FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2144579056> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2144579056 endingPage "e29" @default.
• W2144579056 startingPage "e29" @default.
• W2144579056 abstract "As Editor-in-Chief of Cornea, the journal of the Cornea Society, and a member of the editorial board of Ophthalmology, I read the recent publication of Chen et al1Chen H. Chen C.H. Jhanji V. Publication times, impact factors, and advance online publication in ophthalmology journals.Ophthalmology. 2013; 120: 1697-1701Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (44) Google Scholar and the accompanying editorial2Schachat A.P. Bartley G.B. Faster is better.Ophthalmology. 2013; 120: 1513-1514Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (7) Google Scholar with great interest. That paper stressed the large variance in and generally lengthy time from submission to publication of ophthalmologic research.Although the methodologic validity of the study is arguable, the conclusions are important. The dissemination of significant new information is critical for the advancement of knowledge and improvement of patient care. Our concern is that the data regarding Cornea, derived from publications in 2010, are misleading in light of the current status of publications in our journal. Chen et al1Chen H. Chen C.H. Jhanji V. Publication times, impact factors, and advance online publication in ophthalmology journals.Ophthalmology. 2013; 120: 1697-1701Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (44) Google Scholar reported a median submission to acceptance time for Cornea of 263 days. The reported median submission to publication time in 2010 was 558 days, the longest of the 51 journals studied.1Chen H. Chen C.H. Jhanji V. Publication times, impact factors, and advance online publication in ophthalmology journals.Ophthalmology. 2013; 120: 1697-1701Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (44) Google Scholar This is despite the journal’s impact factor being 15th highest of the 51. In 2010, the journal had built up a large backlog of papers with quality meriting publication. Since that time, the backlog has been greatly reduced in several ways. The page allowance per issue has been increased, online-only publication has been encouraged for selected papers, authors have been urged to shorten manuscripts, the number of editors has been increased, the editorial board has been updated, and the acceptance rate (currently about 30%) has been reduced. Factors such as difficulty getting busy reviewers to accept and promptly complete their roles, delays in return of revisions and proofs, appropriate copyediting for English usage by non–English-speaking authors (about 65% of our submitters), and publication processing still limit our control of submission to print times.The August 2013 issue of Cornea had 21 printed papers. The median time from submission to acceptance of the final revision was 72 days (range, 14–249). The median time from acceptance to print was 156 days (range, 131–223) and the submission to print median was 228 days (range, 145–472). Online publication ahead of print was 60 to 90 days earlier. We feel that 7.5 months from submission to print is acceptable, albeit not ideal, and we are working hard to improve further. The Chen paper itself took 12 months to reach print in Ophthalmology, the leading clinical journal in our field.1Chen H. Chen C.H. Jhanji V. Publication times, impact factors, and advance online publication in ophthalmology journals.Ophthalmology. 2013; 120: 1697-1701Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (44) Google ScholarThe prompt dissemination of validated and valuable information is the goal of scientific publication. Despite the impression given in the Chen paper, Cornea is approaching that goal. As Editor-in-Chief of Cornea, the journal of the Cornea Society, and a member of the editorial board of Ophthalmology, I read the recent publication of Chen et al1Chen H. Chen C.H. Jhanji V. Publication times, impact factors, and advance online publication in ophthalmology journals.Ophthalmology. 2013; 120: 1697-1701Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (44) Google Scholar and the accompanying editorial2Schachat A.P. Bartley G.B. Faster is better.Ophthalmology. 2013; 120: 1513-1514Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (7) Google Scholar with great interest. That paper stressed the large variance in and generally lengthy time from submission to publication of ophthalmologic research. Although the methodologic validity of the study is arguable, the conclusions are important. The dissemination of significant new information is critical for the advancement of knowledge and improvement of patient care. Our concern is that the data regarding Cornea, derived from publications in 2010, are misleading in light of the current status of publications in our journal. Chen et al1Chen H. Chen C.H. Jhanji V. Publication times, impact factors, and advance online publication in ophthalmology journals.Ophthalmology. 2013; 120: 1697-1701Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (44) Google Scholar reported a median submission to acceptance time for Cornea of 263 days. The reported median submission to publication time in 2010 was 558 days, the longest of the 51 journals studied.1Chen H. Chen C.H. Jhanji V. Publication times, impact factors, and advance online publication in ophthalmology journals.Ophthalmology. 2013; 120: 1697-1701Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (44) Google Scholar This is despite the journal’s impact factor being 15th highest of the 51. In 2010, the journal had built up a large backlog of papers with quality meriting publication. Since that time, the backlog has been greatly reduced in several ways. The page allowance per issue has been increased, online-only publication has been encouraged for selected papers, authors have been urged to shorten manuscripts, the number of editors has been increased, the editorial board has been updated, and the acceptance rate (currently about 30%) has been reduced. Factors such as difficulty getting busy reviewers to accept and promptly complete their roles, delays in return of revisions and proofs, appropriate copyediting for English usage by non–English-speaking authors (about 65% of our submitters), and publication processing still limit our control of submission to print times. The August 2013 issue of Cornea had 21 printed papers. The median time from submission to acceptance of the final revision was 72 days (range, 14–249). The median time from acceptance to print was 156 days (range, 131–223) and the submission to print median was 228 days (range, 145–472). Online publication ahead of print was 60 to 90 days earlier. We feel that 7.5 months from submission to print is acceptable, albeit not ideal, and we are working hard to improve further. The Chen paper itself took 12 months to reach print in Ophthalmology, the leading clinical journal in our field.1Chen H. Chen C.H. Jhanji V. Publication times, impact factors, and advance online publication in ophthalmology journals.Ophthalmology. 2013; 120: 1697-1701Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (44) Google Scholar The prompt dissemination of validated and valuable information is the goal of scientific publication. Despite the impression given in the Chen paper, Cornea is approaching that goal." @default.
• W2144579056 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2144579056 creator A5089159020 @default.
• W2144579056 date "2014-06-01" @default.
• W2144579056 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W2144579056 title "Re: Chen et al.: Publication times, impact factors, and advance online publication in ophthalmology journals (Ophthalmology 2013;120:1697–701)" @default.
• W2144579056 cites W1966117675 @default.
• W2144579056 cites W2166012794 @default.
• W2144579056 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.08.047" @default.
• W2144579056 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24565740" @default.
• W2144579056 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W2144579056 type Work @default.
• W2144579056 sameAs 2144579056 @default.
• W2144579056 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2144579056 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2144579056 hasAuthorship W2144579056A5089159020 @default.
• W2144579056 hasBestOaLocation W21445790561 @default.
• W2144579056 hasConcept C118487528 @default.
• W2144579056 hasConcept C119767625 @default.
• W2144579056 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2144579056 hasConceptScore W2144579056C118487528 @default.
• W2144579056 hasConceptScore W2144579056C119767625 @default.
• W2144579056 hasConceptScore W2144579056C71924100 @default.
• W2144579056 hasIssue "6" @default.
• W2144579056 hasLocation W21445790561 @default.
• W2144579056 hasLocation W21445790562 @default.
• W2144579056 hasOpenAccess W2144579056 @default.
• W2144579056 hasPrimaryLocation W21445790561 @default.
• W2144579056 hasRelatedWork W1025112007 @default.
• W2144579056 hasRelatedWork W2464763775 @default.
• W2144579056 hasRelatedWork W2468673121 @default.
• W2144579056 hasRelatedWork W2647641574 @default.
• W2144579056 hasRelatedWork W2993487851 @default.
• W2144579056 hasRelatedWork W3111144589 @default.
• W2144579056 hasRelatedWork W827435971 @default.
• W2144579056 hasRelatedWork W831423387 @default.
• W2144579056 hasRelatedWork W2588051742 @default.
• W2144579056 hasRelatedWork W3028789648 @default.
• W2144579056 hasVolume "121" @default.
• W2144579056 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2144579056 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2144579056 magId "2144579056" @default.
• W2144579056 workType "article" @default.