T A Morris1, K W McCain. 1. University of Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. theodore.morris@uc.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Medical informatics is an emergent interdisciplinary field described as drawing upon and contributing to both the health sciences and information sciences. The authors elucidate the disciplinary nature and internal structure of the field. DESIGN: To better understand the field's disciplinary nature, the authors examine the intercitation relationships of its journal literature. To determine its internal structure, they examined its journal cocitation patterns. MEASUREMENTS: The authors used data from the Science Citation Index (SCI) and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) to perform intercitation studies among productive journal titles, and software routines from SPSS to perform multivariate data analyses on cocitation data for proposed core journals. RESULTS: Intercitation network analysis suggests that a core literature exists, one mark of a separate discipline. Multivariate analyses of cocitation data suggest that major focus areas within the field include biomedical engineering, biomedical computing, decision support, and education. The interpretable dimensions of multidimensional scaling maps differed for the SCI and SSCI data sets. Strong links to information science literature were not found. CONCLUSION: The authors saw indications of a core literature and of several major research fronts. The field appears to be viewed differently by authors writing in journals indexed by SCI from those writing in journals indexed by SSCI, with more emphasis placed on computers and engineering versus decision making by the former and more emphasis on theory versus application (clinical practice) by the latter.
OBJECTIVE: Medical informatics is an emergent interdisciplinary field described as drawing upon and contributing to both the health sciences and information sciences. The authors elucidate the disciplinary nature and internal structure of the field. DESIGN: To better understand the field's disciplinary nature, the authors examine the intercitation relationships of its journal literature. To determine its internal structure, they examined its journal cocitation patterns. MEASUREMENTS: The authors used data from the Science Citation Index (SCI) and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) to perform intercitation studies among productive journal titles, and software routines from SPSS to perform multivariate data analyses on cocitation data for proposed core journals. RESULTS: Intercitation network analysis suggests that a core literature exists, one mark of a separate discipline. Multivariate analyses of cocitation data suggest that major focus areas within the field include biomedical engineering, biomedical computing, decision support, and education. The interpretable dimensions of multidimensional scaling maps differed for the SCI and SSCI data sets. Strong links to information science literature were not found. CONCLUSION: The authors saw indications of a core literature and of several major research fronts. The field appears to be viewed differently by authors writing in journals indexed by SCI from those writing in journals indexed by SSCI, with more emphasis placed on computers and engineering versus decision making by the former and more emphasis on theory versus application (clinical practice) by the latter.