Focus and Scope

Vision Science and Eye Health Journal (VSEHJ) focuses mainly on case reports and also welcomes original research, including scoping or systematic review and literature review related to vision science and eye health that are relevant for the development of the theory and practice of ophthalmology fields. The scope for VSEHJ includes ophthalmology and visual science, i.e:

• clinical optics,
• ocular pathology,
• ocular inflammation,
• glaucoma,
• refractive surgery,
• community ophthalmology.

Section Policy

Original Articles

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Case Report

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Literature Review

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

 

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts received by the Vision Science and Eye Health Journal (VSEHJ) will undergo a selection and assessment process (initial review) by the managing editors to ensure their accordance with the writing guidelines, focus, and scope, with excellent academic quality. At least two independent external experts review all the manuscripts under a double-blind model. If they do not meet the conditions, the author will be allowed to revise their manuscript according to the given criteria. However, there is also the possibility that the manuscript will be directly rejected. In the case when two independent peer-reviewers have opposing decisions, a third reviewer may be invited to provide an additional opinion; the final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief, who may consult the Editorial Board as needed. Reviewers’ recommendations inform, but do not determine, the decision. Indicative timelines: initial editorial screening 1–2 weeks; ≤ 3 weeks per peer-review round for reviewers; up to 2 weeks for authors’ revisions. Overall duration typically 8–10 weeks, depending on the number and depth of rounds.

Peer review process: The manuscript that has passed the initial review stage will be sent to at least two reviewers who are experts in the field of the submitted manuscript. The reviewers will be provided with an assessment form and are encouraged to provide comments directly on the manuscript's text. Three weeks is the maximum time allocated for each peer-review round. This process can be done in one or more rounds. Editors and reviewers must maintain confidentiality and protect author or reviewer identities throughout the double-blind process.

Review decision: Editors consider the reviewers’ recommendations to determine the next steps; editorial decisions are made by the Editors or Editor-in-Chief. The reviewers will provide the following recommendations:

• Accept submission; means that the manuscript is acceptable for publication without any revisions or changes,

• Revision required; means that the manuscript is acceptable for publication after being revised in response to the reviewers' comments,

• Resubmit for review; means that substantive inadequacies in the manuscript, such as study design, analysis, key theoretical framing, or extensive rewriting; authors must revise and resubmit for further review,

• Decline submission; means that the manuscript cannot be accepted for publication because because it is outside scope or contains fundamental flaws (e.g., methods, analysis, ethics). The review provided addresses a fundamental problem.

Revision stage: After the manuscript is received with a revision note or resubmission, the manuscript will be sent back to the author with the review form from the reviewers and the revision form. The time is given to revise the manuscript in two weeks. When returning the revised manuscript, the author is required to fill in and attach the manuscript revision form provided. If the revised manuscript does not match the comments given by the reviewer, the manuscript will be returned to the author for revision.

Final decision: The final decision on the acceptability, or otherwise, of manuscripts will be taken by the editor-in-chief based on reviewers' comments presented during an editorial board meeting. Scanning for instances of plagiarism present in manuscripts will be conducted through Turnitin software. A revision request does not constitute acceptance; failure to address essential concerns may result in rejection.

Proofreading process: After the manuscript is approved and accepted by the editor-in-chief based on reviewers' comments presented during an editorial board meeting, the manuscript will undergo a proofreading process using native speaker services to maintain the quality of the language.

Final stage: The final layout of the manuscript will be sent back to the author to ensure that the content matches the author's writing. The author can revise any typos found in the final manuscript. After confirmation from the author is given, the Editor will process the manuscript for online publication on the website and a print publication.

Publication Frequency

This journal is published three times a year, every November, March, and July.

Open Access Policy

This is an open-access journal in which all content is available free of charge. Users may read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, link to, and otherwise use the full texts for any lawful purpose without prior permission, provided attribution is given and the license terms are followed.

This journal provides immediate open access with no embargo, on the principle that making research freely available supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

License. Unless stated otherwise in the article, all articles are published under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0).

Except where otherwise noted, the content of articles in VSEHJ by Universitas Airlangga is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Archiving

This journal utilizes the CLOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives for preservation and restoration.

Publication Ethics

The Vision Science and Eye Health Journal (VSEHJ) is an electronic, peer-reviewed journal. This statement clarifies the ethical behavior expected of all parties involved in publishing in this journal, including authors, the Editor-in-Chief, the Editorial Board, peer reviewers, and the publisher (Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga).

VSEHJ follows the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) in addressing all aspects of publication ethics, including the handling of research and publication misconduct. VSEHJ applies open citations in line with the I4OC principles.

All studies must be conducted to a high ethical standard and must adhere to local regulations for scrutiny and approval. The work described in manuscripts must have been carried out following the Declaration of Helsinki for research involving humans and the Directive 2010/63/EU for animal experiments.

 

Commitment to Peer-Review and Editorial Oversight

VSEHJ is committed to rigorous editorial standards. All primary research articles are subject to external, double-blind peer review by at least two independent experts. Other content types (e.g., editorials, commentaries, letters, corrections, invited perspectives) undergo editorial assessment and may receive external peer review at the Editor-in-Chief’s discretion. Each published item clearly indicates its article type and whether it underwent external peer review. The Editor-in-Chief holds the final responsibility for editorial decisions, in consultation with the Editorial Board as appropriate.

 

Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed edition of the Vision Science and Eye Health Journal (VSEHJ) is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected body of knowledge. It is a direct reflection on the quality of the author(s)' work and that of their supporting institutions. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method applied. It is, therefore, important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer-reviewers, the publisher, and society.

Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, as the publisher of the VSEHJ, takes its duties of guardianship of all stages of the publishing process extremely seriously and recognizes its ethical and other responsibilities. The publisher is, therefore, committed to ensuring that advertising, reprinting, or other forms of commercial revenue exert no impact or influence on editorial decisions. In addition, the Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, and the editorial board will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this proves helpful and necessary.

 

Publication Decisions

The editor of the Vision Science and Eye Health Journal (VSEHJ) is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted for consideration should be published. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on manuscripts; recommendations inform, but do not determine, that decision. The Editor-in-Chief may consult the Editorial Board as needed. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers will invariably drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the journal's editorial board policies and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in arriving at such decisions.

Fair Play

The editor of the Vision Science and Eye Health Journal (VSEHJ) evaluates manuscripts consistently for their intellectual content without regard to the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality

The editor and editorial staff must not disclose information relating to a submitted manuscript to any individuals other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, or the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.

 

Duties of Editors

Publication Decisions

Editors are accountable and should take responsibility for everything they publish. Editors should apply consistent standards in their processes so that have procedures and policies in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish and maintain the integrity of the published record. Based on the review report of the editorial board, the editor can accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript. Editors should aim to ensure timely peer review and publication and should avoid unnecessary delays. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism that encourage maximum transparency and complete, honest reporting.

Review of Manuscripts

The editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. Editors should critically assess the ethical conduct of studies in humans and animals. The editor should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer-reviewed. Editors should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers that are considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.

Fair Play

Editors should make fair and unbiased decisions independent of commercial considerations and ensure a fair and appropriate peer-review process. The editor must ensure that each manuscript received by the journal is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to the sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc. of the authors. Editors are in a powerful position by making decisions on publications, which makes it very important that this process is as fair and unbiased as possible.

Confidentiality 

Editors should ensure confidential handling of manuscripts, with no details being disclosed to anyone except the peer reviewers without the permission of the author. If discussions between an author, editor, and peer reviewer have taken place in confidence, they should remain in confidence unless all parties have given explicit consent, or unless there are exceptional circumstances (eg, when they might help substantiate claims of intellectual property theft during peer review). Editors and editorial staff must handle all submissions as confidential and ensure that identities in a double-blind review process are protected.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Editors should guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct. The editor of the Journal will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for his/her research without the written consent of the author. And also, editors should not be involved in decisions about papers in which they have a conflict of interest.

 

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions, while editorial communications with the author may also help him/her in improving the paper.

Lead-in Times

Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to assess the manuscript or cannot do so promptly must notify the editor within 72 hours (3×24 hours) and decline the invitation so that alternative reviewers can be approached.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of fellow authors is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work not cited by the authors. Any assertion that an observation, derivation, or argument has been previously reported should be accompanied by a relevant citation. Reviewers should also draw to the editor's attention any substantial similarity between or overlap with the manuscript under consideration and other published papers of which they have first-hand knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

The confidentiality of privileged information or concepts encountered as a result of a peer review must be respected and not exploited for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts with which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to said documents.

 

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards

Authors of reports on original research should present an accurate account of the investigative work undertaken and an objective discussion of its significance. Supporting data is to be presented accurately within the paper, which should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the research. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and, as such, are unacceptable.

Data Access and Retention

Authors are requested to submit raw data relating to a paper for editorial review. They should be prepared, if practicable, to provide public access to such data, and to retain such data for a reasonable period following publication.

Originality and Plagiarism

Authors should ensure that the work produced is entirely original, with any references and/or quotations being appropriately cited or re-produced.

Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication

Authors should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research contained in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is considered unacceptable.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Full and appropriate acknowledgement of others' work must be provided in all cases. Authors should cite publications influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of the Paper

Authorship should be limited to those individuals making a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All such collaborators should be listed as co-authors. Where others have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all relevant (and only appropriate) co-authors are recognized within the paper, having seen and approved the final version and having agreed to its submission for publication.

Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects

If the work involves the use of chemicals, human beings, animals, microbes, procedures, or equipment with any unusual inherent hazards, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors should disclose within their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed as influencing the results or interpretation of their reported research. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published work

In cases of an author discovering a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her published work, it is his/her obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate in the correction or retraction of the paper.

Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern

VSEHJ safeguards the integrity of the scholarly record. When errors or ethical concerns are identified, the journal issues corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern as appropriate, following COPE guidance. All notices are linked to the original article and are openly accessible.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a reasoned justification to the editorial office. Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief, and, where appropriate, an independent editor/advisor not involved in the original decision. Complaints about editorial processes or publication ethics are investigated in line with COPE procedures.

Article Processing Charge

Vision Science and Eye Health Journal (VSEHJ) does not charge any submission and/or article processing fees. This includes peer-reviewing, publishing, maintaining, and archiving, and allows immediate access to the full-text versions of the article.

Plagiarism Screening

This journal does not accept any plagiarism in any manuscripts, and it will be rejected immediately. This journal uses Turnitin to detect plagiarism. The manuscript is passed if the similarity is less than 20%. However, the final decision regarding plagiarism in this journal abides by COPE.

 

Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Assisted Technology Policy

The Vision Science and Eye Health Journal (VSEHJ) affirms that Artificial Intelligence (AI), including large language models such as ChatGPT, cannot be recognized as authors of scientific articles. Authors listed in an article must be humans who can take full responsibility for the content and implications of the publication. If AI-based technology is used in the writing process, data analysis, or image creation, this must be transparently disclosed within the manuscript. The journal does not accept images or graphics generated entirely by AI technology for publication, except for images from officially contracted agencies or those used in articles specifically discussing AI technologies. Peer reviewers are prohibited from using AI generative tools to evaluate manuscripts due to potential inaccuracies or bias, and any use of AI tools in evaluation must be transparently disclosed. This policy aims to uphold research integrity, ensure accountability, and maintain ethical standards while supporting innovation and accuracy in scientific literature