I n 2026, contributors to the American Journal of Ophthalmology (AJO) use electronic means to submit and revise manuscripts as well as communicate with the editor. Readers of AJO can also see pre-publication proofs and final papers online. I thought it might be interesting to readers to share my experiences from a “pre-Internet” time in the late 20th century regarding some of the unique attributes of the Journal.

The Journal is a peer-reviewed scientific publication that has been published monthly since 1884. In 1918, Edward Jackson, MD, consolidated the American Journal of Ophthalmology into the “third series” with the Annals of Ophthalmology, The Ophthalmic Record, The Ophthalmic Year-Book, Ophthalmic Literature, Ophthalmology, and Anales de Oftalmologıa. The history of the Journal was summarized in a 2017 editorial by Straatsma and Spivey regarding the decade from 1993 to 2002. Stewart, Powers, and Parrish provided an update on the 100th anniversary in 2017.

Frank W. Newell, MD (1916-1998) was the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal from 1965 to 1991—the longest term (so far) for any editor of the third series of AJO ( Figure 1 ). Dr. Newell was also the president of the Ophthalmic Publishing Company, an independent company that owned the Journal . When Dr. Newell stepped down as President in 1993, Bruce Spivey, MD, MEd, MS, the incoming president, and the board sold the Journal to Elsevier, Inc., its current owner.

My introduction to the Journal began in the early 1980s by Irving Leopold, MD, DSc (1915-1993), who was a member of the editorial board from 1963 to 1991. Dr. Leopold would call me to his office, and say something like “Frank Newell mailed me a request to write an editorial on this topic. I want you to prepare something for me.” Although I was trained as a pharmacologist, I typically had no detailed knowledge of the subject. I would then physically go to the library, first to textbooks to read about the anatomy, physiology, and pathology of the disease. I would then look at a printed annual publication called Index Medicus . This is the predecessor to the electronic PubMed. I would look up the subject in Index Medicus to find journal articles published that year. This was an iterative manual process, reading those articles, then looking up the articles that those articles referenced, reading them, and so forth. I would prepare a draft, which I provided in print to Dr. Leopold. He would critique that draft with incredible detail and send me back to the library for another round. For an editorial involving the physiology of aqueous humor, Dr. Leopold said, “I remember Friedenwald giving a lecture”—to which I said, “The Friedenwald lecture?” (referring to the annual lecture at the annual meeting of the Association of Research in Vision and Ophthalmology [ARVO] by an honored speaker)—to which Dr. Leopold said, “No, a lecture given by Dr. Jonas Friedenwald.” Once the iterative process with Dr. Leopold was completed, we then prepared a clean, written version of the manuscript and mailed three copies to the Journal . It would be received by the Journal and sent to reviewers, presumably with the assistance of Executive Managing Editor Mary Borysewicz and staff. Some weeks later, a letter would come back by mail with comments. Dr. Leopold and I would revise the manuscript, prepare a clean version, and re-send 3 copies to the Journal office for re-review.

Under Dr. Newell’s direction, the Journal had a very explicit formal style, with accepted manuscripts being courteously but highly edited by the copy editor (who might be the Editor-in-Chief). Page proofs would arrive by mail on very large-size paper, with a need to review them and return them urgently—typically within 48 hours. Here are two examples: “…‘for the years 1997 to 1999’ should probably be ‘for the years 1997 through 1999’,” and “‘U.S.’ should be written out as ‘United States’ throughout the manuscript.” I recall a lengthy discussion regarding the use of the work “toxicology.” The Journal said, “We don’t like ‘-ology’ words and suggested ‘toxicological analysis’.” I had to find Federal regulations to support my case that, albeit jargon, the proper term was “toxicology.”

The use of mail in the early and mid-1980s, supplanted by express services toward the end of that decade, meant that the time from submission to publication could be months long. For example, I submitted one manuscript on August 28, 1984; I received comments on September 26, 1984 (including a detailed checklist with recommendations to spell out abbreviations, eliminate the subtitle, etc); the revised manuscript was accepted on October 26, 1984; and it was published in the January 15, 1985 issue. By “published,” I mean in print in the Journal. There was no “electronic preprint” as we have today. Another article was submitted on September 30, 1985; accepted on January 8, 1986; and published on March 15, 1986, By comparison, today’s manuscripts, handled electronically, have a median time from submission to first decision of 41 days, and, depending upon author response time and subsequent review, electronic availability of 3 months and in print of 4 to 6 months. Of course, some manuscripts take more than one round of review for acceptance.

Frank W. Newell, MD.

Photograph used with permission from the University of Chicago Photographic Archive [apf1-10649], Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library. https://photoarchive.lib.uchicago.edu/db.xqy?one=apf1-10649.xml

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Join