Download Annual Reviews in Ophthalmology, a New Feature of the Asia

EDITORIAL
Annual Reviews in Ophthalmology, a
New Feature of the Asia-Pacific Journal
of Ophthalmology
Robert Ritch, MD*Þ
T
his issue of the Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology sees the launching of a new series of
articles reviewing specific major topics of interest in ophthalmology. This is not a new idea but a
revival of a regular series from many years ago. Back in the 1970s, when I was a resident and fellow,
the Archives of Ophthalmology had a monthly review of essentially all of the literature published in
the previous year or so up until the time of submission of the article. References 1 to 6 represent
samples of these reviews.1Y6 The series was edited by B. Thomas Hutchinson, MD. The reviews
were authored by leading authorities of the day and were comprehensive in scope, averaging 20 to
30 pages of printed text and approximately 18,000 to 30,000 words in length, with approximately
200 references, ranging from a little more than 100 to more than 500. They were a truly valuable service.
It goes without saying that these articles represented an extraordinary effort and a large amount
of time to prepare. Perhaps that was one reason for their demise. Moreover, the scientific explosion in
molecular biology and medicine, genomics, therapeutics, and surgical advances, not to mention the
advent of medicine of the future in the form of personalized medicine, stem cell therapy, gene
transfer, and regenerative medicine, have vastly extended the amount of information and number of
publications being produced. Everyday we read of new breakthroughs in technology and medicine,
and the sources of information have proliferated so extensively that many ophthalmologists, bombarded from every direction, get much of their information from either ‘‘throwaways’’ or the Internet
or iPhone applications.
In today’s world, extensive monographs have given way to much shorter and specifically oriented reviews on more limited topics. There are many more journals today than there were in the
1970s. More journals are moving to online production, and in today’s fast-paced world characterized
by instantaneous acquisition of information, leisurely reading of a long review may prove more
difficult that it did 35 years ago.
Why, then, should we do this, and is there a need for it? One reason in favor is that reviews are
always useful for those who wish to gain an overview of a topic, particularly if the review is limited in
scope to recent publications, hence an annual review. Reviews in textbooks are rarely up-to-date
because of the time required for publication. Nevertheless, because of the overwhelming task of
reviewing an entire subject such as retina or glaucoma today compared with a generation ago, we are
seeking a way to move these reviews into the current information age.
One way to do this would be to create ‘‘living documents,’’ which when published online, would
be periodically added to, updated, and expanded. We are currently attempting to accomplish this with
a recently published review of Sturge-Weber syndrome.7 Rather than an article being published and
becoming immutable over time, we plan to have this periodically revised and expanded, and being
online, there is no limit to the number of photographs or even surgical videos that can be included.
Exactly how this will be done has not yet been determined because the entire concept is currently
subject to flux. One method would be to invite all interested readers to submit photographs or videos
to expand the digital library. A blog could be created, in which registered users at the journal Web site
will be able to post comments and corrections about the article. Online discussions about controversial aspects of the text could be aired. Perhaps there might even be a Wiki-review, wherein anyone
could suggest corrections and additions to an article and a panel of chosen experts could referee these
and make additions to the article as necessary. All of these are possibilities to be explored in
From the *Einhorn Clinical Research Center, New York Eye and Ear Infirmary, New York; and †Department of Ophthalmology, New York Medical College,
Valhalla, NY.
Received for publication October 3, 2012; accepted October 4, 2012.
The author has no funding or conflicts of interest to declare.
Reprints: Robert Ritch, MD, The New York Eye and Ear Infirmary, 310 E 14th St, New York, NY 10003. E-mail: [email protected].
Copyright * 2012 by Asia Pacific Academy of Ophthalmology
ISSN: 2162-0989
DOI: 10.1097/APO.0b013e3182778abc
Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology
&
Volume 1, Number 6, November/December 2012
www.apjo.org
Copyright © 2012 by Asia Pacific Academy of Ophthalmology. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
323
Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology
Editorial
attempting to bring the printed journal of today into the world of
cyberspace. Reader feedback and suggestions are both welcome
and encouraged.
The topics chosen for reviews thus far include glaucoma
(Nathan Radcliffe, MD), neuro-ophthalmology (Andrew Lee,
MD), uvea (Sanjay Kedhar, MD), ocular oncology and pathology (David Abramson, MD), genetics (Rand Allingham, MD),
medical and surgical retina (Marco Zarbin, MD, PhD), pediatric
ophthalmology and strabismus (Marilyn Miller, MD, and Steven
Archer, MD), artificial vision (Alan Chow, MD), nanotechnology
(James F. Leary, PhD), refractive surgery (Douglas Koch, MD),
and stem cells and regenerative medicine (Ting Xie, PhD),
whereas other topics, such as cataract, cornea, orbit, and oculoplastics, await chosen authors. Additional suggestions from
our readership are welcome.
The current issue includes the first of these reviews,
Glaucoma, by Nathan Radcliffe, MD. It is our hope that this
&
Volume 1, Number 6, November/December 2012
review will be well received but also that it will generate feedback from our readership as to comments, corrections, and future directions.
REFERENCES
1. Kirsch RE. The lens. Arch Ophthalmol. 1975;93:284Y314.
2. Lessell S. Neuro-ophthalmology. Arch Ophthalmol. 1975;93:434Y464.
3. O’Connor GR. The uvea. Arch Ophthalmol. 1975;93:675Y691.
4. Helveston, EM. Strabismus. Arch Ophthalmol. 1975;93:1205Y1221.
5. Tasman W. Retina and optic nerve. Arch Ophthalmol.
1976;94:1201Y1224.
6. Armaly MF. Glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol. 1976;94:146Y162.
7. Dorairaj S, Ritch R. Encephalotrigeminal angiomatosis (Sturge-Weber
syndrome, Klippel-Trenaunay Weber syndrome): a review. Asia-Pacific
J Ophthalmol. 2012;Epub July 11.
‘‘A bad book is as much of the labor to write as a good one, it comes as sincerely from the authors’ soul.’’
- Aldous Huxley
324
www.apjo.org
* 2012 Asia Pacific Academy of Ophthalmology
Copyright © 2012 by Asia Pacific Academy of Ophthalmology. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.