OBJECTIVE: This cross-sectional study evaluated the prevalence of inclusive author submission guidelines across ophthalmology journals.
METHODS: Journals were identified from the 2021 Journal Citations Report (Clarivate Analytics). Independent reviewers rated each author submission guideline as \"inclusive\" for satisfying at-least one of six criteria: i) included examples of gender inclusive language; ii) recommended the use of gender-inclusive language; iii) distinguished between sex and gender; iv) provided educational resources on gender-inclusive language; v) provided a policy permitting name changes (e.g., in case of gender and name transition); and/or vi) provided a statement of commitment to inclusivity. The primary objective was to investigate the proportion of journals with \"gender-inclusive\" author submission guidelines and the elements of the gender-inclusive content within these guidelines. A secondary objective was to review the association between \"gender-inclusivity\" in author submission guidelines with publisher, origin country, and journal/source/influence metrics (Clarivate Analytics).
RESULTS: Across 94 journals, 29.8% journals were rated as inclusive. Inclusive journals had significantly higher relative impact factor, citations, and article influence scores compared to non-inclusive journals. Of the 29.8% of inclusive journals, the three most common domains were inclusion of an inclusivity statement (71.4% of inclusive journals), distinguishing between sex and gender (67.9%), and provision of additional educational resources on gender reporting for authors (60.7%).
CONCLUSIONS: A minority of ophthalmology journals have gender-inclusive author submission guidelines. Ophthalmology journals should update their submission guidelines to advance gender equity of both authors and study participants and promote the inclusion of gender-diverse communities.

People with marginalized gender identities, including people with transgender and gender-expansive identities, have been historically excluded from research. Professional societies recommend the use of inclusive language in research, but it is uncertain how many obstetrics and gynecology journals mandate the use of gender-inclusive research practices in their author guidelines.
This study aimed to evaluate the proportion of \"inclusive\" journals with specific instructions about gender-inclusive research practices in their author submission guidelines; to compare these journals with \"noninclusive\" journals based on publisher, country of origin, and several metrics of research influence; and to qualitatively evaluate the components of inclusive research in author submission guidelines.
A cross-sectional study of all obstetrics and gynecology journals in the Journal Citation Reports, a scientometric resource, was conducted in April 2022. Of note, One journal was indexed twice (due to a name change), and only the journal with the 2020 Journal Impact Factor was included. Author submission guidelines were reviewed by 2 independent reviewers to identify inclusive vs noninclusive journals based on whether journals had gender-inclusive research instructions. Journal characteristics, including publisher, country of origin, impact metrics (eg, Journal Impact Factor), normalized metrics (eg, Journal Citation Indicator), and source metrics (eg, number of citable items), were evaluated for all journals. The median (interquartile range) and median difference between inclusive and noninclusive journals with bootstrapped 95% confidence interval were calculated for journals with 2020 Journal Impact Factors. In addition, inclusive research instructions were thematically compared to identify trends.
Author submission guidelines were reviewed for all 121 active obstetrics and gynecology journals indexed in the Journal Citation Reports. Overall, 41 journals (33.9%) were inclusive, and 34 journals (41.0%) with 2020 Journal Impact Factors were inclusive. Most inclusive journals were English-language publications and originated in the United States and Europe. In an analysis of journals with 2020 Journal Impact Factors, inclusive journals had a higher median Journal Impact Factor (3.4 [interquartile range, 2.2-4.3] vs 2.5 [interquartile range, 1.9-3.0]; median difference, 0.9; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-1.7) and median 5-year Journal Impact Factor (3.6 [interquartile range, 2.8-4.3] vs 2.6 [interquartile range, 2.1-3.2; median difference, 0.9; 95% confidence interval, 0.3-1.6) than noninclusive journals. Inclusive journals had higher normalized metrics, including a median 2020 Journal Citation Indicator (1.1 [interquartile range, 0.7-1.3] vs 0.8 [interquartile range, 0.6-1.0]; median difference, 0.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.1-0.5) and median normalized Eigenfactor (1.4 [interquartile range, 0.7-2.2] vs 0.7 [interquartile range, 0.4-1.5]; median difference, 0.8; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-1.5) than noninclusive journals. Moreover, inclusive journals had higher source metrics, including more citable items, total items, and Open Access Gold subscriptions, than noninclusive journals. The qualitative analysis of gender-inclusive research instructions revealed that most inclusive journals recommend that researchers use gender-neutral language and provide specific examples of inclusive language.
Fewer than half of obstetrics and gynecology journals with 2020 Journal Impact Factors have gender-inclusive research practices in their author submission guidelines. This study underscores the urgent need for most obstetrics and gynecology journals to update their author submission guidelines to include specific instructions about gender-inclusive research practices.

Changes in statistical practices and reporting have been documented by Giofrè et al. PLOS ONE 12(4), e0175583 (2017), who investigated ten statistical and open practices in two high-ranking journals (Psychological Science [PS] and Journal of Experimental Psychology-General [JEPG]): null hypothesis significance testing; confidence or credible intervals; meta-analysis of the results of multiple experiments; confidence interval interpretation; effect size interpretation; sample size determination; data exclusion; data availability; materials availability; and preregistered design and analysis plan. The investigation was based on an analysis of all papers published in these journals between 2013 and 2015. The aim of the present study was to follow up changes in both PS and JEPG in subsequent years, from 2016 to 2020, adding code availability as a further open practice. We found improvement in most practices, with some exceptions (i.e., confidence interval interpretation and meta-analysis). Despite these positive changes, our results indicate a need for further improvements in statistical practices and adoption of open practices.