Indexed in Journament

journal of the american medical informatics association

ISSN 1067-5027· EN

Certificate of Indexing
Login or register to claim ownership or editorship of this journal.
25.8 / 100
Journament Score
Poor
Ranked #25,789 of 29,297 scored journals (34,014 indexed)
12 Articles
Scores higher than 11.9% of scored journals
050100
The Journament Score is computed from platform statistics — reader engagement, accessibility, publication timeliness, keyword breadth, community impact and content distribution — into a single 0–100 figure, recalculated as new articles and metadata are indexed. Dimensions that cannot be measured for this journal are excluded rather than estimated. It is independent of the paid AI Quality Analysis, which never affects this score or the ranking. Full methodology →

About This Journal

Short Name journal of the american medical informatics association
Abbreviated Name journal of the american medical informatics association
ISSN 1067-5027

Quality Profile

6 of 12 dimensions measured
Engagement 30.4
Timeliness 0.0
Diversity 0.0
Innovation 37.5
Community Impact 7.1
Content Distribution 74.5
This journal Average of scored journals
Platform statistics — the free Journament Score AI Quality Analysis — separate paid product, ranks nothing

6 of the 12 dimensions could not be measured for this journal. They are left out entirely rather than plotted as zero, and with 6 dimensions measured there is not enough of a profile to draw as a shape.

Show the numbers
Dimension This journal Corpus average
Engagement 30.4 30.4
Accessibility — 23.1
Timeliness 0.0 3.0
Diversity 0.0 22.8
Innovation 37.5 24.1
Community Impact 7.1 4.1
Content Distribution 74.5 89.0
Content Quality — 55.1
Ethics & Transparency — 40.5
Editorial Standards — 33.0
Publication Regularity — 52.9
Geographic Reach — 30.4

Publications Per Year

Articles (12)

2008
Workarounds to Barcode Medication Administration Systems: Their Occurrences, Causes, and Threats to Patient Safety
Koppel, Ross;Wetterneck, Tosha;Telles, Joel Leon;Karsh, Ben-Tzion;
Vol. 15 , No. 4 , pp. 408-423
378 views Abstract
2019
The importance of consumer-And patient-oriented perspectives in biomedical and health informatics
Bakken, S.
Vol. 26 , pp. 583-584
299 views DOI
2019
A digital health research platform for community engagement, recruitment, and retention of sexual and gender minority adults in a national longitudinal cohort study- - The PRIDE Study
Lunn, M.
Vol. 26 , pp. 737-748
286 views DOI
2019
Strengthening our profession by defining clinical and health informatics practice
Fridsma, D.
Vol. 26 , pp. 585
265 views DOI
2004
Some Unintended Consequences of Information Technology in Health Care: The Nature of Patient Care Information System-related Errors
Ash, Joan S.;Berg, Marc;Coiera, Enrico;
Vol. 11 , No. 2 , pp. 104-112
262 views Abstract
2006
Types of Unintended Consequences Related to Computerized Provider Order Entry
Campbell, Emily M.;Sittig, Dean F.;Ash, Joan S.;Guappone, Kenneth P.;Dykstra, Richard H.;
Vol. 13 , No. 5 , pp. 547-556
259 views Abstract
2019
Toward a clinical text encoder: Pretraining for clinical natural language processing with applications to substance misuse
Dligach, D.
Vol. 26 , pp. 1272-1278
258 views DOI
2019
Clinical trial cohort selection based on multi-level rule-based natural language processing system
Chen, L.
Vol. 26 , pp. 1218-1226
244 views DOI
2019
Traditional Chinese medicine clinical records classification with BERT and domain specific corpora
Yao, L.
Vol. 26 , pp. 1632-1636
222 views DOI
2011
Clinical decision support in small community practice settings: a case study
Ash, Joan S;Sittig, Dean F;Wright, Adam;McMullen, Carmit;Shapiro, Michael;Bunce, Arwen;Middleton, Blackford;
Vol. 18 , No. 6 , pp. 879-882
169 views Abstract
2019
Traditional Chinese medicine clinical records classification with BERT and domain specific corpora
Yao, L.
Vol. 26 , pp. 1632-1636
222 views DOI
2019
Toward a clinical text encoder: Pretraining for clinical natural language processing with applications to substance misuse
Dligach, D.
Vol. 26 , pp. 1272-1278
258 views DOI
2019
Clinical trial cohort selection based on multi-level rule-based natural language processing system
Chen, L.
Vol. 26 , pp. 1218-1226
244 views DOI
2019
A digital health research platform for community engagement, recruitment, and retention of sexual and gender minority adults in a national longitudinal cohort study- - The PRIDE Study
Lunn, M.
Vol. 26 , pp. 737-748
286 views DOI
2019
The importance of consumer-And patient-oriented perspectives in biomedical and health informatics
Bakken, S.
Vol. 26 , pp. 583-584
299 views DOI
2019
Strengthening our profession by defining clinical and health informatics practice
Fridsma, D.
Vol. 26 , pp. 585
265 views DOI
2011
Clinical decision support in small community practice settings: a case study
Ash, Joan S;Sittig, Dean F;Wright, Adam;McMullen, Carmit;Shapiro, Michael;Bunce, Arwen;Middleton, Blackford;
Vol. 18 , No. 6 , pp. 879-882
169 views Abstract
2011
Early cost and safety benefits of an inpatient electronic health record
Zlabek, Jonathan A;Wickus, Jared W;Mathiason, Michelle A;
Vol. 18 , No. 2 , pp. 169-172
46 views Abstract
2008
Workarounds to Barcode Medication Administration Systems: Their Occurrences, Causes, and Threats to Patient Safety
Koppel, Ross;Wetterneck, Tosha;Telles, Joel Leon;Karsh, Ben-Tzion;
Vol. 15 , No. 4 , pp. 408-423
378 views Abstract
2006
Types of Unintended Consequences Related to Computerized Provider Order Entry
Campbell, Emily M.;Sittig, Dean F.;Ash, Joan S.;Guappone, Kenneth P.;Dykstra, Richard H.;
Vol. 13 , No. 5 , pp. 547-556
259 views Abstract
Journament Score
25.8/100 · Poor
Ranked #25,789 of 29,297 scored
(34,014 journals indexed)
Platform Statistics
AI Quality Analysis
Separate paid analysis — does not affect ranking.
Journament

Overall Quality Score

25.8/100

Tier: Poor

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

30.4/100

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

Not yet measured

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

0.0/100

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

37.5/100

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

7.1/100

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

0.0/100

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

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

Content Distribution

74.5/100

Measures how evenly reader attention spreads across the journal's articles, using the Gini coefficient of article clicks.

Higher scores mean readership is distributed across many articles rather than concentrated on one or two.

Ethics & Transparency Score

Not yet measured

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

Not yet measured

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

Not yet measured

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

Not yet measured

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

Not yet measured

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.