Authors:

Abstract

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.

Keywords: BIOJ ,   Comparative ,   Dissemination ,   Medline ,   Optometry ,   Physiotherapy ,   Study design