 90 per cent. A total of 29 original papers were published in 1993 and this has expanded to 84 in 2013. Our Australian academics and colleagues were the main source of papers in 1993, with only three papers (10 per cent) coming from overseas countries and two of these were submitted from Hong Kong, which has since adopted Clinical and Experimental Optometry as its official journal. The other overseas paper was from the United States of America. The source of the papers has changed significantly. Of the 84 original papers published in Clinical and Experimental Optometry in 2013, only 21 (25 per cent) came from Australian institutions (26 in 1993). The number of published papers from overseas countries has increased from three papers from two countries in 1993 to 63 papers from 27 countries in 2013, with authors from a total of 35 countries over the last few years.
DOI:10.1111/cxo.12115 These authors come from all of the main regions of the world and include numerous ophthalmologists and vision scientists. Other successes have been many. In 2002, Clinical and Experimental Optometry was acknowledged as having sufficiently high scientific merit for inclusion in Index Medicus/ MEDLINE, which was a momentous step for the journal.1 In October 2006, we were informed that Clinical and Experimental Optometry had been accepted for coverage by ISI, giving it status as a peer-reviewed journal of scholarly substance and granting it an ‘impact factor’ from 2008.2 Clinical and Experimental Optometry, the official journal of Optometrists Association Australia for 96 years, has also become the official journal for the New Zealand Association of Optometrists (since 2001), the Hong Kong Society of Professional Optometrists (since 2002) and the Singapore Optometric Association (since 2012), making it the leading optometric journal for the Asian Pacific region. In achieving these accomplishments, special thanks are due to Optometrists Association Australia, to Professor Barry Cole, Chairman since 2002 and to the Editorial Board for their support over the last two decades. Sandra Shaw has been the Production Editor throughout my time as Editor and has been responsible for the maintenance and improvement of the quality of our journal, a momentous achievement. One thing has not changed. In my first Editorial,3 I stated ‘Over the last few months, we have seen the extent of the animosity between optometry and ophthalmology and the measures, which were used by the Royal Australian College of Ophthalmologists in its endeavour to prevent the development of co-operation between the two professions.’ A similar statement could be made today in view of the conflict regarding the role of optometrists in the management of glaucoma. The future brings new challenges. We must manage a smooth transition to an ‘online journal’, which appears to be an
© 2013 The Author Clinical and Experimental Optometry © 2013 Optometrists Association Australia
inevitable progression for all scientific journals. We must continue to improve the quality of Clinical and Experimental Optometry by attracting more manuscripts from renowned scientists and clinicians and we must make it more readable and hence more available to scientists and clinicians in related scientific fields. To achieve this last goal, I have one special aim. Although some jargon specific to the field is essential to all professions, the use of abbreviations by many authors is excessive and this makes some manuscripts incomprehensible to those in other fields and even to practitioners and academics with interests in different sub-specialties of our own profession. Acronyms are not specific to a particular profession and any abbreviation has numerous meanings, for example, a search for MD reveals the following, inter alia, macular degeneration, muscular dystrophy, mean difference, molecular dynamics, managing director, Doctor of Medicine, Maryland et cetera. Familiarity with the terms MDS, DNS, NDS, DNP, DNSS, PNP, QST, NCCA in one short paragraph of a recent proffered manuscript must be difficult even for those working in the field. I find the use of excessive acronyms to be an indication of laziness and even arrogance on behalf of the authors and no doubt, some readers may desist from reading a paper due to confusion interpreting these abbreviations. I concur fully with the concept presented by Wiseman,4 that except for a relatively short list of well-known and acceptable abbreviations (such as VA, IOP, MRI, RE, LE et cetera in the ophthalmic field), journals should ‘require all other words to be spelled out in full throughout the text.’ Wiseman4 also states that in medicine, many abbreviations are no longer acceptable due to the possibility of confusion with potentially dangerous consequences to the patients.
Clinical and Experimental Optometry 96.6 November 2013
521
Editorial Collin
THANKS TO OUR COLLEAGUES All who read this journal are indebted to the authors who publish in Clinical and Experimental Optometry and to those who contribute to its production. I thank our Production Editor, Ms Sandra Shaw, our
Carla Abbott Julie Albietz Andrew Anderson Philip Anderton Mitchell Anjou Nicola Anstice James Armitage Paul Artes Luke Arundel Lisa Asper David Atchison Lauren Ayton Simon Backhouse Nigel Barnett Jacqueline Beltz Sharon Bentley Jan Bergmanson Shmuel Berhman Jyotirmay Biswas Alex Black Gavin Boneham Mei Ying Boon Ian Breadon Brian Brown Adrian Bruce Phillip Buckhurst Bang Bui Andrew Carkeet Jill Carlton Leo Carney Joseph Chakman Steve Chambers Henry Chan Neil Charman Angela Chen Jennifer Chen Jianjun Chen Isabella Cheung
Journal Administrator, Nicholas Walker, and our Associate Editors, Sharon Bentley, Leo Carney, Erica Fletcher, Ian Gutteridge, Robert Jacobs, Richard Lindsay, Scott Read and Catherine Suttle for their hard work and dedication to our journal. In 1993, there were 36 referees who assisted in the peer-review assessment of
Peggy Chiang Catherine Chiarelli Pauline Cho Patrick Chu Hyewon Chung Anthea Cochrane Gillian Cochrane Barry Cole August Colenbrander Michael Collins Ben Connell Miriam Conway Stacey Coulter Jennifer Craig Sheila Crewther Stephen Dain Shaban Demirel Michael Doughty Laura Downie Nathan Efron Gamal Elhiti David Elliott Frank Eperjesi Bruce Evans John Flanagan Erica Fletcher Marcela Frazier Timothy Fricke Lars Frisén Jeffry Gerson Claude Giasson Paul Gifford Harilaos Ginis Vijaya Gothwal Pinakin Gunvant Ian Gutteridge Kirsten HamiltonMaxwell
REFERENCES 1. Collin HB. It’s been a good year for the journal. Clin Exp Optom 2002; 85: 331–332. 2. Collin HB. A birthday gift for Clinical and Experimental Optometry. Clin Exp Optom 2007; 90: 1–2. 3. Collin HB. Little has changed in a lifetime. Clin Exp Optom 1994; 77: 45. 4. Wiseman JC. Ludicrous use of acronyms. Intern Med J 2013; 43 613–614.
Luisa Mayer Colm McAlinden Charles McGhee Allison McKendrick Charles McMonnies Andrew Metha Edoardo Midena Michel Millodot Sasan Moghimi Bruce Moore Ian Morgan John Mountford Paul Murphy Marc Myers Kovin Naidoo Genevieve Napper Maria Nilsson Lisa Nivison-Smith Olalekan Oduntan Susan Ormonde Eric Papas Hetal Patel Matthew Pearce Konrad Pesudovs Michael Pianta Alexander Poon David Pye Thomas Raasch Hema Radhakrishnan Jacqueline Ramke Scott Read Helen Robbins Danielle Robertson Mark Roth Alan Saks Geoff Sampson Gordon Sanderson Padmaja Sankaridurg
Katrina Schmid Ronald Schuchard Leo Semes Alyra Shaw Neil Shuey Haris Sideroudi Fiona Stapleton David Stephensen Niall Strang Graham Strong Michael Sullivan-Mee Laurie Sullivan Catherine Suttle Gerard Sutton Peter Swann Dun-Xian Tan Marc Taub Ben Thompson Phillip Turnbull Thomas van den Berg Kirstan Vessey Stephen Vincent Gianni Virgili Jeffrey Walline Jeffrey Weaver Ann Webber Anne Weymouth Arnold Wilkins Mark Willcox Graham Wilson James Wolffsohn Vickie Wong George Woo Joanne Wood Maurice Yap Graeme Young Steven Zantos
5. Swann P. Thanks to our colleagues. Clin Exp Optom 1993; 76: 190.
Clinical and Experimental Optometry 96.6 November 2013
522
Shirin Hassan Lin He Peter Hendicott Robert Hess Arthur Ho May Ho Shelley Hopkins Jinhai Huang Flavia Huygens D Robert Iskander A Jonathan Jackson Robert Jacobs Isabelle Jalbert Alexandra Jaworski Andrew Jobling Kate Johnson Barbara Junghans Lisa Keay Nancy Keir Jyoti Khadka Rekha Khandelwal Sieu Khuu Patricia Kiely Jim Kokkinakis Sannapaneni Krishnaiah Graham Lakkis Andrew Lam Keziah Latham Richard Lindsay Julie-Anne Little Nicola Logan Michael Loughnan Jan Lovie-Kitchin Michele Madigan Luke Mahon Edward Mallen Christian Mardin Ankit Mathur
proffered manuscripts for Clinical and Experimental Optometry.5 This number has increased to 188 reviewers in 2013 and I thank the following for their generous contributions to another successful year for Clinical and Experimental Optometry.
© 2013 The Author Clinical and Experimental Optometry © 2013 Optometrists Association Australia
