Journal of Ophthalmic Science · Editorial framework
Editorial Policies
These policies define how JOS evaluates ophthalmic research, protects patients and confidential material, manages competing interests and corrects the scholarly record.
Every submission is checked for
- Ophthalmic scope and methodological coherence
- Ethics approval, consent and trial registration where applicable
- Patient privacy and clinical-image integrity
- Authorship, funding and competing-interest disclosures
- Data, statistical and reporting transparency
Editorial foundation
The journal’s policies are informed by COPE and ICMJE guidance. Manuscripts are assessed for scientific merit, ophthalmic relevance and compliance with applicable ethical requirements.
- IndependenceEditorial decisions are based on the manuscript and are independent of article charges, memberships and optional services.
- AccountabilityAuthors, reviewers and editors remain responsible for the accuracy, confidentiality and integrity of their work.
- ProportionalityRequirements are applied according to study design, participant risk, clinical context and the data presented.
- Record integrityMaterial errors and substantiated misconduct are addressed through visible post-publication action.
Editorial assessment and peer review
JOS uses single-blind peer review. Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors. Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent ophthalmology specialists.
Initial assessment
The editorial office checks scope, completeness, ethical declarations and evident integrity concerns.
Expert assignment
A handling editor identifies reviewers whose expertise matches the ophthalmic question and study design.
Independent review
Reviewers assess validity, reporting, clinical interpretation, ethics and the support for the conclusions.
Editorial decision
The editor considers the manuscript and reports before deciding on revision, acceptance or rejection.
Conflicts, recusal and decision authority
Editors and reviewers must disclose relationships or interests that could reasonably affect their judgment. A conflicted editor takes no part in the decision, and an alternative editor is assigned.
Review recommendations inform but do not replace the editor’s decision. Invitation, payment, membership, editorial service or reviewing activity confers no advantage in the review or acceptance of a person’s own manuscript.
Unpublished material remains confidential
Editors and reviewers must not disclose, reuse or distribute manuscript content or data. Confidential files must not be uploaded to public or unauthorized generative-AI services.
Review and decision timing depends on the manuscript, reviewer availability and any integrity or ethics questions. Applicable expectations are communicated case by case, and no paid review lane is offered.
Clinical research, consent and patient privacy
Requirements must match the study and jurisdiction. Authors should state approvals and consent in the manuscript and provide supporting documentation when requested.
Ethics review and consent
Research involving human participants must follow the Declaration of Helsinki and receive approval or a documented exemption from an appropriate institutional ethics body where applicable.
- Identify the approving body and reference number, or explain the exemption.
- Describe informed-consent procedures and any lawful waiver.
- Protect participant confidentiality in text, tables, images and supplementary files.
- State how vulnerable populations and capacity to consent were handled.
Publication consent and identifiability
Written publication consent is required for identifiable ophthalmic, periocular or facial images and for case information from which a patient could reasonably be recognized. Masking the eye region or removing a name is not a substitute for consent when identifiability remains.
Authors must remove unnecessary identifiers and explain relevant image acquisition, selection and processing. The editorial office may request the consent form without publishing it.
Trial registration and safety reporting
Interventional clinical trials must be registered in an accepted public registry at or before the first participant provides consent for enrollment. The registry name, registration number and registration date must be reported in the manuscript.
Authors should report protocol changes, adverse events, stopping rules and clinically relevant harms. Surgical and therapeutic studies must describe the intervention sufficiently for appraisal and distinguish prespecified from exploratory outcomes.
Welfare and ophthalmic relevance
Animal studies require appropriate institutional approval and should follow the ARVO Statement for the Use of Animals in Ophthalmic and Vision Research where applicable. The manuscript must justify the model, report welfare safeguards and identify the translational ophthalmic question.
Data, images and reporting integrity
Acquisition, grading and processing
Imaging studies should report the device or modality, acquisition protocol, quality control, grading method and adjudication procedure. Cropping, contrast adjustment, segmentation and other processing must be disclosed when they could affect interpretation.
Authors must identify AI-assisted image processing or analysis and retain the underlying source data. Selective enhancement, undisclosed compositing or alteration that changes clinical meaning is not acceptable.
Reference standards and uncertainty
Diagnostic studies should identify the reference standard, participant selection, reader masking, indeterminate results and analysis population. Sensitivity, specificity and uncertainty intervals should be reported where appropriate; STARD should guide applicable studies.
Access must be described accurately
Every empirical research manuscript must include a data-availability statement explaining where supporting data can be accessed or why access is restricted. Privacy, consent, legal and contractual limits must be stated rather than overridden.
Editors may request underlying data, images, analysis code or protocols when needed to assess a concern. Inability to provide requested material may affect the editorial decision.
Methods must support the conclusion
Authors should define outcomes, analysis populations, handling of missing data, multiplicity, effect estimates and uncertainty. Conclusions must distinguish association from causation and avoid overstating clinical benefit.
Applicable reporting guidance may include CONSORT, STROBE, STARD and CARE. A checklist does not replace a complete and transparent account of the study.
Authorship, disclosure and responsible tool use
Contribution and accountability
Authors must meet the journal’s approved authorship criteria: substantial contribution, participation in drafting or critical revision, approval of the submitted version and accountability for the work. Contributors who do not meet all criteria should be acknowledged.
Ghost, guest and honorary authorship are not acceptable. The corresponding author must confirm the author list and describe material contribution changes made after submission.
Human authors remain responsible
An AI system cannot be an author. Authors must disclose substantive use of generative or analytical AI in writing, coding, image processing or data analysis in a location appropriate to that use.
Authors remain responsible for accuracy, attribution, permissions and confidentiality. Reviewers and editors must not place confidential manuscript material in an unauthorized AI system.
Relevant relationships must be visible
Authors must disclose financial and non-financial interests that could be perceived to influence the work, including employment, consulting, honoraria, equity, patents and relationships with device or pharmaceutical organizations.
All funding sources and the funder’s role in design, analysis, writing and publication decisions must be stated. Editors and reviewers follow the same disclosure and recusal principle.
Duplicate submission and attribution
Submissions must not be under consideration by another journal. Reuse of text, data, figures or ideas requires accurate attribution and any necessary permission. JOS may use similarity-screening tools as one part of editorial assessment; a similarity score is not by itself a finding of misconduct.
Concerns and the published record
Questions are assessed according to the available evidence, with an opportunity for relevant parties to respond and with action proportionate to the reliability of the published record.
| Circumstance | Possible response | Record principle |
|---|---|---|
| Minor production or factual error | Erratum or corrigendum linked to the article. | The correction identifies what changed without obscuring the original publication history. |
| Error affecting interpretation | Substantive correction and an updated, linked article version where appropriate. | Readers can see the nature and consequence of the correction. |
| Unreliable findings or substantiated misconduct | Retraction following an evidence-based editorial assessment. | The notice remains linked, states the reason and distinguishes error from misconduct where evidence permits. |
| Unresolved research-integrity concern | Queries to authors and, when necessary, relevant institutions or funders before final action. | Confidentiality and procedural fairness are balanced against the need to protect readers and participants. |
Fabrication, falsification and plagiarism
Concerns may be raised before or after publication. The journal may request original data and documentation, seek an explanation, consult appropriate experts and contact an institution or funder when the matter requires authority beyond the journal.
Decisions may be challenged with evidence
An author should submit a reasoned appeal promptly to the Editor-in-Chief, identifying the alleged factual or procedural error. Appeals are considered by an editor who was not materially conflicted; disagreement with the outcome alone is not sufficient.
Complaints about process, conduct, confidentiality or conflicts should identify the manuscript and the issue. Retaliation against a complainant, author or reviewer is not acceptable.
Copyright, license and withdrawal
Articles are published under CC BY 4.0. Authors retain copyright, and reuse is permitted with appropriate attribution and an indication of changes. Authors are responsible for obtaining permission for third-party material not covered by the article license.
A withdrawal request must be sent in writing to the editorial office with the reason for the request. Until the journal confirms withdrawal, the manuscript remains under consideration and must not be submitted elsewhere.
No payment, waiver, membership or optional service affects peer review or editorial decisions. See the approved withdrawal policy and APC terms.
Policy interpretation
When a situation is not described here, the journal applies the same principles of participant protection, confidentiality, evidence, editorial independence and record integrity. Authors may be asked for clarification before a decision is made.
Prepare a policy-complete submission
The author instructions identify the declarations, reporting information and files required before submission.
Digital preservation
This journal’s content is committed to Portico, a not-for-profit digital-preservation archive run by ITHAKA (the organisation behind JSTOR). As articles are deposited they enter Portico’s permanent archive, so the scholarly record stays available for the long term — even if a title one day ceases to publish. Read our preservation policy.