The road to publication can seem long and daunting. Further, access to published work is often limited to larger institutions that can afford expensive journal subscription fees. Gold open-access publications aimed to change the landscape of evidence-based science, allowing papers to be widely accessible without a subscription, often requiring an article processing fee paid by the author or institution. Regardless of the access model, reputable journals are expected to adhere to the publishing code of ethics and provide transparency in the peer review process. While the latter can significantly increase the length of processing time through multiple revisions, editors and peer reviewers provide expert opinions and valuable feedback, thereby safeguarding the integrity of the journal and the scientific process.
Publishing ; Codes of Ethics ; Feedback

Background: Periocular dark circles (PDCs) are a common cosmetic complaint. Grading systems based on objective measures have been used but no standard system is in place. Objective: To determine factors associated with subjective and objective PDC severity. Methods: Enrolled patients (n=100) completed a questionnaire comprised of demographic variables, medical history, and self-perception of PDC. Those perceiving PDC graded dissatisfaction on a 10-point scale. Clinical severity (grades 0∼4) and subtype (constitutional, post-inflammatory, vascular, shadow effects, or others) were determined. A Konica Minolta CR-400 chromameter was used to obtain colorimetry measurements (L*a*b* values). The objective average difference in darkness (ΔL*) between the periocular region and the cheek was determined. Comparisons were made using Spearman correlation coefficients (r). Results: Patient dissatisfaction correlated with both clinical severity (r=0.46,p＜0.001) and the ΔL* by colorimetry (r=0.35, p=0.004). Factors associated with subjective dissatisfaction were female sex (r=0.38, p=0.002), higher Fitzpatrick skin type (r=0.42, p=0.001), fewer hours of sleep (r=–0.28, p=0.03), and use of concealer (r=0.35, p=0.004). Factors associated with objective measures were higher Fitzpatrick skin type (r=0.36, p= 0.0007 and r=0.28, p=0.009, respectively), family history of PDC (r=0.34, p＜0.001 and r=0.20, p=0.05), and history of eczema (r=0.45, p＜0.001 and r=0.20, p=0.0504). Clinical severity grading correlated with colorimetric severity (r=0.36, p=0.0003). Conclusion Overall, subjective dissatisfaction was associated with clinical severity. However, factors associated with subjective severity did not necessarily overlap with factors associated with objective severity. These findings highlight the importance of patient-reported grading. There may be added value in incorporating a component of subjective grading into the traditionally objective PDC grading scales.

Background: Periocular dark circles (PDCs) are a common cosmetic complaint. Grading systems based on objective measures have been used but no standard system is in place. Objective: To determine factors associated with subjective and objective PDC severity. Methods: Enrolled patients (n=100) completed a questionnaire comprised of demographic variables, medical history, and self-perception of PDC. Those perceiving PDC graded dissatisfaction on a 10-point scale. Clinical severity (grades 0∼4) and subtype (constitutional, post-inflammatory, vascular, shadow effects, or others) were determined. A Konica Minolta CR-400 chromameter was used to obtain colorimetry measurements (L*a*b* values). The objective average difference in darkness (ΔL*) between the periocular region and the cheek was determined. Comparisons were made using Spearman correlation coefficients (r). Results: Patient dissatisfaction correlated with both clinical severity (r=0.46,p＜0.001) and the ΔL* by colorimetry (r=0.35, p=0.004). Factors associated with subjective dissatisfaction were female sex (r=0.38, p=0.002), higher Fitzpatrick skin type (r=0.42, p=0.001), fewer hours of sleep (r=–0.28, p=0.03), and use of concealer (r=0.35, p=0.004). Factors associated with objective measures were higher Fitzpatrick skin type (r=0.36, p= 0.0007 and r=0.28, p=0.009, respectively), family history of PDC (r=0.34, p＜0.001 and r=0.20, p=0.05), and history of eczema (r=0.45, p＜0.001 and r=0.20, p=0.0504). Clinical severity grading correlated with colorimetric severity (r=0.36, p=0.0003). Conclusion Overall, subjective dissatisfaction was associated with clinical severity. However, factors associated with subjective severity did not necessarily overlap with factors associated with objective severity. These findings highlight the importance of patient-reported grading. There may be added value in incorporating a component of subjective grading into the traditionally objective PDC grading scales.