DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/lenpust.v12i1.77797

A Scientometrics Analysis of the Research Publications in JIF Quartile Open-Access Journals of Medical Informatics

*Gulam Jilani orcid  -  Central Library, Indian Maritime University, Kolkata, India, India
Swapna Banerjee orcid  -  Department of Library and Information Science, University of Calcutta, Kolkata, India, India
Received: 22 Dec 2025; Revised: 18 Apr 2026; Accepted: 1 May 2026; Published: 30 Jun 2026.

Citation Format:
Abstract

Background: Medical informatics has become an increasingly important interdisciplinary field that integrates healthcare, information technology, and data management. The rapid growth of open-access publishing has expanded the dissemination of medical informatics research, yet a comprehensive understanding of publication patterns, citation impact, collaboration networks, and emerging research themes within high-impact open-access journals remains limited.

Objective: This study aims to analyze the scientific publication landscape of medical informatics research published in Journal Impact Factor (JIF) quartile-ranked open-access journals, focusing on publication growth, citation performance, influential sources, author collaboration, thematic evolution, and research trends.

Methods: A scientometric approach was employed using data retrieved from the Web of Science database. Following the PRISMA screening procedure, 17,915 open-access articles published in ten JIF quartile-ranked medical informatics journals were included in the analysis. Bibliometrix/Biblioshiny, VOSviewer, and Microsoft Excel were utilized to examine publication productivity, citation impact, co-citation networks, keyword co-occurrences, funding patterns, and international collaborations.

Results: The dataset comprised 17,915 publications that received 381,038 citations and demonstrated an annual growth rate of 23.62%. The Journal of Medical Internet Research emerged as the most productive and influential source, contributing 7,344 publications and receiving 214,341 citations. Keyword analysis identified mHealth, health, and care as dominant themes, while internet, impact, artificial intelligence, and COVID-19 represented emerging research topics. International collaboration was strongest between the United States and China, while the United States Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health were the leading funding agencies.

Conclusion: The findings demonstrate the substantial growth and global influence of open-access medical informatics research. The field is increasingly shaped by digital health technologies, mobile applications, artificial intelligence, and internet-based healthcare innovations. This study provides a comprehensive overview of research productivity, scholarly impact, and thematic developments, offering valuable insights for researchers, publishers, policymakers, and funding agencies in advancing medical informatics research.

Fulltext View|Download Email colleagues
Keywords: Medical informatics; medical information science; open-access journals; thematic evaluation; scientometrics; medical journals
Funding: NA

Article Metrics:

Article Info
Section: Articles
Language : EN
Most cited articles
Frontmatter Backmatter Frontmatter Backmatter Frontmatter More cited articles
  1. Aria, M., Cuccurullo, C., D’aniello, L., Misuraca, M., & Spano, M. (2022). Thematic analysis as a new culturomic tool: the social media coverage on COVID-19 pandemic in Italy. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(6), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14063643
  2. Aria, M., Misuraca, M., & Spano, M. (2020). Mapping the evolution of social research and data science on 30 years of social indicators research. Social Indicators Research, 149(3), 803–831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020-02281-3
  3. Beall, J. (2013). Medical publishing triage - chronicling predatory open access publishers. Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 2(2), 47–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2049-0801(13)70035-9
  4. Belfiore, A., Scaletti, A., Lavorato, D., & Cuccurullo, C. (2023). The long process by which HTA became a paradigm: A longitudinal conceptual structure analysis. Health Policy, 127(December 2021), 74–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2022.12.006
  5. Blažun Vošner, H., Železnik, D., & Kokol, P. (2019). Bibliometric analysis of the International Medical Informatics Association official journals. Informatics for Health and Social Care, 44(4), 405–421. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538157.2018.1525734
  6. Borrego, Á. (2023). Article processing charges for open access journal publishing: a review. Learned Publishing, 36(3), 359–378. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1558
  7. Eysenbach, G. (2010). 10 years experience with pioneering open access publishing in health informatics: The Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR). Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 160(PART 1), 1329–1333. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-60750-588-4-1329
  8. Eysenbach, G. (2019). Celebrating 20 years of open access and innovation at JMIR publications. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(12), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.2196/17578
  9. Gabrielle Breugelmans, J., Roberge, G., Tippett, C., Durning, M., Struck, D. B., & Makanga, M. M. (2018). Scientific impact increases when researchers publish in open access and international collaboration: A bibliometric analysis on poverty-related disease papers. PLoS ONE, 13(9), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203156
  10. Gülkesen, K. H., & Haux, R. (2019). Research subjects and research trends in medical informatics. Methods of Information in Medicine, 58(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1681107
  11. Han, W., Han, X., Zhou, S., & Zhu, Q. (2022). The development history and research tendency of medical informatics: Topic Evolution Analysis. JMIR Medical Informatics, 10(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.2196/31918
  12. Harnad, S. (2009). Open access scientometrics and the UK research assessment exercise. Scientometrics, 79(1), 147–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0409-z
  13. Haux, R. (2023). Reflections towards the future of medical informatics a farewell lecture after almost half a century of medical informatics activities professional life phases and discipline. In IMIA Yearbook of Medical Informatics (pp. 1–16). https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1768716
  14. He, X., Peng, C., Xu, Y., Zhang, Y., & Wang, Z. (2022). Global scientific research landscape on medical informatics from 2011 to 2020: bibliometric analysis. JMIR Medical Informatics, 10(4), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.2196/33842
  15. Iyandemye, J., & Thomas, M. P. (2019). Low income countries have the highest percentages of open access publication: a systematic computational analysis of the biomedical literature. PLoS ONE, 14(7), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220229
  16. Khozani, N. K., Mansouri, A., Pashootanizadeh, M., & Dorcheh, E. E. (2025). Bibliometric analysis of the evaluation concepts of humanities research outputs. Scientometrics Research Journal, 11(1), 25–48. https://doi.org/10.22070/rsci.2024.18702.1710
  17. Kilgallon, J. L., Khanna, S., Dey, T., Smith, T. R., & Ranganathan, K. (2023). Open(ing) Access: top health publication availability to researchers in low-and middle-income countries. Annals of Global Health, 89(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.5334/aogh.3904
  18. Kuballa, S. (2017). Open access publishing in the field of medical informatics. Journal of Medical Systems, 41(5), 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-017-0729-0
  19. Li, K., & Yan, E. (2018). Co-mention network of R packages: scientific impact and clustering structure. Journal of Informetrics, 12(1), 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.12.001
  20. Lwoga, E. T., & Questier, F. (2014). Faculty adoption and usage behaviour of open access scholarly communication in health science universities. New Library World, 115(3), 116–139. https://doi.org/10.1108/NLW-01-2014-0006
  21. Müller, L., Gangadharaiah, R., Klein, S. C., Perry, J., Bernstein, G., Nurkse, D., Wailes, D., Graham, R., El-kareh, R., Mehta, S., Vinterbo, S. A., & Aronoff-spencer, E. (2019). An open access medical knowledge base for community driven diagnostic decision support system development. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 19(93), 1–7. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-019-0804-1
  22. Nadri, H., Rahimi, B., Timpka, T., & Sedghi, S. (2017). The top 100 articles in the medical informatics: a bibliometric analysis. Journal of Medical Systems, 41(150), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-017-0794-4
  23. Norouzi, Y., Radfar, H., & Far, N. J. (2025). Analyzing scientific authority: an approach based on scientific mapping. Scientometrics Research Journal, 11(1), 161–186. https://doi.org/10.22070/rsci.2024.18834.1717
  24. O’hanlon, R., McSweeney, J., & Stabler, S. (2020). Publishing habits and perceptions of open access publishing and public access amongst clinical and research fellows. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 108(1), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2020.751
  25. Patel, V. L., & Kaufmann, D. R. (1998). Medical informatics and the science of cognition. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 5(6), 493–502. https://doi.org/10.1136/jamia.1998.0050493
  26. Paton, C., Househ, M., & Malik, M. (2013). The challenges of publishing on health informatics in developing countries. Applied Clinical Informatics, 4, 428–433. https://doi.org/10.4338/ACI-2013-04-IE-0030
  27. Pinfield, S. (2010). Paying for open access? institutional funding streams and OA publication charges. Learned Publishing, 23(1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1087/20100108
  28. Pinfield, S., & Middleton, C. (2016). Researchers’ adoption of an institutional central fund for open-access article-processing charges: a case study using innovation diffusion theory. SAGE Open, 6(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015625447
  29. Ravi, D., Wong, C., Deligianni, F., Berthelot, M., Andreu-Perez, J., Lo, B., & Yang, G. Z. (2017). Deep learning for health informatics. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, 21(1), 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1109/JBHI.2016.2636665
  30. Sazzed, S. (2021). Association between the rankings of top bioinformatics and medical informatics journals and the scholarly reputations of chief editors. Publications, 9(3), 42. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9030042
  31. Scaffidi, M. A., Elsolh, K., Li, J., Verma, Y., Bansal, R., Gimpaya, N., Larivière, V., Khan, R., & Grover, S. C. (2021). Do authors of research funded by the canadian institutes of health research comply with its open access mandate?: a meta-epidemiologic study. PLoS ONE, 16(8 August 2021), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256577
  32. Schulze, M., Mielke, C., Taddicken, M., Haux, R., & Kuballa, S. (2019). Identification of influencing factors regarding the decision for or against an open access publication of scientists of medical informatics: description and first results of group discussions and interviews. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 264, 1248–1252. https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI190426
  33. Sohrabi, C., Mathew, G., Franchi, T., Kerwan, A., Griffin, M., Soleil C Del Mundo, J., Ali, S. A., Agha, M., & Agha, R. (2021). Impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on scientific research and implications for clinical academic training – a review. International Journal of Surgery, 86(January), 57–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.12.008
  34. Tazegul, G., & Emre, E. (2021). Scientometric data and open access publication policies of clinical allergy and immunology journals. Cureus, 13(2). https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.13564
  35. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
  36. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2012). Manual for VOSviewer version 1.5.2. In Leiden Univeristy (Issue September). http://www.vosviewer.com/documentation/Manual_VOSviewer_1.5.4.pdf
  37. Van Eck, N. J. Van, & Waltman, L. (2016). Text mining and visualization. In text mining and visualization. https://doi.org/10.1201/b19007
  38. Wang, J. Z., Pourang, A., & Burrall, B. (2019). Open access medical journals: benefits and challenges. Clinics in Dermatology, 37(1), 52–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clindermatol.2018.09.010
  39. William, S. G., Webb, A., Gleghorn, C., & Hospital NHS Trust, C. (2006). Open access publishing in the biomedical sciences: could funding agencies accelerate the inevitable changes? Health Information and Libraries Journal, 23, 197–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2006.00657.x
  40. Zou, L., & Sun, L. (2020). Visualization analysis of health informatics research from 2001 to 2018. Current Science, 118(5), 714–721. DOI: 10.18520/cs/v118/i5/714-721

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update: 2026-07-01 15:13:27

No citation recorded.