Start Submission Become a Reviewer

Reading: The BIOJ: a comparative review


A- A+
Alt. Display


The BIOJ: a comparative review


Jill Carlton ,

Health Economics and Decision Science (HEDS), School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield
About Jill
PhD MMedSci (Orthoptics) BMedSci (Orthoptics)
X close

Gemma E. Arblaster,

Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield;Academic Unit of Ophthalmology & Orthoptics, University of Sheffield, Sheffield
About Gemma E.
MSc, BMedSci (Hons) (Orthoptics)
X close

Lindsey A. Hughes

Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield
About Lindsey A.
BMedSci (Orthoptics)
X close


Aim: The aim of this descriptive study is to compare the types of articles published within the BIOJ with two other professional journals (Physiotherapy and Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics (OPO)).

Methods: Data were extracted using a standardized form, with two reviewers allocated to each journal. Each reviewer extracted data independently, and was blind to the other reviewer’s comments. Articles were categorised into study type; author affiliation to an academic unit; and whether any author was based in the United Kingdom or Ireland. Details of the study population and ethics approval statements were abstracted.

Results: It was hypothesised that Physiotherapy and OPO would contain more articles of a ‘higher’ level of evidence when compared to the BIOJ. This was not found. Although the BIOJ did not publish any Category A studies, the number of articles in the other study classification categories were similar. Over a third of articles published in BIOJ were narrative reviews, and the number of Category D studies published in the BIOJ appears to be increasing over time. However the number of articles per year is low and the figures must be interpreted with caution.

Conclusions: The content of the BIOJ does appear unbalanced, with a high number of review articles and case reports. Over the 5-year period investigated, these account for over 50% of the content of the BIOJ. It is hoped that this article will be a prompt for discussions on how research and dissemination can be achieved; and on the future and profile of the BIOJ itself.

How to Cite: Carlton, J., Arblaster, G.E. and Hughes, L.A., 2013. The BIOJ: a comparative review. British and Irish Orthoptic Journal, 10, pp.3–10. DOI:
Published on 01 Aug 2013.
Peer Reviewed


  • PDF (EN)