Similarity of systematic review submission policies across top ophthalmology journals: a cross-sectional similarity analysis

Purpose: After rejection, resubmission often requires journal-specific reformatting. We compared systematic review submission policies across high-impact ophthalmology journals and quantified policy similarity to support data-informed resubmission planning.Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional policy analysis of the top 50 ophthalmology journals by 2024 SCImago Journal Rank that publish systematic reviews and are not invite-only. In January 2026, policies were extracted from public author instructions using an <i>a priori</i> data dictionary. Pairwise similarity was calculated on a scale from 0 to 1 using the Gower coefficient across mixed policy variables.Results: Policies were heterogeneous and often unstated. Main-text word limits were stated by 29 of 50 journals (58%); among journals with numeric limits (n=23), the median was 4,000 words (interquartile range, 3,500–5,500). Compliance with the PRISMA guidelines was explicitly required by 35 journals (70%), and prospective registration was explicitly required by 6 journals (12%). Across 1,225 journal pairs, the median similarity was 0.64 (interquartile range, 0.57–0.71; range, 0.05–0.98). Similarity among the top five highest-ranking journals ranged from 0.62 to 0.90 (median, 0.75).Conclusion: Systematic review submission policies vary widely across high-impact ophthalmology journals, and most journal pairs show only modest similarity. Similarity-based guidance may help authors identify policy-aligned resubmission targets and anticipate potential reformatting requirements.