[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
May 2018

JAMA Ophthalmology—The Year in Review, 2017: JAMA Ophthalmology Looks Forward to Continued Globalization in 2018

Author Affiliations
  • 1Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins Hospital, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
  • 2Editor, JAMA Ophthalmology
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2018;136(5):465-466. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.6161

Following a successful 2017, JAMA Ophthalmology looks forward to 2018 and pursuing its vision: providing the best peer-reviewed publications (in print and electronically) in ophthalmology. In striving toward this vision, the accomplishments of 2017—in particular, the international achievements—suggest that the journal is on the right track according to a number of indications and metrics. One metric is determining whether there are timely, clinically relevant articles with novel information that likely influence the practice of ophthalmology. The success of this goal can be measured in several ways. One way is to look at a journal’s immediacy index, defined as the average number of times an article is cited in the year it is published. The value gives one an idea of how quickly on average articles are cited, often reflecting whether the journal articles represent cutting-edge research. In 2017 reports, JAMA Ophthalmology had the highest immediacy index for 2016 of any clinical journal in ophthalmology at 1.908 as well as the second highest impact factor at 5.6, increasing by 13% from 2014 to 2015 and by 30% from 2015 to 2016.

A second indication is the publication of important clinical trials in ophthalmology simultaneous with presentations at major meetings. These efforts require coordination with the authors, usually of large study groups, with rapid review by expert clinical trialists and biostatisticians who also can provide guidance by producing a commentary published in tandem with the trial. For example, at the 2017 Annual Meeting of the Association of Vision in Research and Ophthalmology (ARVO), the SCORE2 Investigators simultaneously published and presented their primary outcome results1 with an Editorial2 comparing bevacizumab with aflibercept for macular edema from central retinal vein occlusions in JAMA as well as a secondary outcomes article in JAMA Ophthalmology3 with an accompanying Invited Commentary.4 Additionally, along with presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Ophthalmology, the Cornea Preservation Time study group published results on their randomized clinical trial evaluating viability of donor tissue beyond 7 days.5

None of these publications could have appeared with such timeliness and rapidity for the field of ophthalmology without the continued generosity, judgment, and insight of the journal’s peer reviewers.6 Once again, the editors of JAMA Ophthalmology are grateful and thankful to these women and men who almost always contribute to why the final version of these publications, collectively, are viewed or downloaded almost 3 million times each year (Table).

Table.  JAMA Ophthalmology Statistics for 2017
JAMA Ophthalmology Statistics for 2017

A third metric that tells readers, authors, and editors about the reach of the journal is the Altmetric score, which shows how much attention an article has received in news outlets, blogs, tweets, and other social media venues. Among the top 20 articles in ophthalmology in any year by Altmetric score, JAMA Ophthalmology published 13. The top 3 articles receiving the most electronic news and social media attention were quite diverse and included an adaptive optics assessment of retinopathy acquired during a solar eclipse,7 detergent pod–related eye injuries among preschool-aged children,8 and the prevalence of undiagnosed age-related macular degeneration in primary eye care9 (Table).

All of this is done with speed (eg, median time of peer reviewer turnaround of 14 days and receipt to publication of 140 days [Table]) but never too fast10 to compromise the quality of any stage from peer review, to editorial decision, to production by outstanding copy editors who strive to produce a finished product that includes helpful tables and figures that are readable both online within the dimensions of a phone or computer and in print.

The successes of the journal during the last several years come with the continuing commitment to the globalization of the journal, having every article available for free to all around the world during the first month of publication via the JN Reader (https://jamanetwork.com/pages/reader), an option to allow authors of research articles to pay for immediate open access, and then, again, making every research article available for free around the world by 1 year after publication. Such access resulted in more than 2.7 million full-text/PDF article views in 2017, an increase of 23% from 2016. While 53% of that online audience is from the United States, 47% come from the 6 continents, including more than 135 000 from India, 109 000 from the United Kingdom, 57 000 from Canada, 56 000 from Australia, 33 000 from Japan, 27 000 from Brazil, and 25 000 from China (Figure).

Figure.  JAMA Ophthalmology Online Audience
JAMA Ophthalmology Online Audience

Map of the world showing total online article view sessions of JAMA Ophthalmology in 2017. Darker color indicates more sessions. Density of color not to scale.

Building on this success, JAMA Ophthalmology will continue to pursue its vision in 2018 to provide the best peer-reviewed publications (in print and electronically) in ophthalmology and hope its reader, reviewers, and authors share that vision.

Back to top
Article Information

Corresponding Author: Neil M. Bressler, MD, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins Hospital, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N Wolfe St, Maumenee 7th Floor, Baltimore, MD 21287 (nbressler@jhmi.edu).

Published Online: March 15, 2018. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.6161

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: The author has completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none were reported.

Scott  IU, VanVeldhuisen  PC, Ip  MS,  et al; SCORE2 Investigator Group.  Effect of bevacizumab vs aflibercept on visual acuity among patients with macular edema due to central retinal vein occlusion: the SCORE2 randomized clinical trial.  JAMA. 2017;317(20):2072-2087. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.4568PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Bressler  NM.  Treatment of macular edema due to central retinal vein occlusion: another score for repackaged bevacizumab.  JAMA. 2017;317(20):2067-2069. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.5899PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Scott  IU, VanVeldhuisen  PC, Ip  MS,  et al; SCORE2 Investigator Group.  Baseline factors associated with 6-month visual acuity and retinal thickness outcomes in patients with macular edema secondary to central retinal vein occlusion or hemiretinal vein occlusion: SCORE2 study report 4.  JAMA Ophthalmol. 2017;135(6):639-649. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.1141PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Sun  JK.  Comparing anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies for central retinal vein occlusion.  JAMA Ophthalmol. 2017;135(6):649-650. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.1142PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Rosenwasser  GO, Szczotka-Flynn  LB, Ayala  AR,  et al; Cornea Preservation Time Study Group.  Effect of cornea preservation time on success of Descemet stripping automated endothelial keratoplasty: a randomized clinical trial.  JAMA Ophthalmol. 2017;135(12):1401-1409. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.4989PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
 JAMA Ophthalmology peer reviewers in 2017  [published online March 15, 2018].  JAMA Ophthalmol. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.6162Google Scholar
Wu  CY, Jansen  ME, Andrade  J,  et al.  Acute solar retinopathy imaged with adaptive optics, optical coherence tomography angiography, and en face optical coherence tomography.  JAMA Ophthalmol. 2018;136(1):82-85. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.5517PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Haring  RS, Sheffield  ID, Frattaroli  S.  Detergent pod–related eye injuries among preschool-aged children.  JAMA Ophthalmol. 2017;135(3):283-284. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.5694PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Neely  DC, Bray  KJ, Huisingh  CE, Clark  ME, McGwin  G  Jr, Owsley  C.  Prevalence of undiagnosed age-related macular degeneration in primary eye care.  JAMA Ophthalmol. 2017;135(6):570-575. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.0830PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Bauchner  H.  The rush to publication: an editorial and scientific mistake.  JAMA. 2017;318(12):1109-1110. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.11816PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref