MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2023147715 · doi:10.1016/j.jcrs.2006.01.035

Celebrating 10 years

2006· editorial· en· W2023147715 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Douglas D. Koch, Thomas Kohnen, Nick Mamalis, Stephen A. Obstbaum, Emanuel Rosen

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery · 2006
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueGlobal Healthcare and Medical Tourism
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRefractive surgeryPhotorefractive keratectomyOphthalmologyOptometryMedicinePhacoemulsificationRadial keratotomyAstigmatismRefractive errorCorneaVisual acuityOptics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

This issue of the journal marks the tenth anniversary of the amalgamation of the Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery and the European Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery. This gives us the opportunity briefly to look back and forward. The history of the merger is notable for how easily and quickly it occurred. Steve Obstbaum first suggested it to Emanuel Rosen in early 1995, and their efforts led to joint approval by the ruling bodies of both organizations in time to publish the first issue in January 1996. What has changed from then to now? The first joint issue had 151 pages, and hot topics included automated lamellar keratoplasty for myopia, comparison of photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and radial keratotomy for the treatment of myopia, the role of pressure patching in improving epithelial wound healing following PRK, evaluation of a 5-zone multifocal intraocular lens (Array, AMO), and astigmatism after clear corneal incisions of varying lengths. The January 2006 issue has 179 pages, and major topics include changes in aberrations from shifts in undilated and dilated pupil centers, new methods of delivering ultrasonic energy in phacoemulsification, mitomycin and PRK, intracorneal lenses for hyperopia, and refractive surgery in children. Where is JCRS today? We have an editorial board of 39 members, including individuals from Europe, United States, Canada, and many other nations around the world. Circulation is 14,500. The impact factor places us in the top 11 clinical journals in ophthalmology. As Charles McGee recently reported,1 nearly one quarter of the 500 most cited cataract surgery articles have been published in JCRS, a figure that is higher than that of any other journal. Likewise, nearly one third of the 500 most cited refractive surgery articles are published in JCRS, again highest among all journals. We have converted to electronic submission of manuscripts via EES, which has greatly shortened the review process. We have been reducing the time from acceptance to submission and are now down to 7 months, with a goal of 4 months. The JCRS web site displays videos related to selected technique articles and publishes supplemental material from selected articles. The Editors' Choice link provides quick access to material of special interest to JCRS readers. We believe that publishing a peer-reviewed journal is critical to scientific advancement in our field. There clearly has been a proliferation of non-peer-reviewed publications, and these provide much information that is valuable to clinicians. Nevertheless, the peer-review process, although far from perfect, remains the gold standard for communicating scientific progress.2 It is our best tool for verifying new discoveries, uncovering new truths, and dispelling unfounded myths. We recognize the challenges ahead, among them (1) the need for rapid turnaround of information, (2) the countervailing need to be appropriately meticulous throughout the entire review process, (3) the competition among publications for advertising dollars, and (4) the increasing encroachment of clinical practice on clinicians' time for conducting good studies and for writing and reviewing papers. However, we draw great optimism from many factors: the globalization of our ophthalmologic community, with superb manuscripts now coming from so many parts of the world and communication remarkably easy among colleagues throughout the world, the ever-increasing scientific quality (and quantity) of the manuscripts that we receive, and the strong interest we find among ophthalmologists in reading and discussing the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The editors would like to express their gratitude for the strong support we receive from the editorial board, the many other reviewers on whom we call so frequently, our remarkable editorial staff headed by Christine Ford, and the boards of ASCRS and ESCRS. As always, we welcome your comments and suggestions regarding how we can better serve our readers.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Intégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesIntégrité de la recherche
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: Éditorial
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,018
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,014
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,009
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,034
Tête enseignante GPT0,425
Écart entre enseignants0,391 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations11
Publié2006
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Cataract & Refractive SurgeryMême sujetGlobal Healthcare and Medical TourismTravaux en français237 207