Author Guidelines

Instructions for Authors

There are no fees for submission or publication.

The Canadian Journal of Optometry publishes concise papers, which are subject to peer review. Requirements are in accordance with “Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals” from The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. The editorial policies of the journal are in line with those of the Council of Science Editors.

Article Types

The CJO generally publishes six basic types of manuscripts. The following article types have variable peer review processes as described for each.

1. Original Research
2. Brief Communications
3. Case Reports
4. Systematic or Scoping Reviews
5. Invited Editorials
6. Letters to the Editor

1. Original Research: Research reports outline the processes and provide a detailed description of all procedures, observations, data, and findings of a systematic investigation. They should also include a structured abstract and manuscript with standard scientific article format (introduction/background, method, results, discussion, and conclusion). All research undergoes double-blind peer review.

2. Brief Communications: This type of manuscript generally describes a procedure method or technique useful to the practicing clinician. It can also review a body of literature on a specific clinical subject to provide the practitioner with sound guidelines or recommendations regarding the subject matter. Headings for the Brief Communication do not usually follow the standard format for a research paper, but the author should use headings and subheadings that promote understanding of the topic. All Brief Communications undergo double-blind peer review.

3. Case Reports: Case reports describe a case or a series of cases in which something new or unusual is presented. This could involve clinical findings, diagnosis or management. The subheadings are: (1) Abstract; (2) Introduction; (3) Case report(s); and (4) Discussion. Other types of case reports may be submitted in different formats, and authors should consider that innovative formats may accomplish the goal of sharing knowledge and information in a readily understandable manner. All Case Reports undergo double-blind peer review. Authors are encouraged to refer to the CARE Guidelines checklist before submitting. For more guidance on how to craft a case report.

4. Reviews (scoping reviews, systematic reviews): The purpose of the review is to analyze, consolidate and synthesize the literature on a subject of interest. Topics should be relevant to the journal’s readers. A review can make an important contribution to the literature by arriving at a supportable conclusion. Headings for the review do not usually follow the standard format (research manuscripts), but the author should use headings and subheadings that promote understanding of the topic. Methodologies for reviews should follow PRISMA checklists for scoping or systematic reviews. All Reviews undergo double-blind peer review.

5. Invited Editorials: An editorial is generally a concise article consisting of a critical argument or personal opinion, or highlighting an important issue. An editorial does not necessarily depend upon literature support. Note that these will not be reviewed through the traditional peer review process, but rather reviewed by the Editorial Board for accuracy, appropriateness and suitability with our audience.

6. Letters to the Editor: Letters to the Editor typically pertain to a recent or concurrently published article within the journal; however, general correspondence on relevant topics is also welcome. Letters are not peer-reviewed; however, they may be edited for length and/or clarity. Letters will be passed on to the authors of the original article for a response when applicable. Letters addressing a specific article should be submitted within 2 months of publication of the original item.

Manuscripts are usually considered for publication only if they are original contributions and have not been submitted for publication elsewhere. Manuscripts submitted for consideration for publication are evaluated by any or all of the following as indicated in the article types: (1) journal editor; (2) members of a peer review board; and (3) two or more blinded, independent referees who are specially selected as nationally recognized experts in the subject area of the manuscript. Referees judge the manuscript on one or more of the following criteria:

• Usefulness to the practicing optometrist;
• Compliance with the editorial standards and objectives of the journal with regard to the originality of the contribution;
• Clinical or scientific significance to the profession and suitability of the subject matter;
• Enrichment of the optometric and other scientific literature.

Authorship

Authors are generally defined as persons who have contributed sufficiently to a scientific report to be listed on the byline of the published report. Authorship also implies responsibility and accountability for published work. Authors submitting a manuscript with multiple contributions are required to assess their own contribution to qualify for authorship of a manuscript after the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria:

• Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
• Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
• Final approval of the version to be published; AND
• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

In a multi-authored manuscript, the person should be listed first who has made the most significant intellectual contribution to the work regardless of academic rank or professional status. This list should include only those who have made a substantial contribution to the design and execution of the work and the writing of the manuscript.

Please include each author’s academic credentials and affiliations as well as ORCID, where applicable.

For complete transparency, all submitted manuscripts should include an author contributorship statement that specifies the work of each author. Authors are encouraged to include a CRediT statement. The statement is to fill in the cover letter to submit along with the manuscript. See instructions below.

Cover Letter

A separate cover letter should be submitted along with the manuscript. This information will be published in a Disclosures section along with the accepted manuscript.

• Contributors: All authors contributed to the conception or design of the work, the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of the data. All authors were involved in drafting and commenting on the paper and have approved the final version.
• Funding: This study did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors (OR Disclose any funding here).
• Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form and declare no conflict of interest (OR state any conflicts here).
• Ethical approval: Typical entries include "Informed written consent was obtained from all participants. The REB (institution) approved the study (insert the REB approval reference number)." OR "Ethical Requirement of Research Ethics Board approval for this project was formally waived by the institution." OR "Ethical approval is not required for this article type. If it was determined that no approval was required, please state this and explain the reason/rationale behind this decision.
• AI Statement: The authors confirm no generative AI or AI-assisted technology was used to generate content.
• Optional: Acknowledgements section: Only those who have made a substantial contribution to the study should be acknowledged. Authors are responsible for obtaining written permission from those acknowledged by name, because readers may infer that acknowledged persons have endorsed the methods and conclusions of the manuscript. Many contributions justify acknowledgement, but not authorship. Such contributions might include acknowledgement of technical help, financial support, and sources of materials and persons who have contributed intellectually to the development of the manuscript.

Manuscript Submission

Manuscripts should be double-spaced with margins of at least 2.5 cm (1 inch) and consecutive line numbering, and approximately 1,500 to 3,000 words. Print quality should be high resolution. 

Authors should arrange manuscript pages as follows (more information on what should be included in each item follows):

1. Abstract (start on a new page)
2. Text (start on a new page) All pages should be line-numbered consecutively.
3. Footnotes (start on a new page)
4. References in AMA referencing style (start on a new page)
5. Appendices (start on a new page)
6. Tables (each on its own page)
7. Figure legends (all on one page, if possible)
8. Figures (each separately) High-resolution files (e.g. .TIF), each uploaded separately

Anonymizing the manuscript: Authors are required to submit a version of the manuscript without any information that would compromise the anonymity of the author(s) – i.e. authors’ names, emails and affiliations, acknowledgments, trial registration number and date, funding source. All information pertaining to authors will be included in the cover letter - this will not be sent to the peer reviewers.

Permissions: Written permission must be obtained for material that has been published in copyrighted material; this includes tables, figures, and quoted text that exceeds 150 words. Signed patient release forms are required for photographs of identifiable persons. A copy of all permissions and patient release forms must accompany the manuscript.

Manuscript organization

Manuscripts should be organized within the framework of a formal outline. The standard outline for scientific reporting of studies, experiments or other research projects is as follows:

Title: The title should be concise, meaningful and clear. It generally should not be in the form of a complete sentence. Subtitles may be used whenever needed for specific purposes relating to the title or text. Titles should indicate the content of the manuscript, serve as a guide to reference librarians and facilitate communication.

Abstract: Authors are required to submit abstracts with their papers. The abstract should be on a separate page and should not exceed 300 words. Abstracts should be as informative as possible and should contain statements regarding the nature of the problem studied, method, results and conclusions.

A structured abstract with an Introduction, a Methods, a Discussion, a Results and a Conclusion section, is required for Original Research, Case Reports and Review articles. For Brief Communications, one paragraph describing the purpose, methods, results and conclusions (as appropriate) should be provided.

Keywords: Authors should select keywords (about 5) that reflect the primary subject matter of the paper. The purpose of keywords is to assist reference librarians and others in retrieval and cross-indexing. The keywords also assist in search engine optimization, allowing the article to be found online when keywords are used in a search. Authors are encouraged to use Pubmed MeSH terms whenever possible.

Text: The goal of scientific writing is effective communication. More specifically, its goal is to communicate abstract propositions, logical arguments, empirical observations and experimental results including their interrelations and interactions. Authors should use the active voice (“This study shows” rather than “It is shown by this study”) and the first person (“I did” rather than “the author did”).  The past tense is appropriate for describing what was done in an experiment; the present tense is suitable for referring to data in tables and figures.

Formulas: Lens formulas and associated acuities should be expressed as in the following example: OD: +2.25 – 1.00 x 95, 20/20 (6/6).

Generic drug names should be used, followed by the proprietary name in parentheses at the first mention. Acronyms and abbreviations should always be spelled out at first mention.

Symbols and diacritical marks, when used, must be clearly drawn and identified in the margin, for example, “prism dioptre sign”. 

Introduction: The introduction has several functions. It acquaints the reader with other relevant work performed in the subject area. Only contributions that bear on the interpretation of the results should be referenced. The introduction also presents the general nature of the problem to be addressed, the specific aspect of the problem that was studied and the hypothesis and the manner in which it was tested.

Methods: Ethics approval information should be noted here. This section should define the type of study presented, e.g. case controlled study, randomized controlled trial, prospective vs retrospective study, etc. if appropriate. The methods should be described in enough detail so that others could replicate them. However, if portions of the methods have been described elsewhere, a summary with appropriate citations is sufficient. It is essential to describe how case and control subjects were selected for study. It is important to describe any commercially available apparatus used in the study by identifying the manufacturer’s name and address. Brief descriptions of methods that have been published but may not be understood universally should be presented. In addition, limitations of the methods used should be presented, and new or modified methods should be described in detail.

It is important to identify all contact lenses, chemicals, drugs or ophthalmic lenses, including generic names, dosages and administration where appropriate. It is inappropriate to publish names of subjects or patients, their initials or other personal identification. Also, it is inappropriate to use ethnic terms when they serve only to perpetuate unnecessary, unscientific or derogatory connotations.

Results: The results should be presented in a logical order, emphasizing only the important findings of the study without elaboration. Limitations of the results and any implications should be stated. The statistical analysis, if any, should be clear and relevant.

Discussion: The discussion should elaborate on the data, noting the interrelations among the results and relating them to the original question asked in the study. Acceptance or rejection of the hypothesis should be stated. In addition, the discussion should emphasize any unique or new aspects of the study and discuss the relevancy of the results. It is important to draw only those conclusions that can be supported by the results. Implications for basic and applied issues should be stated wherever possible.

Footnotes: Optometric journals discourage excessive or improper use of footnotes, but realize that on specific occasions, they may be acceptable. Footnotes can be used to designate a non-retrievable citation, a personal communication or the institutional affiliation of the author. A footnote can also be used to identify sources of equipment or instruments. Footnotes should be identified with small superscript lowercase letters in alphabetical order in the text and referred to at the end of the text of the manuscript under the listing “Footnotes”.

References: The journal uses AMA referencing style. A list of references is placed at the end of the manuscript. References should be listed in sequential order as they are cited in the text by superscript numbers. Accuracy of citations is of major importance because it makes each specific reference retrievable by the reader. Authors should make every attempt to cite references that are relevant, original and current, and only references actually consulted. Please provide the DOI of each reference, if available. Manuscripts that have been accepted for publication but not yet printed should be cited in the footnote section. Manuscripts that have been submitted for consideration for publication, but have not been accepted, should not be referenced. The list of references should be checked for accuracy against the original publications. Standardized journal abbreviations should be used. They can be found at https://www.issn.org/understanding-the-issn/standardization/

Tables, illustrations, figures and appendices

Tables: Each table should be typed double-spaced on a separate page. Tables are usually not submitted as photographs. Tables should appear in consecutive order in the text designated by Arabic numerals (example: Table 1). Locations of tables within the body of the text should be specified in the manuscript. An appropriate table title should be on the same page as the table to which it applies. They should have a legend at the top indicating the information contained.  Illustrations may be sent electronically as a TIFF or JPEG file.  Do not embed images, etc., in text files. 

Note: Figure reproduction cannot improve on the quality of the originals. 

Numbers, units, and abbreviations: Measurements are to be metric. In scientific text, physical quantities and units of time should be expressed in numerals, for example, 2 kg, 6 mmol, 5 hours, 4°C.
Use only standard abbreviations, and avoid using abbreviations in the title. Define all abbreviations at their first mention.

Figures: All figures, whether line drawings, black-and-white photographs or colour photographs, should add to the presentation of a manuscript.  All figures should be of professional quality, whether they are drawings or photographs, and be in a high-resolution format.  All figures, whether line drawings, black-and-white photographs or colour photographs, should be designated as “Figures”. They should be numbered consecutively in Arabic numerals throughout the text of the manuscript (example: Figure 3). Locations of figures within the body of the text should be specified in the manuscript.

Legends: The numbers and captions should be typewritten, double-spaced, in paragraph form and on a separate page. Legends for several figures should be typed on a separate page. Legends should be kept as short as possible and should not contain explanatory notes that duplicate the explanation in the text. All internal labels in the figure should be identified in the figure legend.

Labels: Authors should label figures adequately.

Appendices: Occasionally, it is necessary for the author to supply subordinate information that is relevant to the study, but that might distract the reader because of excessive detail; for example, computer programs, mathematical formulae, address lists, surveys or other data that might be cumbersome to present in the text. Appendices should be labelled Appendix A, Appendix B, Appendix C, etc. Each should have a short, descriptive title.

Licensing and Copyright

By default, we publish our Open Access articles under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Non-Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 articles allow the author, and any non-commercial bodies, to reuse the material for non-commercial uses in any other way they choose, subject to being in accordance with the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 licence, without acquiring permission from CJO. Any reuse must give attribution to the author(s) and the journal. On acceptance, authors are asked to affirm that they grant the publisher of the CJO (Canadian Association of Optometrists) an exclusive license on a worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free basis.

Ethical Considerations

CJO Peer Review: The Editor-in-Chief evaluates all manuscripts upon submission. Those rejected before being sent to review have serious scientific flaws or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Suspected plagiarism will be dealt with using the COPE flowchart. Those that meet the minimum criteria are assigned to two (or more) peer reviewers with expertise in the subject matter. The CJO uses “double-blind” reviewing, where the referees and author remain anonymous throughout the process. Reviewers are given 21 days to complete reviews. When a revision request is sent, authors are asked to submit within 45 days. Manuscripts in revision stage where authors have not been in contact with the editorial office for more than 3 months after this 45-day deadline will be withdrawn.

Policies on Conflicts of Interest: The potential for conflict of interest exists when an author, the author’s institution, reviewer or editor has financial relationships (such as employment, consultancy, stock ownership, honoraria and paid expert testimony) that may inappropriately influence his or her actions. Other forms of conflict of interest include personal, academic and intellectual issues. Any potential conflict of interest should be disclosed in the cover letter. Sources of outside support for research, including funding, equipment, and drugs, must be named in the cover letter. If an author has no conflicts of interest to declare, this must be explicitly stated. Authors should contact the Editorial Office with questions or concerns but should err on the side of inclusion when in doubt. Manuscripts that fail to include the complete statements of all authors upon submission will be returned to the corresponding author and will delay the processing and evaluation of the manuscript. The CJO adheres to the policy on conflict of interest from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. If, in the editor’s judgment, the information disclosed by the author represents a ̕ potential conflict of interest, it may be made available to reviewers and may be published at the editor’s discretion; authors will be informed of the decision before publication. The editor will discuss with the authors on an individual basis the method by which any conflicts of interest will be communicated to readers. Editors and reviewers for the CJO are responsible for disclosing to the editor-in-chief any personal or financial relationship that may bias their work during the peer review process and recuse themselves when such conflicts are of sufficient.

Policies on Human and Animal Rights Studies describing research involving humans or animals will not be considered for publication unless the study was approved by the authors’ Research Ethics Board (REB) or Institutional Review Board (IRB) and carried out using ethical and appropriate methods. A statement concerning REB approval must be included in the beginning of the Methods section of all research articles, including the name of the approving REB and the date of approval. Any systematic gathering of patient or volunteer data must also be approved by a local REB or adhere to recognized standards in the area, such as for quality improvement initiatives. If in doubt, consult your institution’s REB for guidance.

Policies on Informed Consent The patients’ rights to privacy should not be infringed. ̕Identifying information must be deleted from the text, figures and tables, unless it is essential for scientific purposes and the patient gives written informed consent for publication after being shown the manuscript to be published. Manuscripts containing the results of experimental studies on human participants must disclose, in the first paragraph of the Materials and Methods section, whether informed consent was obtained from patients in the study after the nature of the procedure had been fully explained. For further information on informed consent, see the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

Publication Ethics and Malpractice The CJO deals with misconduct on a case by case basis while following guidance produced by bodies that include the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). This includes: 

• Falsification of data Ranging from fabrication to deceptive selective reporting of findings and omission of conflicting data, or willful suppression and/or distortion of data.
• Plagiarism The appropriation of the language, ideas, or thoughts of another without crediting their true source, and representation of them as one's own original work.
• Improprieties of authorship Improper assignment of credit, such as excluding others, misrepresentation of the same material as original in more than one publication, inclusion of individuals as authors who have not made a definite contribution to the work published; or submission of multi-authored publications without the concurrence of all authors.
• Misappropriation of the ideas of others An important aspect of scholarly activity is the exchange of ideas among colleagues. Scholars can acquire novel ideas from others during the process of reviewing grant applications and manuscripts. However, improper use of such information can constitute fraud. Wholesale appropriation of such material constitutes misconduct.
• Violation of generally accepted research practices Serious deviation from accepted practices in proposing or carrying out research, improper manipulation of experiments to obtain biased results, deceptive statistical or analytical manipulations, or improper reporting of results.

The CJO considers redundant and duplicate publication, lack of declaration of competing interests and of funding/sponsorship, and other failures of transparency to be forms of misconduct. See the section “Retraction policy (Scientific misconduct) or Author Disputes” below for steps the CJO will take if we suspect misconduct.

Declaration of generative AI in scientific writing Where authors use generative artificial intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process, authors should only use these technologies to improve readability and language. Applying the technology should be done with human oversight and control, and authors should carefully review and edit the result, as AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete or biased. AI and AI-assisted technologies should not be listed as an author or co-author, or be cited as an author. Authorship implies responsibilities and tasks that can only be attributed to and performed by humans. Authors should disclose in their manuscript the use of AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process (See “Cover Letter” requirements). A statement will appear in the published work.

After Acceptance

Proofs: Proofs for correction will be sent to authors by e-mail as a Word file. Authors are asked to e-mail corrections back to the publisher within 72 hours. Unless otherwise indicated by the author, manuscripts will be published as sent.

The CJO reserves the right to edit manuscripts to ensure conformity with the journal’s style. Such editing will not affect the scientific content.

Post-Publication Correction: Sometimes, after an article has been published, it may be necessary to make a change to the Version of Record (VOR), also known as the final published version. This will only be done after careful consideration by the Editor-in-Chief to ensure any necessary changes are made in accordance with guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Any necessary changes will be accompanied by a post-publication notice, which will be permanently linked to the original article so that readers will be fully informed of any necessary changes. This can be in the form of a correction notice, an expression of concern, a retraction and, in rare circumstances, a removal. The purpose of this mechanism of making changes which are permanent and transparent is to ensure the integrity of the scholarly record. Authors should notify us as soon as possible if they find errors in their published article, especially errors that could affect the interpretation of data or reliability of information presented. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to ensure consensus has been reached between all listed co-authors prior to putting forward any requests for corrections or retractions to an article.

If, after reading the guidance, you believe a correction or retraction is necessary for your article, contact the Editor-in-Chief. A correction notice (Corrigendum) will be issued when it is necessary to correct an error or omission which can impact the interpretation of the article but where the scholarly integrity of the article remains intact. Examples include mislabeling of a figure, missing key information on funding or competing interests of the authors.

Retraction policy (Scientific misconduct) or Author Disputes: All allegations of misconduct will be referred to the Editor-in-Chief, who will review the circumstances in consultation with the Co-Editor. All such allegations will be kept confidential; the number of inquiries and those involved will be kept to the minimum necessary to achieve this end. Initial fact-finding will usually include a request to all the involved parties to state their case, and explain the circumstances, in writing. In questions of research misconduct centering on methods or technical issues, the Editor-In-Chief may confidentially consult experts who are blinded to the identity of the individuals, or if the allegation is against an editor, an outside editor expert. The Editor-In-Chief and Co-Editor will arrive at a conclusion as to whether there is enough evidence to lead a reasonable person to believe there is a possibility of misconduct. Their goal is not to determine if actual misconduct occurred, or the precise details of that misconduct. When allegations concern authors, the peer review and publication process for the manuscript in question will be halted while the process above is carried out. The investigation described above will be completed even if the authors withdraw their paper, and the responses below will still be considered. In the case of allegations against reviewers or editors, they will be replaced in the review process while the matter is investigated. The CJO will deal with any further action (such as notifying the author’s institution) on a case-by-case basis. The most common forms of scientific misconduct can be found on the ORI publication Analysis of Institutional Policies for Responding to Allegations of Scientific Misconduct.

If you believe that your article has been rejected unfairly please submit an appeal letter to Editor-in-Chief. Do not try to submit a revised version of your article at this stage. Appeals must be submitted within 7 days of the rejection decision. Appeals will only be considered if all specific points of the reviewers’ and editors’ comments are addressed in the rebuttal letter, and decisions will only be reversed if the editors are convinced that the decision was a serious mistake, or if the reviewers made errors of fact or showed evidence of bias. Appeals against editorial fit or the journal not being the right journal for the article are unlikely to be considered. If it is thought that the appeal is warranted, the article, reviewers’ comments, and author’s response will be reviewed internally by the editorial team. The editor will decide whether to invite a resubmission, send it to another external reviewer, or uphold the original decision. In all cases, the editor’s decision is final.