OJO is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal with a clinical focus on the subspecialties within ophthalmology. It aims to
- Provide a platform for scientific expression of the Oman Ophthalmic Society and provide opportunities for free exchange of ideas and information.
- Serve as a valuable resource for ophthalmologists, eye-care providers including optometrists, orthoptists, other health care professionals and research workers in all aspects of the field of visual science in Oman
The manuscript submission and editorial review process
includes the following steps:
- An author submits a manuscript.
- The manuscript is screened by the Editorial Office. Those with
more than an acceptable limit of technical errors are returned to
the author for resubmission. Other manuscripts are sent for peer
- For those manuscripts sent for external peer review, the
editorial office assigns reviewers to the manuscript.
- The reviewers review the manuscript.
- The editor makes a final decision based on editorial priorities,
manuscript quality, reviewer recommendations, and perhaps
discussions with fellow editors.
- The decision letter is sent to the author.
As a reviewer, you are responsible for the fourth step.
- The unpublished manuscript is a privileged document. Please
protect it from any form of exploitation. Reviewers are expected not
to cite a manuscript or refer to the work it describes before it has
been published, and to refrain from using the information it
contains for the advancement of their own research.
- Consider the big picture first. Is the purpose of the study
stated clearly? Did the study design approach the question
appropriately? Do the results support the authorsí conclusions?
- Try to make comments constructive. Donít just say what is wrong;
say how to make it better. Even if you recommend rejection, the
article may still end up in print, either in this journal or
- Journal space is at a premium. Check the need for tables and
figures and the adequacy of the references. Point out places where
the prose can be condensed: introductions should be concise and to
the point; discussions should address the implications of the new
information revealed by the results.
- Focus on content. Do not devote too much time correcting minor
grammatical flaws. Do make general statements if you have concerns
about the writing style or grammar; we will assure that the style
and grammar meet Journal standards before the manuscript is
published. Do point out unclear or ambiguous sentences and
grammatical flaws that may affect meaning, especially those that may
be beyond the capacity of a copyeditor not familiar with the nuances
of our field.
- A reviewer should consciously adopt a positive, impartial
attitude towards the manuscript under review. Your position should
be that of the author's ally, with the aim of promoting effective
and accurate scientific communication.
- If you believe that you cannot judge a given article
impartially, please return the manuscript immediately to the editor
with that explanation.
- Reviews should be completed expeditiously, within 2-3 weeks. If
you know that you cannot finish the review within the time
specified, please inform the editor.
- A reviewer should not discuss a paper with its author/s. If you
want to consult a colleague or junior please discuss this with us
- Even if we do not accept a paper we would like to pass on
constructive comments that might help the author to improve it. For
this reason please give detailed comments (with references, if
appropriate) that will help both the editors to make a decision on
the paper and the authors to improve it.
- The editor gratefully receives a reviewer's recommendations, but
since the editorial decisions are usually based on evaluations
derived from several sources, a reviewer should not expect the
editor to honor his or her every recommendation.