- Email: [email protected]
To thine own profession be true
EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE Paul B. Freeman, O.D.
To thine own profession be true
O
ptometrists who seek to publish manuscripts have many options. Among them, the first should always be our own professional publications as the primary and discerning resource for disseminating information. Once that has been decided, the next consideration should be to which publication should the paper be submitted? The topic and the target audience will pretty much determine that. In optometry, there are a number of excellent journals and periodical options available. I’ve had the good fortune of having papers published in a number of optometric venues. However, as editor of this journal, I would like to address some of the questions I am asked by those aspiring to publish in a peerreviewed journal, or who have published and would like to know a little more about the impact of their contribution. Due to Optometry’s relationship with our publisher Elsevier, responding to these questions presents far less of a challenge, and offers more detailed and accurate answers than in the past. Optometry is sent to over 27,000 members of the American Optometric Association and a small number of non-member and institutional subscribers. For those wishing to reach the broadest audience, these circulation numbers might suggest that a published manuscript will reach those who practice primary care, vision therapy, low vision rehabilitation, as well as those involved in education, public health, research, or any other aspect of the profession. While these demographics describe the broad readership numbers, there is also now a way to determine who in the general health
care and science community (and more specifically in the optometric community) looks at these articles. Through ScienceDirect, an electronic institutional platform accessible to approximately 16 million scientists, we can track information over any period of time, from July 2005 forward. As an example, from January to November 2006, the total number of full-text article downloads from Optometry was 13,304, based on the total of the monthly reports of downloads (which have increased each month). During that same period the total number of full text article page views from the Optometry Web site (www. optometryjaoa.com) was 21,004, again with the tallies increasing every month. Because this profiling capability is rather new, these numbers will serve as the baseline for future years, and will allow us to compare interest in Optometry’s articles over time. (This full-text usage for both electronic platforms represents readership from all over the world.) Most interesting in considering this profile, however, is that the top 5 articles requested online on both sites were similar. On ScienceDirect, the top 5 articles in order were: Childhood obesity—a public health crisis by Mozlin, Retinopathy screening in individuals with type 2 diabetes: who, how, how often, and at what cost–an epidemiological review by Swanson, Five rules to evaluate the optic disc and retinal nerve fiber layer for glaucoma by Fingeret et al., Acute inflammatory demylinating optic neuritis: current concepts in diagnosis and management by Bhatti, and New thoughts on normal tension glaucoma by Sowka. The top 5 articles in order on the Optometry Web
1529-1839/07/$ -see front matter © 2007 American Optometric Association. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.optm.2006.12.010
Paul B. Freeman, O.D.
site were: Progressive addition lensesmeasurements and ratings by Sheedy et al., Childhood obesity—a public health crisis by Mozlin, Five rules to evaluate the optic disc and retinal nerve fiber layer for glaucoma by Fingeret et al., New thoughts on normal tension glaucoma by Sowka, and Retinopathy screening in individuals with type 2 diabetes: who, how, how often, and at what cost–an epidemiological review by Swanson. What I found most exciting about this information is that it appears, at least with these 2 platforms, that the interests of our profession are very much in line with those in the broader health care and science community. The exception is that, as niche health care providers, optometrists are still interested in the fundamentals of clinically relevant optometric papers directed at helping patients see as best they can, as represented by the Sheedy et al. article on
48 PALs being the most viewed topic on the Optometry Web site. There are a number of topics of great interest and import yet to be explored in articles for the readership of Optometry. Although interprofessional distribution of information is important, I think it is critical to look first within our profession, and to initially publish information for the benefit of optometrists, and ultimately our patients.
Editorial “All health professionals have an obligation to contribute to the professional literature throughout their career.”1 As I have written and lectured about in the past (based on Writing for Healthcare Professions by DFS Cormack), for a mature profession to survive and thrive, dissemination of information by and for those in the profession is imperative. There are a number of quality optometric publications through which we can circulate
information; we should look to those as our first choice when submitting manuscripts.
Reference 1. Cormack DFS. Writing for health care professionals. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1994:1.
To thine own profession be true
O
ptometrists who seek to publish manuscripts have many options. Among them, the first should always be our own professional publications as the primary and discerning resource for disseminating information. Once that has been decided, the next consideration should be to which publication should the paper be submitted? The topic and the target audience will pretty much determine that. In optometry, there are a number of excellent journals and periodical options available. I’ve had the good fortune of having papers published in a number of optometric venues. However, as editor of this journal, I would like to address some of the questions I am asked by those aspiring to publish in a peerreviewed journal, or who have published and would like to know a little more about the impact of their contribution. Due to Optometry’s relationship with our publisher Elsevier, responding to these questions presents far less of a challenge, and offers more detailed and accurate answers than in the past. Optometry is sent to over 27,000 members of the American Optometric Association and a small number of non-member and institutional subscribers. For those wishing to reach the broadest audience, these circulation numbers might suggest that a published manuscript will reach those who practice primary care, vision therapy, low vision rehabilitation, as well as those involved in education, public health, research, or any other aspect of the profession. While these demographics describe the broad readership numbers, there is also now a way to determine who in the general health
care and science community (and more specifically in the optometric community) looks at these articles. Through ScienceDirect, an electronic institutional platform accessible to approximately 16 million scientists, we can track information over any period of time, from July 2005 forward. As an example, from January to November 2006, the total number of full-text article downloads from Optometry was 13,304, based on the total of the monthly reports of downloads (which have increased each month). During that same period the total number of full text article page views from the Optometry Web site (www. optometryjaoa.com) was 21,004, again with the tallies increasing every month. Because this profiling capability is rather new, these numbers will serve as the baseline for future years, and will allow us to compare interest in Optometry’s articles over time. (This full-text usage for both electronic platforms represents readership from all over the world.) Most interesting in considering this profile, however, is that the top 5 articles requested online on both sites were similar. On ScienceDirect, the top 5 articles in order were: Childhood obesity—a public health crisis by Mozlin, Retinopathy screening in individuals with type 2 diabetes: who, how, how often, and at what cost–an epidemiological review by Swanson, Five rules to evaluate the optic disc and retinal nerve fiber layer for glaucoma by Fingeret et al., Acute inflammatory demylinating optic neuritis: current concepts in diagnosis and management by Bhatti, and New thoughts on normal tension glaucoma by Sowka. The top 5 articles in order on the Optometry Web
1529-1839/07/$ -see front matter © 2007 American Optometric Association. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.optm.2006.12.010
Paul B. Freeman, O.D.
site were: Progressive addition lensesmeasurements and ratings by Sheedy et al., Childhood obesity—a public health crisis by Mozlin, Five rules to evaluate the optic disc and retinal nerve fiber layer for glaucoma by Fingeret et al., New thoughts on normal tension glaucoma by Sowka, and Retinopathy screening in individuals with type 2 diabetes: who, how, how often, and at what cost–an epidemiological review by Swanson. What I found most exciting about this information is that it appears, at least with these 2 platforms, that the interests of our profession are very much in line with those in the broader health care and science community. The exception is that, as niche health care providers, optometrists are still interested in the fundamentals of clinically relevant optometric papers directed at helping patients see as best they can, as represented by the Sheedy et al. article on
48 PALs being the most viewed topic on the Optometry Web site. There are a number of topics of great interest and import yet to be explored in articles for the readership of Optometry. Although interprofessional distribution of information is important, I think it is critical to look first within our profession, and to initially publish information for the benefit of optometrists, and ultimately our patients.
Editorial “All health professionals have an obligation to contribute to the professional literature throughout their career.”1 As I have written and lectured about in the past (based on Writing for Healthcare Professions by DFS Cormack), for a mature profession to survive and thrive, dissemination of information by and for those in the profession is imperative. There are a number of quality optometric publications through which we can circulate
information; we should look to those as our first choice when submitting manuscripts.
Reference 1. Cormack DFS. Writing for health care professionals. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1994:1.