Bibliometric Analysis of Ophthalmic Journals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: The primary vehicle for reporting and testing advances in eye care is refereed ophthalmic journals, which can be characterized using targeted bibliometric analyses. Objective: To identify all ophthalmic journals and evaluate citation metrics relating to articles, journals, authors, institutions, and countries published therein. Design and Setting: A bibliometric analysis was undertaken of all ophthalmic journals included in the Scopus database (Elsevier). The search was restricted to all article types published in ophthalmic journals in English from inception through November 18, 2022. After excluding general medical journals, journals published in a language other than English, and spurious titles unrelated to the ophthalmic field, the Scopus database was found to list 335 ophthalmic journal titles that have published 471 184 articles, constituting the data set for this analysis. The 20 most highly cited articles were identified. Rank-order lists by article count were assembled for journals, authors, institutions, and countries. Main Outcomes and Measures: An h-index for ophthalmic journal articles was derived from citations and article counts for each constituent of each category. Results: The h-index for ophthalmic journal articles was determined to be 494. The journal with the highest h-index was Ophthalmology (h-index, 297). The journal with the greatest number of articles was American Journal of Ophthalmology (38 441 articles). The most highly cited article was by Quigley and Broman, 2006 (5147 citations), concerning the epidemiology of glaucoma. The author with the highest h-index for ophthalmic journal articles was Ronald Klein, MD (h-index, 126), and the most prolific was Carol L. Shields, MD (1400 articles). Johns Hopkins University (h-index, 215) was the institution with the highest h-index for ophthalmic journal articles, and Harvard University was the most prolific (10 071 articles). The United States was the nation with the highest h-index for ophthalmic journal articles (h-index, 444) and was the most prolific (180 017 articles). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the most highly cited articles published in ophthalmic journals were revealed, as well as the leading journals, authors, institutions, and countries. While excluding ophthalmology articles in general medical journals, this investigation affords a means of identifying highly cited authors, institutions, and countries which individuals or institutions can use as a guide regarding contributions to the field.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.129 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.210 | 0.246 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".