Hindsight_54_2_No Bleed_Final Updated.pdf 36 Volume 54, Number 2, Fall 2023 THE HISTORY OF OPTOMETRY JOURNALS FROM A BIBLIOMETRIC PERSPECTIVE INTRODUCTION Optometry journals have been in existence for more than a century,1 in parallel with numerous ophthalmology and (non- optometric) vision science journals. The United States has an especially rich history of optometric periodicals and journals, which has been recounted by Goss.2-4 In these historical accounts, Goss described the organizational development of optometry journals, associated timelines, and key figures involved in instigating and editing these journals.2-4 We wish to build upon the foundations laid down by Goss by undertaking a bibliometric analysis of the impact of all optometry journals published world- wide, throughout their entire history. A number of citation databases are available for searching and analyzing the peer-reviewed literature, including Scopus, Web of Science, Microsoft Academic and Google Scholar. Sophisticated analytical tools are also available for more detailed analyses.5 Using these databases and tools, the most highly cited papers in the field can be identified, as well as the impact of the most prominent journals, authors, institutions and countries involved in the publication of articles. Impact can be evaluated by calculating the h-index6–a single metric that combines productivity (number of papers) and quality (number of citations). The h-index of an author is defined as the maximum value of h, whereby an author has published h papers that have each been cited at least h times.6 In recent years, editors of prominent optometry journals have written editorials about the citation performance of their own journals7-10 and have facilitated publication in their journals of numerous bibliometric analyses of vision science sub-disciplines,11-13 as well as national14-16 and international17,18 rankings of academic optometrists. Notwithstanding these informative works, a global bibliometric analysis of all optometry journals throughout the entire history of their production has not been published. The aim of this paper is to use the Scopus bibliometric database and search tools to (a) identify all optometry journals; and (b) determine the overall volume and impact of papers published in optometry journals, the most impactful papers published therein, as well as the most impactful journals, authors, institutions ABSTRACT The rich history of optometric journal publications has been well documented, but the scientific impact of all optometry journals over all time has not been published. This work aims to determine the most impactful papers, authors, institutions and countries publishing in optometry journals. A h-index for “optometry journal publications” (the “h OJP -index”) was derived for each constituent of each category to serve as a measure of impact. The h OJP -index for the 34,565 papers published in all optometry journals is 136; these papers have been cited 294,239 times. Optometry and Vision Science is the most impactful and prolific journal (h OJP =118; n=13,095 papers). The most highly cited paper, by Richard Armstrong, is entitled “When to use the Bonferroni correction” (1,172 citations). Australian optometrist Nathan Efron is the most impactful and prolific author (h OJP =41; n=273). UNSW Sydney and the University of California, Berkeley are the most impactful institutions (both h OJP =58), and UNSW Sydney is the most prolific (n=963). The most impactful and prolific nation is the United States (h OJP =109; n=12,050). This quantitative bibliometric analysis demonstrates an impactful optometric research base enshrined in optometry journals. KEYWORDS Optometry, Journals, Impact factor, h-index, Publications ARTICLE NICHOLS, MORGAN, JONES, EFRON Jason J. Nichols, Ph.D., M.P.H., O.D. Professor, School of Optometry, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama jjn@uab.edu Philip B. Morgan, Ph.D., BSc (Hons) Professor, Eurolens Research, Division of Pharmacy and Optometry, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom philip.morgan@manchester.ac.uk 10.14434/hindsight.v54i2.37209 Lyndon W. Jones, DSc, Ph.D., BSc (Hons) Professor, Centre for Ocular Research & Education (CORE), School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada and Centre for Eye and Vision Research (CEVR), 17W Hong Kong Science Park, Hong Kong lyndon.jones@uwaterloo.ca Nathan Efron, AC, PhD, DSc, BSc (Optom) Emeritus Professor, Optometry and Vision Science, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Queensland, Australia n.efron@qut.edu.au HINDSIGHT: Journal of Optometry History 37 ARTICLE NICHOLS, MORGAN, JONES, EFRON and countries. In his way, it will be possible to extend beyond previous accounts of the historical and organizational history of optometry journal publication2-4 and to evaluate the academic impact of optometry journals by quantifying their contribution to the advancement of vision science and eye care over more than a century. SEARCH PROTOCOL The initial challenge in this work was to identify all optometry journals on the Scopus database (Elsevier). This database was chosen for expedience, in that all four authors of this paper had ready access to Scopus. Although the various bibliometric databases available today would yield slightly different metrics, the broad picture being constructed here is unlikely to be affected by choice of database. A preliminary search of the Scopus database was undertaken to identify journals with ‘optometry,’ ‘optometric’ or ‘optometrist’ in the title. This search revealed 33 journal names. A supplementary search was conducted to identify names of optometry journals that might not include the stem ‘optom’ in the title but are principally organized by the optometry profession or a primarily optometric organization. This was achieved by extensively cross- checking against on-line listings of optometry journals (such as the Index of NLM Serial Titles19), and catalogues of libraries in universities housing optometry schools, and in optometric institutions or associations. Three additional journal titles lacking the title stem ‘optom’ were found: Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, the journal of the British College of Optometrists; Contact Lens & Anterior Eye, the journal of the British Contact Lens Association, of which most members are optometrists and all editors have been optometrists; and Hindsight, a journal concerned with the history of optometry, published under the auspices of the American Optometric Association. These three journals were found to be included in the Scopus database. Thus, a total of 36 optometry-related journals were identified on Scopus; however, many of these journal names were found to be previous names of a given journal, so such names were combined, resulting in 18 unique journal names (Table 1). A search term was derived to further interrogate the Scopus database and was used to find all papers that were published in these 18 journals in English through September 13, 2022. This search term used journal International Standard Serial Numbers (ISSN) or source titles. The search term was refined through several iterations to exclude irrelevant titles, resulting in the following equation being derived: (ISSN(1040-5488) OR ISSN(0275-5408) OR ISSN(0816-4622) OR (0003-0244) OR ISSN(0817-881x) OR ISSN(1888-4296) OR ISSN(1705-4850) OR ISSN(1050-6918) OR ISSN(1529-1839) OR ISSN(0141-7037) OR ISSN(1444-0938) OR ISSN(0093-7002) OR ISSN(13670484) OR ISSN(0007-1218)) OR SRCTITLE(optomet*) OR SRCTITLE(Hindsight Saint Louis MO) OR SRCTITLE(International Contact Lens Clinic) AND (EXCLUDE (SRCTYPE, “b”) OR EXCLUDE (SRCTYPE, “Undefined”)) AND (EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE, “ch”) OR EXCLUDE (DOCTYPE, “bk”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”)) AND (EXCLUDE (EXACTSRCTITLE, “Journal Of Geotechnical And Geoenvironmental Engineering”)) ASSESSING IMPACT An h-index for “optometry journal publications” (the “h OJP -index”) was derived to serve as a measure of the impact of the search result across journals, authors, institutions and countries. This technique has been used extensively by the current authors.20-23 In brief, the h OJP -index of a given author was determined by sorting the optometry journal papers published by that author by rank order of citations (from highest to lowest) and working down the list, starting with the paper that had the highest number of citations, to determine the first paper with a paper rank number that was larger than its number of citations. The h OJP -index for that author was identified as the number of the entry above the identified paper. This was repeated for each of the 50 most prolific authors; from this list, the top 20 were then identified and ranked in order of h OJP -index. A similar approach was applied to identify the most impactful optometry journals, institutions and countries. The 18 optometry journals have published a total of 34,565 papers which have been cited 294,239 times. The combined h OJP - index of this body of work is 136. A total of 46.4% of these papers received no citations. The time course of publications of these papers–from the first papers included in the Scopus database published in 1920 up until September 13, 2022–is shown in Figure 1. It is evident from this graph that there has been a gradual increase in the output of papers published in optometry journals to around 600 papers per year at the present time. FIGURE 1. Number of papers published in optometry journals each year between 1920 and 2022. Year 2000 is an anomaly, with well over 300 more papers than the immediately preceding or subsequent years. This is because, in that year (but no other year), a large number of meeting abstracts (422) from the journal Optometry and Vision Science were inexplicably included in the Scopus database. Since these abstracts are technically part of an issue of that journal, and are citable, they have been retained in the search output. The increase in number of papers published in optometry journals over the past century is commensurate with the growing recognition of optometry; expansion of the scope of practice of optometry; the increase in the number of optometry schools world-wide; and broadening of the scientific base of optometry, fueled by general and targeted funding for vision science from 38 Volume 54, Number 2, Fall 2023 government agencies, universities, optometry organizations, philanthropic entities and the ophthalmic and pharmaceutical industries. Currently, approximately two refereed scientific papers per day are published in optometry journals, as can be seen from Figure 1. Impactful Journals According to h OJP -index The 18 optometry journals in the Scopus database are listed in Table 1 in rank order of h OJP -index, which ranges from 118 to 0. The most impactful journal is Optometry and Vision Science (h OJP =118), separated by a large gap from second-ranked Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics (h OJP =87). The top 6 journals listed in Table 1 have h OJP -indices ranging from 118 to 32. By contrast, those journals ranked 7 to 18 have relatively low h OJP -indices, ranging from 15 to 0, and have thus contributed little to the collective impact of optometry journals. There are indeed many other journals that have not been included in the Scopus database; for example, in 1984 the National Institutes of Health (NIH) published a list of 61 optometry journal titles.19 However, it appears that many of these, such as Rocky Mountain Optometrist, were local magazines that published news items, commentaries and anecdotal clinical material which has never been cited. As well, some clinical optometry journals such as Journal of Optometric Education, Optometry & Vision Development, and Optometry & Visual Performance have not been included in the Scopus database (possible reasons for this are discussed below). As can be seen from Table 1, the vast majority of papers published in optometry journals included in the Scopus database (95%) have been published in the top six most impactful journals. The total number of papers published in a given journal included in the Scopus database ranges from 12,673 in Optometry and Vision Science to one in the Southern Journal of Optometry. The years of publication included in the Scopus database for most journals does not cover all years of publication. One rational reason for this is that Scopus applies a set of exacting criteria for including journals and papers in its database,24 and in many cases, journals have apparently been judged as not meeting criteria for inclusion in the formative years of publication. Similarly, existing journals on the database that have subsequently failed to meet these criteria have ceased to be included. In some cases, brief runs of lesser-known journals have been included for unknown reasons. Impactful Journals According to ‘Journal Impact Factor’ The optometry journals listed in Table 1 essentially represent a ranking that relates to the span of years of publication of optometry journals that are included in Scopus. A popular current measure of the extent to which journals are cited is the ‘journal impact factor,’ which indicates the extent to which papers in a given journal have been cited over the previous two years. Strict standards are applied by Clarivate Analytics for inclusion of journals that comprise the Journal Citation Reports.25 Only five optometry journals have been included in the Journal Citation Reports, which are the first five listed in Table 1. At the time of writing, the 2021 Journal Citation Reports, which were published in 2022, are the most recent. The optometry journal with the highest impact factor is Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics (impact factor=3.992). This title must be therefore considered as the most impactful optometry journal at the present time, whereas according to the current analysis, Optometry and Vision ARTICLE NICHOLS, MORGAN, JONES, EFRON HINDSIGHT: Journal of Optometry History 39 Science (h OJP =118) must be considered the most impactful optometry journal of all time. Although the journal Optometry is ranked #5, its last assigned impact factor was 0.833 (for year 2012), which is considerably lower than the journals ranked #1 to #4 by h OJP -index in Table 1. Optometry ceased publication in 2012, with the then-president of the American Optometric Association (publisher of Optometry) citing “... the realities of publishing costs and financial priorities” as a major reason for its discontinuance.26 The low impact factor of this journal clearly indicated that it was struggling to attract impactful papers at the time of its demise. The #6-ranked Journal of Optometry does not have an assigned impact factor; however, the editor of this journal has announced that it will have its first impact factor assigned in 2023.27Journal of Optometry is a relatively recent optometry journal, having only commenced publication in 2008. It takes time to acquire an impact factor through Clarivate, which explains why this journal has not previously had an impact factor. Nevertheless, it is impressive that Journal of Optometry has attained a strong h OJP -index in only 15 years, with much fewer published papers (538) compared to the five higher-ranked and more long-standing optometry journals (12,673 to 2,615 papers). Highly Cited Papers The top 20 most cited papers published in optometry journals are shown in Table 2. These papers have been cited between 1,172 and 281 times. The subject matter of the 20 most cited optometry papers can be broadly categorized as follows: refractive error– six papers; measuring vision function–four; anterior eye–three; statistics–two; and one each on age-related macular degeneration, contact lenses, computer vision, oculomotor dysfunction and psychophysics of reading. Refractive error and measurement of visual function are core activities of clinical optometry, which is consistent with papers relating to such topics representing half of the top 20 papers in Table 2. ARTICLE NICHOLS, MORGAN, JONES, EFRON 40 Volume 54, Number 2, Fall 2023 The #1 ranked paper by Armstrong (1,172 citations) concerns an important aspect of statistical analysis although it does not specifically relate to optometric science. The paper is entitled “When to use the Bonferroni correction.” If multiple hypotheses are tested, the probability of observing a rare event increases; therefore, the likelihood of incorrectly rejecting a null hypothesis (i.e., making a Type I error) increases. The Bonferroni correction counteracts this problem, and Armstrong explains when to apply this correction. The Armstrong paper addresses an important issue that arises extensively not only in optometric research, but any other hypothesis-driven research; hence the broad popularity of this paper, as indicated by the high citation rate. To illustrate the general appeal of this work, further sub-analysis within Scopus revealed that the paper by Armstrong has been cited by papers from 27 disciplines. The 10 fields citing this paper the most were: medicine (28.3% of all citations), psychology (7.9%), social sciences (7.2%), biochemistry, genetics and molecular biology (7.2%), neuroscience (6.3%), computer science (5.6%), agricultural and biological sciences (5.5%), engineering (4.8%), health professions (4.0%) and environmental science (3.2%). The #2-ranked paper by Bailey and Lovie (1,146 citations) describes the novel logMAR chart, which heralded a revolution in the clinical measurement of visual acuity, especially in those with low vision. Further sub-analysis within Scopus revealed that this work also has been cited by papers from 27 disciplines. The 10 fields citing this paper the most were: medicine (49.6% of all citations), health professions (16.7%), neuroscience (15.8%), engineering (3.4%), biochemistry, genetics and molecular biology (2.4%), psychology (2.1%), computer science (2.0%), multidisciplinary (1.2%), physics and astronomy (1.2%) and social sciences (1.2%). That the top three fields–which are all health related–comprise 82.1% of all citations to the Bailey-Lovie paper, compared with the Armstrong paper for which the top three papers comprise 43.4% of citations, points to the more specific appeal of the Bailey-Lovie vision assessment paper to the health professions, versus the broader scientific appeal of the Armstrong statistical paper. It is interesting to observe that while the Bailey-Lovie paper has been cited 1,146 times, the first use of a logMAR chart in a major study was the ‘Photocoagulation for Diabetic Macular Edema: Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Report Number 1,,’28 published in 1985; this paper has attracted 2,524 citations. It seems that when authors wish to refer to the logMAR chart, they prefer to cite the more impactful ophthalmology journal (Archives of Ophthalmology) than the lower impact optometry journal (Optometry and Vision Science). Of the 20 most cited papers, 10 have been published in Optometry and Vision Science; six in Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics; three in Optometry and its predecessor name, Journal of the American Optometric Association; and one in Contact Lens & Anterior Eye. The percentage of optometry publications that have received no citations (46.1%) is high when compared to, say, the field of dry eye,20 for which only 18.1% of the relevant literature has not been cited. One reason for the high rate of papers in optometry journals with no citations may be that many articles, especially during the earlier years of publication of optometry journals (say, up until the 1960s), were editorials or clinical reports. The field of dry eye is a more contemporary research construct, devoid of a long ‘historical tail’ of non-cited works. Dry eye is also a ‘hot’ field of research, and is more likely to attract citations than less active research areas. While uncited communications can be important and highly instructive for clinical optometrists (and therefore a necessary component of optometry journals), they typically have minimal scientific content and are thus less impactful. Impactful Authors The 20 most impactful authors of papers published in the optometry literature are listed in Table 3 and have h OJP -indices ranging from 28 to 41. As a comparator, the 20 most impactful authors (from any discipline) of papers published in any journal (not just optometry journals) relating the field of dry eye disease20 ranges from 25 to 56. The most impactful author is Australian optometrist Nathan Efron (h OJP = 41), followed by British optical physicist Neil Charman (h OJP =38) and Canadian optometrist Lyndon Jones (h OJP =36). Total counts of papers published in optometry journals of the top 20 authors range from 111 to 273. The most prolific of the top 20 authors of papers in optometry journals are Nathan Efron (n=273 papers), David Atchison (n=168) and Brien Holden (n=164), all of whom are Australian. The top 20 authors who have published the highest percentage of their total paper output in optometry journals are optometrists Mark Rosenfield (88%), Pauline Cho (77%) and Philip Morgan (70%). Three (15%) of the top 20 authors are female; these are optometrists Pauline Cho and Karla Zadnik (both h OJP =32), and biostatistician Gladys Mitchell (h OJP =31). To understand all things ophthalmic, optometric researchers have found it necessary to interact with scientists from other disciplines, often publishing jointly in optometry journals. A consequence of such cross-disciplinary collaboration is the appointment of non-optometric scientists by optometry schools. Four (20%) of the top 20 authors of papers in the optometry journals listed in Table 3 are not optometrists, being either employed by schools of optometry or working in other departments in the same universities. The scientific background of these individuals can be broadly characterized as: optical physicist–two, biostatistician–one and microbiologist–one. The corollary of authors from other disciplines publishing in optometry journals is optometrists publishing in non-optometry journals. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that some highly impactful and prolific optometrists17,18 are not featured in Table ARTICLE NICHOLS, MORGAN, JONES, EFRON As an interesting aside, the top two ranked authors–Professors Efron and Charman– worked in adjacent offices at the University of Manchester from 1990 to 2005, although they never co-authored any papers. HINDSIGHT: Journal of Optometry History 41 3, because they seldom publish in optometry journals, so it is important to acknowledge their important contributions here. Those optometrists listed in Table 4 have h-indices ranging from 49 to 67, yet their h OJP -indices range from only 0 to 14. The percentage of their total output of papers that have appeared in optometry journals ranges from 0% to 17%. The research directions of these optometrists have resulted in them primarily publishing in the journals of other disciplines, such as psychology, neurology, ophthalmology and medical epidemiology (ipso facto seldom in optometry journals). The above scenarios of non-optometrists publishing in optometry journals and optometrists publishing in non- optometry journals represent an important ‘cross-pollination’ of science that enriches the optometric research landscape (as well as that of other disciplines) and is critically important to the advancement of vision science in general. Impactful Institutions The top 20 institutions from where papers in optometry journals were published are listed in Table 5. The h OJP -indices of the top 20 institutions range from 34 to 58. The top-ranking institutions are UNSW Sydney, Australia and the University of California, Berkeley, United States (both h OJP =58), closely followed by the Queensland University of Technology, Australia (h OJP =57). UNSW Sydney, Australia has produced the highest number of papers in optometry journals (n=963), followed by the University of California, Berkeley, United States (n=935), with the Ohio State University, United States and University of Waterloo, Canada, ranked equal third (n=848 each). It is not surprising that most of the top 20 institutions from which papers have been published in optometry journals house well-established schools/departments of optometry. However, one of the top 20 (5%) does not have an optometry school–Johns Hopkins University, United States (h OJP = 34; n = 125 papers). Almost all of the papers generated from Johns Hopkins University are from its ophthalmology department. The number of institutions from the various countries represented in Table 5 are: United States–eight; United Kingdom–five; Australia–four; Canada–one; Hong Kong–one and New Zealand–one. Impactful Countries The 10 most impactful countries are listed in Table 6. The h OJP - indices of the countries listed range from 34 to 109, and the paper count from 211 to 12,050. The United States is the most impactful and prolific nation publishing papers in optometry journals (h OJP =109; n=12,050). ARTICLE NICHOLS, MORGAN, JONES, EFRON 42 Volume 54, Number 2, Fall 2023 ARTICLE NICHOLS, MORGAN, JONES, EFRON The United States, United Kingdom, Australia and Spain are the home countries of the eight top-ranked journals listed in Table 1. Prior to the digital age (i.e., up until the late 20th century), optometrists (and indeed the majority of scientists from other disciplines) tended to be parochial in their publication behavior, preferring to submit work to their national journals. This perhaps reflected national pride, but also the path to publication was more expedient and less expensive than submitting to an overseas journal. This century, the internet has minimized time/cost barriers to publication, so national barriers no longer exist. Nevertheless, the historical preference for an author to publish in a national journal can partly explain the leading positions of the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and Spain in Table 1. Comparisons with Ophthalmology It is possible to place the overall metrics described in this paper in a broader context by drawing comparisons with ophthalmology. A simple search for ophthalmology journals was conducted in Scopus (also on September 13, 2022) using the crude search term: SRCTITLE(OPHTHALMOL*). An important caveat is that this search only includes ophthalmology journal titles with the stem ‘ophthalmol,’ therefore underestimating the total number of ophthalmology journals; nevertheless, 202 non-disambiguated journal names were found (compared to 36 non-disambiguated optometry journal names) that have produced 303,259 papers with a collective a h-index of 427. By contrast, 34,143 papers have been published in optometry journals, with a h OJP -index of 136. From this search, the top 20 articles published in ophthalmology journals were found to have been cited between 5,280 and 1,903 times, compared to between 1,172 and 281 citations for the top 20 papers in optometry journals. The higher h-index and related metrics of ophthalmology journals compared to optometry journals is consistent with the greater number of ophthalmology journals, and stronger academic ophthalmology departments–as a result of the long-standing medical foundations and broad, highly funded medical research base of ophthalmology– despite there being far fewer ophthalmologists29 than optometrists30 world-wide. It is also of interest to compare impact factors of the four currently published optometry journals with those of the top four currently published ophthalmology journals and vision science journals, as an indication of their relative research excellence. As can be seen in Table 1, the impact factors of the four currently published optometry journals range from 3.992 (Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics) to 2.106 (Optometry and Vision Science). Impact factors of the top four currently published ophthalmology journals range from 19.704 (Progress in Retinal and Eye Research) to 6.197 (Survey of Ophthalmology), and impact factors of the top four currently published vision science journals range from 3.770 (Experimental Eye Research) to 1.984 (Vision Research). Thus, the range of impact factors of the top four optometry journals is slightly greater than that of vision science journals, but considerably less than that of ophthalmology journals. CONCLUSIONS An analysis of the collective output of all optometry journals is presented here, facilitating an appreciation of the extent and impact of papers published therein, over more than a century of optometric journal publishing. This bibliometric analysis reveals that of the 18 optometry journals, eight are especially impactful. A total of 34,565 papers have been published in optometry journals, which have been extensively cited (294,239 times), resulting in a h OJP -index of 136. The most highly cited papers in optometry journals have been identified, as well as the most impactful optometry journals, and the most impactful authors, institutions and countries publishing in optometry journals. The world-wide optometric fraternity can be justly proud of its forefathers who had the prescience to launch optometry journals over a century ago, and equally thankful for the subsequent generations of individual optometrists and international optometric organizations that have nurtured, enhanced and expanded the portfolio of quality optometry journals, as previously described by Goss.2-4 A strong and vibrant journal base, such as has been demonstratedin this paper to exist today, underpins the optometric profession by providing a scientific rationale for all matters clinical, thus serving to enhance the ocular well-being of humankind. Optometrists can be proud of the rich history of impactful research enshrined in the published archive of their profession. Correspondence: Nathan Efron, School of Optometry and Vision Science, Queensland University of Technology, 60 Musk Avenue, Kelvin Grove, Queensland 4059, Australia. E-mail: n.efron@qut.edu.au HINDSIGHT: Journal of Optometry History 43 ARTICLE NICHOLS, MORGAN, JONES, EFRON REFERENCES 1. Elliott DB, Handley N. A historical review of optometry research and its publication: Are optometry journals finally catching up? Ophthalmic PhysiolOpt2015;35:245-251. 2. Goss DA. A history of some optometric periodicals. Hindsight 2015; 46: 85-90. 3. Goss DA. A history of some optometric periodicals, Part 2. Hindsight.2016; 47: 134-138. 4. Goss DA. A history of some optometric periodicals, Part 3. Hindsight.2018; 49: 52-56. 5. Moral-Muñoz JA, Herrera-Viedma E, Santisteban-Espejo A, Cobo MJ. Software tools for conducting bibliometric analysis in science: An up-to-date review. Profesional de la Información 2020; 29: e290103. 6. Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2005;102:16569-16572. 7. González-Méijome JM. Journal of Optometry bibliometrics. J Optom 2020;13: 71-73. 8. Efron N. Optometry journals have impact. Clin Exp Optom 2021;104: 137-138. 9. Rosenfield M. 2021 – A record year for OPO. Ophthalmic PhysiolOpt 2022;42: 935. 10. Twa MD. Optometry and Vision Science: 2021 journal performance. Optom Vis Sci 2022;99: 613-615. 11. Cardona G, Sanz JP. Publication analysis of the contact lens field: What are the current topics of interest? J Optom 2015;8: 33–39. 12. Ruiz-Pomeda A, Alvarez-Peregrina C, Povedano-Montero FJ. Bibliometric study of scientific research on optometric visual therapy. J Optom 2020;13: 191–197. 13. Alvarez-Peregrina C, Sanchez-Tena MA, Martin M, et al. Multifocal contact lenses: A bibliometric study. J Optom 2022;15: 53-9. 14. Efron N, Brennan NA. Citation analysis of Australia-Trained optometrists. Clin Exp Optom 2011; 94: 600-605. 15. Efron N. Citation re-analysis of Australia-trained optometrists – 10 years on. Clin Exp Optom 2020;103: 559-561. 16. Cardona G, Puigdueta-Carrera L, Efron N. Optometry research in Spain: Topics of interest, institutions and investigators. J Optom. 2023;16:167-174. 17. Efron N, Morgan PB, Jones LW, et al. Global Optometrist Top 200 Research Ranking. Clin Exp Optom 2021;104: 471-485. 18. Nichols JJ, Morgan PB, Efron N, Jones LW. Global optometrist research ranking derived from a science-wide author database of standardized citation indicators. Clin Exp Optom 2022;105: 20-25. 19. Index of NLM Serial Titles. 5th ed. 1984. M-Z. US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health (NIH Publication No. 84-314). p. 1963-4. 20. Nichols JJ, Morgan PB, Jones LW, Efron N. 21st century bibliometric analysis of the field of dry eye diseases. Clin Exp Optom 2021;104: 639-40. 21. Efron N, Morgan PB, Jones LW, Nichols JJ. 21st century bibliometric analysis of the contact lens field. Clin Exp Optom 2021;104: 634-638. 22. Efron N, Morgan PB, Jones LW, Nichols JJ. Bibliometric analysis of the refractive error field. Clin Exp Optom2021;104:641-643. 23. Nichols JJ, Morgan PB, Jones LW, Efron N. Bibliometric analysis of the orthokeratology literature. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2021;44: 101390. 24. Scopus Content – Content Policy and Selection. Available at: https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/how-scopus- works/content/content-policy-and-selection. Accessed October 5, 2022. 25. Journal Citation Reports. Clarivate. Available at: https://jcr. clarivate.com/jcr/home. Accessed October 5, 2022. 26. Carlson D. A message to readers. J Am Optom Assoc 2012;83(1):[page unnumbered]. 27. González-Méijome JM, Piñero DP, Villa-Collar C. Journal of Optometry impact factor: It’s been a long way to here. J Optom2023;16:1-2. 28. Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study research group. Photocoagulation for diabetic macular edema. Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study report number 1. Arch Ophthalmol1985;103:1796-1806. 29. Resnikoff S, Lansingh VC, Washburn L, et al. Estimated number of ophthalmologists worldwide (International Council of Ophthalmology update): Will we meet the needs? Br J Ophthalmol2020;104:588-592. 30. Naidoo K, Govender-Poonsamy P, Morjaria P, et al. Global mapping of optometry workforce. Research Square 2022. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1286073/v1.