Rehna S. Khan and Rachel F. Pilling

In ophthalmology, particular emphasis is placed on clinical research and publications in order to gain entrance to higher specialist training. However, the length of time from submission of an article to a committee for review through to its publication, has often acted as a deterrent to many people who just want their voice to be heard As a result, concerns were raised that the length of time and administration costs of completing this process may result in a decrease in publications by junior doctors.^1,2

Moreover, scientific and clinical productivity in the form of research projects and clinical case report publications to journals is commonly considered an accurate measure on which to base career advancement. Hence, there was a great concern than the future generation of ophthalmologists would not be able to progress past a certain level because of the difficulties they may find in having their research published.

In 1997, UK multicentre research ethics committees were introduced in a bid to overcome difficulties with applications to multiple local committees. This was followed by the introduction, in 2004, of the new Central Office for Research Ethics Committees (COREC).

In order to find out whether the UK's system of research submission and review was preventing many young ophthalmologists from submitting papers for publication, Rehna Khan and Rachel Pilling aimed to assess the trend in publications generated by ophthalmology trainees in the UK over a 10 year period.

Figure 1: Type of publication for each year group.

A list of ophthalmic specialist registrars from several units across the UK was compiled. The year of appointment to a national training number (NTN) or equivalent was determined by direct questioning. The number and type of publications for each trainee up to and including the year of appointment was recorded by searching PubMed (http:// http://www.ncbi.nih.gov/).

Have article submission patterns changed?

Figure 2: Publication types generated by 41 ophthalmologists over a ten year period.

A total of 41 ophthalmologists were included in the sample, 25 male and 16 female registrars appointed between 1995 and 2005. The total number of publications for the sample was 54. The number of first author publications was 35. Forty-two (74%) of the publications were cases studies, 10 (15%) were observational studies, six were randomised control trials, four were comments and one was an audit (Figures 1 & 2). The mean number of publications at appointment (Figure 3) was 1.0 per registrar with a range of 0 to 4. Ultimately, the study found that there was no significant difference in mean publications produced by those appointed in 2005 (1.4) compared with 1995 (0.7).

Case reports dominate

Figure 3: Mean number of publications per registrar.

There has been growing concern that the introduction of a complex and time consuming ethical approval system will affect the publication pattern of junior ophthalmologists. However, we have shown that the majority of publications over the last 10 years have been case reports, which do not require ethical approval and this pattern has not changed.