Bioinformatics | Journament

Journal Ranking

#5781 / 33,971
📉 Poor
Overall Score
38.8/100
Score Breakdown
Engagement
31
Accessibility
35
Timeliness
50
Diversity
30
Innovation
40
Community Impact
35
Ethics & Transparency
0
Content Quality
0
Editorial Diversity
0
Publication Regularity
0
Geographic Reach
0
Updated 1 bulan yang lalu

Bioinformatics

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:
Pengindeksan
scopus ncbi ulakbim sci
Nama Singkat Bioinformatics
Nama Singkatan bioinformatics
ISSN 1367-4811
Tujuan dan Ruang Lingkup
URL http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org
Petunjuk untuk Penulis

Publications Per Year

Recent Articles (456 total)

2018
comparison between ropivacaine and bupivacaine in deep topical fornix nerve block anesthesia in patients undergoing cataract surgery by phacoemulsification
;Anshika Kashyap;Rahul Varshney;Govind Singh Titiyal;Ajay Kumar Sinha
Vol. 66 , No. 9 , pp. 1268-1271
614 views DOI Abstract
2014
spectral domain optical coherence tomography morphology in optic disc pit associated maculopathy
;Janusz Michalewski;Zofia Michalewska;Jerzy Nawrocki
Vol. 62 , No. 7 , pp. 777-781
542 views DOI Abstract
2014
optical coherence tomography findings and retinal changes after vitrectomy for optic disc pit maculopathy
;Gaurav Sanghi;Tapas R Padhi;Vivekanand U Warkad;Jayesh Vazirani;Vishali Gupta;Mangat R Dogra;Amod Gupta;Taraprasad Das
Vol. 62 , No. 3 , pp. 287-290
517 views DOI Abstract
2013
Quantifying the complexity of medical research.
Rodriguez-Esteban, Raul;Loging, William T;
Vol. 29 , No. 22 , pp. 2918-24
512 views DOI Abstract
2014
comparison of clinical outcomes, patient, and surgeon satisfaction following topical versus peribulbar anesthesia for phacoemulsification and intraocular lens implantation: a randomized, controlled trial
;Kuldeep Dole;Sucheta Kulkarni;Kavita D Shisode;Rahul Deshpande;Nilesh Kakade;Rajiv Khandekar;Madan Deshpande
Vol. 62 , No. 9 , pp. 927-930
511 views DOI Abstract
2013
Computational phosphorylation site prediction in plants using random forests and organism-specific instance weights.
Trost, Brett;Kusalik, Anthony;
Vol. 29 , No. 6 , pp. 686-94
502 views DOI Abstract
2011
MixupMapper: correcting sample mix-ups in genome-wide datasets increases power to detect small genetic effects.
Westra, Harm-Jan;Jansen, Ritsert C;Fehrmann, Rudolf S N;te Meerman, Gerard J;van Heel, David;Wijmenga, Cisca;Franke, Lude;
Vol. 27 , No. 15 , pp. 2104-11
482 views DOI Abstract
2004
macular ischaemia as a marker for nephropathy in diabetic retinopathy.
;Shukla Dhananjay;Kolluru Chandra;Singh Jatinder;John Rajesh;Soman Manoj;Gandhi Banushree;Kim R;Perumalsamy Namperumalsamy
Vol. 52 , No. 3 , pp. 205-10
479 views Abstract
2010
Inferring combinatorial association logic networks in multimodal genome-wide screens.
de Ridder, Jeroen;Gerrits, Alice;Bot, Jan;de Haan, Gerald;Reinders, Marcel;Wessels, Lodewyk;
Vol. 26 , No. 12 , pp. i149-57
468 views DOI Abstract
2013
long-term change in central corneal thickness from a glaucoma perspective
;Nikhil S Choudhari;Ronnie George;Ramesh Ve Sathyamangalam;Prema Raju;Rashima Asokan;Lokapavani Velumuri;Lingam Vijaya
Vol. 61 , No. 10 , pp. 580-584
466 views DOI Abstract
View All 456 Articles
39
Overall
Poor
31
35
30
40
35
50
0
0
0
0
0
Journament

Overall Quality Score

38.8/100

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

30.9/100

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

34.5/100

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.