Submission policy similarity and resubmission burden across the top 50 ophthalmology journals

After rejection, resubmission of scientific manuscripts often requires substantial journal-specific reformatting. We compared systematic review submission policies across high-impact ophthalmology journals and quantified policy similarity to support resubmission planning. We identified the top 50 ophthalmology journals by SCImago Journal Rank that publish systematic reviews and are not invite-only, extracted policies from author instructions using an a priori data dictionary, and computed pairwise similarity on a 0 to 1 scale using the Gower coefficient across mixed policy variables with available-case denominators for unstated fields. Policies were heterogeneous and frequently unstated. Only 29 of 50 journals (58%) stated a main-text word limit; among journals with numeric limits, the median was 4000 words (interquartile range 3500 to 5500; n = 23). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses compliance was explicitly required by 35 of 50 journals (70%), and prospective registration by 6 of 50 journals (12%). Across 1225 journal pairs, similarity was modest, with a median of 0.64 (interquartile range 0.57 to 0.71; range 0.05 to 0.98). Similarity among the top 5 highest-ranking journals ranged from 0.62 to 0.90 (median 0.75). Systematic review submission policies vary widely across high-impact ophthalmology journals, and most journal pairs show only modest similarity. Similarity-based guidance may help identify policy-aligned resubmission targets while anticipating common sources of reformatting burden.