Bibliographic record
Abstract
“A birthday is a time to reflect, to take stock, and to look ahead.” – Kevan Manwaring The Indian Journal of Ophthalmology Case Reports (IJOCR) is two-year-old already and going on to its third volume with this issue.[1] Case reports have a rich tradition in medicine. The very purpose of IJOCR was to “keep alive the importance of case reports in teaching and learning the art and science of ophthalmology”.[1,2] Our aim was “to provide a unique repository for the pearls of wisdom arising out of astute clinical observations, new insights provided by clinical investigations and imaging, novel treatment methods and surgical procedures, an unusual association of diseases and uncommon complications or astute management of the same, in the form of case reports, photo essays, and ophthalmic images”.[1,2] We intended to democratize academics by providing a window of opportunity for everyone - the residents, fellows-in-training, and non-institutional practitioners to publish.[2] IJOCR has begun very well. In the last two years, we have published a total of 845 case reports, photo essays, and ophthalmic images, in addition to editorials, commentaries, and letters. There were 398 publications in 2021 - 192 case reports, 110 photo essays, and 96 ophthalmic images in the four quarterly issues. In 2022, there was a decent 10% growth – publications scaled up to 447, including 255 case reports, 74 photo essays, and 118 ophthalmic images. The authorship spectrum was diverse, ranging from residents and fellows in training, ophthalmologists in an individual, group, or institutional practice, medical colleges, and academic institutions hailing from 36 countries representing all the continents of the world [Figure 1]. The uptake from India was extremely encouraging with 26 states and union territories being represented [Figure 2].Figure 1: The authors of the Indian Journal of Ophthalmology Case Reports represent 36 countries and all the continents. The world map shows the countries of origin of the authors (shaded in green): Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Egypt, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Iran, Israel, Italy, Japan, Liberia, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, New Zealand, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, and United StatesFigure 2: Authors of the Indian Journal of Ophthalmology Case Reports represent 26 states and union territories of India (shaded blue)The number of manuscripts submitted in the category of case reports, photo essays, and ophthalmic images has shown 400% growth in the last 5 years, with about 250% growth in the last two years, corresponding to the initiation of publication of IJOCR. Despite the increased number of submissions and publications, we have optimized the peer review process to 6 weeks and final publication to within three months after acceptance. We have also initiated the process of listing and indexation this year as per the established timelines. IJOCR is a free open-access hybrid journal with an online edition, the PDF and flipbook versions of which are circulated to all the AIOS members, and the hard copy of the journal is supplied to the corresponding authors, subscribers, and libraries. The Journal has a bright online presence with 595555 downloads (an average of 705 per article). Some of the published manuscripts have received robust citations. On behalf of the Editorial Board, I wish to thank the readers, authors, and reviewers for their continued patronage. The response from all the quarters has been very encouraging. It is a matter of time before the Journal matures enough to be considered one of the prominent journals in the category that it represents. “Always note and record the unusual. Publish it. Save it on a permanent record as a short, concise note. Such communications are always of value.” – William Osler
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".