Re: A response to: Letter to the editor regarding research productivity of ophthalmology residents in Saudi Arabia: A comprehensive analysis

Le résumé fourni par la source

Dear Editor, We thank the authors for their thoughtful commentary on our article “Research Productivity of Ophthalmology Residents in Saudi Arabia: A Comprehensive Analysis.” Their concerns about predatory publishing, authorship practices, and pressure on trainees are important considerations, though they were outside the scope of our study. Our study focused on quantifying resident research activity and exploring associated factors, using not only publication counts but also citations and h-index to provide a broader reflection of impact and engagement. For clarification, our analysis included only publications indexed in Scopus, a database that applies rigorous selection criteria. Inclusion requires peer-reviewed content, regular publication schedules, ethical policies, and evaluation by an independent Content Selection and Advisory Board to ensure academic quality and integrity.[1] Scopus has also been used to assess research productivity in studies of academic pediatric ophthalmology in the US and Canadian ophthalmology residents.[2–4] Consequently, we cannot assume that the reported research output was inflated by publications in predatory journals. Furthermore, while studies examining medical student research awareness provide valuable insights, their findings cannot be directly extrapolated to ophthalmology residents, as these represent distinct training populations with different expectations and opportunities for scholarly activity. We also share the view that resident research should emphasize quality, mentorship, and integrity over quantity. In fact, our paper recommended strategies that align with the letter’s call for quality and integrity: integrating structured research education into residency training, providing protected research time, fostering mentorship by pairing residents with experienced investigators, and ensuring access to adequate resources. These initiatives aim to cultivate meaningful scholarship and support residents in producing high-quality, ethically sound research. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.