BMC health services research | Journament

Journal Ranking

#244 / 33,809
📉 Poor
Overall Score
38.9/100
Score Breakdown
Engagement
31
Accessibility
15
Timeliness
50
Diversity
30
Innovation
40
Community Impact
36
Ethics & Transparency
0
Content Quality
0
Editorial Diversity
0
Publication Regularity
0
Geographic Reach
0
Updated 5 hours ago

BMC health services research

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
scopus ncbi doaj ulakbim sci
Short Name BMC Health Serv Res
Abbreviated Name bmc health serv res
ISSN 1472-6963
Aim and Scope
URL
Author Instructions

Publications Per Year

Recent Articles (184 total)

2017
Improving access to health care amongst vulnerable populations: a qualitative study of village malaria workers in Kampot, Cambodia
Liverani, Marco;Nguon, Chea;Sok, Ra;Kim, Daro;Nou, Panharith;Nguon, Sokhan;Yeung, Shunmay;
Vol. 17 , No. 1 , pp. 1-11
883 views Abstract
2017
The relationship between working conditions and self-rated health among medical doctors: evidence from seven waves of the Medicine In Australia Balancing Employment and Life (Mabel) survey
Milner, Allison;Witt, Katrina;Spittal, Matthew J.;Bismark, Marie;Graham, Melissa;LaMontagne, Anthony D.;
Vol. 17 , No. 1 , pp. 1-10
754 views Abstract
2018
Blind spots in telemedicine: a qualitative study of staff workarounds to resolve gaps in diabetes management
Bouskill, Kathryn;Smith-Morris, Carolyn;Bresnick, George;Cuadros, Jorge;Pedersen, Elin Rønby;
Vol. 18 , No. 1 , pp. 1-9
709 views Abstract
2019
Lessons from a training needs assessment to strengthen the capacity of routine immunization service providers in Nigeria.
Arogundade, Linda;Akinwumi, Titilola;Molemodile, Shola;Nwaononiwu, Ebubechi;Ezika, Joshua;Yau, Inuwa;Wonodi, Chizoba;
Vol. 19 , No. 1 , pp. 664
555 views DOI Abstract
2019
Towards successful digital transformation through co-creation: a longitudinal study of a four-year implementation of digital monitoring technology in residential care for persons with dementia
Dugstad, Janne;Eide, Tom;Nilsen, Etty R.;Eide, Hilde;
Vol. 19 , No. 1 , pp. 1-17
543 views Abstract
2018
Factors perceived to influence implementation of task shifting in highly specialised healthcare: a theory-based qualitative approach.
Feiring, Eli;Lie, Astrid Eidesvik;
Vol. 18 , No. 1 , pp. 899
519 views DOI Abstract
2018
Selling my sheep to pay for medicines - household priorities and coping strategies in a setting without universal health coverage
Onarheim KH;Sisay MM;Gizaw M;Moland KM;Norheim OF;Miljeteig I;;
Vol. 18 , No. 1 , pp. -
482 views Abstract
2017
Allocation of home care services by municipalities in Norway: a document analysis
Holm, Solrun G.;Mathisen, Terje A.;Sæterstrand, Torill M.;Brinchmann, Berit S.;
Vol. 17 , No. 1 , pp. 1-10
480 views Abstract
2019
Engaging multiple stakeholders to improve speech and language therapy services in schools: an appreciative inquiry-based study
Gallagher, A. L.;Murphy, CA.;Conway, P. F.;Perry, A.;
Vol. 19 , No. 1 , pp. 1-17
462 views Abstract
2016
Advancing services for adult ADHD: the development of the ADHD Star as a framework for multidisciplinary interventions
Adamou, Marios;Graham, Katharine;MacKeith, Joy;Burns, Sara;Emerson, Lisa-Marie;
Vol. 16 , No. 1 , pp. 1-6
449 views Abstract
View All 184 Articles
39
Overall
Poor
31
15
30
40
36
50
0
0
0
0
0
Journament

Overall Quality Score

38.9/100

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

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

15.0/100

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

35.5/100

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.