Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making | Journament

Journal Ranking

#1573 / 33,952
📊 Below Average
Overall Score
40.2/100
Score Breakdown
Engagement
31
Accessibility
35
Timeliness
50
Diversity
30
Innovation
40
Community Impact
37
Ethics & Transparency
0
Content Quality
0
Editorial Diversity
0
Publication Regularity
0
Geographic Reach
0
Updated 2 weeks ago

Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making

Login or register to claim ownership or editorship of this journal.
Quality Widget - Embed on Your Website

Display your journal's quality scores on your website with our beautiful, self-contained widget. Choose between two embedding methods below.

One-Line JavaScript Embed (Recommended):
Advantages:
  • ✅ Simpler integration (just one line of code)
  • ✅ Better SEO (content is in same DOM)
  • ✅ No iframe limitations
  • ✅ Fully self-contained (no dependencies)
  • ✅ Works on any website regardless of CSS framework
  • ✅ Clickable badges link to full journal page
iFrame Embed Code:
Limitations:
  • ⚠️ Display-only (scores not clickable due to iframe constraints)
  • ⚠️ May have SEO limitations
  • ⚠️ Potential CORS/CSP issues on some websites
Preview:
Indexings
ncbi
Short Name Med Decis Making
Abbreviated Name med decis making
ISSN 1552-681X
Aim and Scope
URL http://journals.sagepub.com/home/mdm
Author Instructions

Publications Per Year

Recent Articles (63 total)

2019
Additive Multicriteria Decision Analysis Models Are Not Misleading Aids for Life-Critical Shared Decision Making.
Dolan, James G;
Vol. 39 , No. 7 , pp. 721
465 views DOI
2010
ventricular dyssynchrony patterns in left bundle branch block, with and without heart failure
;Hygriv B Rao;Raghu Krishnaswami;Sharada Kalavakolanu;Narasimhan Calambur
Vol. 10 , No. 3 , pp. 115-121
361 views Abstract
2019
Response to "Additive Multicriteria Decision Analysis Models Are Not Misleading Aids for Life-Critical Shared Decision Making" (by J. Dolan).
Kujawski, Edouard;Triantaphyllou, Evangelos;Yanase, Juri;
Vol. 39 , No. 7 , pp. 722
352 views DOI
2008
risk of death and recurrent ventricular arrhythmias in survivors of cardiac arrest concurrent with acute myocardial infarction
;Ish Singla;Haitham Hreybe;Samir Saba
Vol. 8 , No. 1 , pp. 5-13
347 views Abstract
2013
Evidence synthesis for decision making 6: embedding evidence synthesis in probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis.
Dias, Sofia;Sutton, Alex J;Welton, Nicky J;Ades, A E;
Vol. 33 , No. 5 , pp. 671-8
333 views DOI Abstract
2019
Use of Lotteries for the Promotion of Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision Service: A Discrete-Choice Experiment among Adult Men in Tanzania.
Ong, Jason J;Neke, Nyasule;Wambura, Mwita;Kuringe, Evodius;Grund, Jonathan M;Plotkin, Marya;d'Elbée, Marc;Torres-Rueda, Sergio;Mahler, Hally R;Weiss, Helen A;Terris-Prestholt, Fern;
Vol. 39 , No. 4 , pp. 474-485
314 views DOI Abstract
2020
The Role of Social Circle Perceptions in "False Consensus" about Population Statistics: Evidence from a National Flu Survey.
Bruine de Bruin, Wändi;Galesic, Mirta;Parker, Andrew M;Vardavas, Raffaele;
, pp. 272989X20904960
307 views DOI Abstract
2009
isthmus dependent atrial flutter cycle length correlates with right atrial cross-sectional area
;Kousik Krishnan;Akshay Gupta;Sean M. Halleran;Dave Chawla;Elizabeth F. Avery;Julia L. Bienias;Richard G. Trohman
Vol. 9 , No. 3 , pp. 167-173
296 views Abstract
A real options approach to watchful waiting: theory and an illustration.
Driffield, Tarn;Smith, Peter C;
Vol. 27 , No. 2 , pp. 178-88
295 views Abstract
2017
how much do we need to provoke? challenges and opportunities in refining the pharmacological tests to unmask brugada syndrome
;Syamkumar Divakara Menon
Vol. 17 , No. 4 , pp. 100-101
293 views DOI
View All 63 Articles
40
Overall
Below Average
31
35
30
40
37
50
0
0
0
0
0
Journament

Overall Quality Score

40.2/100

Tier: Below Average

The Journament Overall Quality Score is a comprehensive metric that evaluates academic journals across multiple dimensions including engagement, accessibility, diversity, innovation, and community impact.

This score helps researchers, institutions, and publishers understand the holistic quality and impact of a journal beyond traditional metrics.

Engagement Score

31.0/100

Measures user interactions, views, citations, and community involvement with this journal's content.

Higher engagement scores indicate that the journal's content is actively being read, cited, and discussed within the academic community.

Accessibility Score

35.0/100

Evaluates how easily researchers can access journal content, including open access availability, ISSN registration, and indexing.

This metric considers factors such as paywalls, open access policies, and availability across different academic databases and search engines.

Diversity Score

30.0/100

Assesses geographic and institutional diversity of authors, editorial board composition, and topic breadth.

A diverse journal publishes work from various geographic regions, institutions, and covers a broad range of topics within its field.

Innovation Score

40.0/100

Evaluates research novelty, interdisciplinary work, and emerging topics based on AI analysis of article abstracts.

This score reflects how much the journal publishes cutting-edge research, explores new methodologies, and bridges different academic disciplines.

Community Impact Score

37.0/100

Measures scholarly contribution and real-world applications of published research.

This metric evaluates how the journal's research translates into practical applications, policy changes, and benefits to society beyond academia.

Timeliness Score

50.0/100

Evaluates recent publication activity, publication frequency, and currency of research topics.

Higher scores indicate consistent publishing schedules and timely coverage of current research trends.

Ethics & Transparency Score

0.0/100

Research Integrity (10% weight)

Assesses COPE standards compliance, ethical considerations in research, transparency in methodologies, and reproducibility practices.

This metric ensures the journal maintains high ethical standards and promotes transparent, trustworthy research.

Content Quality Score

0.0/100

Academic Rigor (20% weight) + Methodology Quality (12%)

Evaluates research methodology soundness, statistical rigor, theoretical framework strength, appropriateness of research methods, data quality, and clarity & readability.

This comprehensive metric ensures published research meets the highest academic standards.

Editorial Diversity Score

0.0/100

Author Diversity + Interdisciplinary Value (8%)

Measures geographic diversity of authors, institutional variety, editorial board composition, and cross-disciplinary connections.

Diverse editorial teams bring varied perspectives and reduce bias in academic publishing.

Publication Regularity Score

0.0/100

Assesses consistency of publication schedule, frequency stability, and predictable output patterns.

Regular publication schedules indicate reliable journal operations and consistent workflow management.

Geographic Reach Score

0.0/100

Evaluates international author representation, global readership distribution, and cross-border research collaboration.

Wide geographic reach indicates global impact and international recognition of the journal's research.