Global Ranking of Management- and Clinical-Centered eHealth Journals

Serenko, Alexander; Dohan, Michael S.; Tan, Joseph

doi:10.17705/1cais.04109

Cited by 12 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 77 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, the work of Nouri et al [63] was updated with the broader DHI focus and relevant work from December 2016 till May 2019. Third, the search strategy of Nouri et al [63] was extended to socio-technical databases and journals, i. e., ACM Digital Library, IEEE Explore, and A-ranked and B-ranked digital health journals as listed in [75]. An overview of the search strategy is outlined in Table 3.…”

Section: Evaluation Criteria For Dhismentioning

confidence: 99%

A design and evaluation framework for digital health interventions

Kowatsch

Otto

Harperink

et al. 2019

It - Information Technology

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digital health interventions (DHIs) have the potential to help the growing number of chronic disease patients better manage their everyday lives. However, guidelines for the systematic development of DHIs are still scarce. The current work has, therefore, the objective to propose a framework for the design and evaluation of DHIs (DEDHI). The DEDHI framework is meant to support both researchers and practitioners alike from early conceptual DHI models to large-scale implementations of DHIs in the healthcare market.

show abstract

Section: Evaluation Criteria For Dhismentioning

confidence: 99%

A design and evaluation framework for digital health interventions

Kowatsch

Otto

Harperink

et al. 2019

It - Information Technology

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The second data set was based on the study of Serenko et al (), who developed two ranking lists of 35 management‐ and 28 clinical‐centered eHealth journals (63 journals). Fifty authors’ names were randomly selected from each journal (3,150 names).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A critical evaluation of expert survey‐based journal rankings: The role of personal research interests

Serenko

Bontis

2017

Asso for Info Science & Tech

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

By using the data from two recent survey‐based rankings of knowledge management / intellectual capital and eHealth journals, this study tests the impact of personal research interests of journal raters on their ranking scores. The rationale is that raters assign higher scores to journals that cater to their area of expertise because they are more familiar with them. The results indicate the existence of raters’ bias toward the journals focusing on their preferred areas of interest, but this bias does not uniformly apply across all research topics. In some subdomains, such as intellectual capital, this bias may be very strong, whereas in others, such as soft‐side knowledge management research, it may be nonexistent. Although management eHealth researchers rate management‐focused journals higher than their clinical‐centered counterparts, this bias does not exist among scholars favoring clinical topics. While this limitation is not fatal, the results from expert‐survey journal ranking studies should be interpreted with caution.

show abstract

“…Our reasons are threefold. First, according to an expert survey of 398 active e-health researchers, JMIR and JMU were ranked as top A+ and top A journals out of 63 peer-reviewed eHealth related journals, respectively (Serenko, Dohan, & Tan, 2017). Second, JMIR was established in 1999, when the eHealth field was just emerging (Della Mea, 2001).…”

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Content Characteristics of Knowledge Integration in the eHealth Field: An Analysis Based on Citation Contexts

Wang

Mao

Tang

et al. 2021

Journal of Data and Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis study attempts to disclose the characteristics of knowledge integration in an interdisciplinary field by looking into the content aspect of knowledge.Design/methodology/approachThe eHealth field was chosen in the case study. Associated knowledge phrases (AKPs) that are shared between citing papers and their references were extracted from the citation contexts of the eHealth papers by applying a stem-matching method. A classification schema that considers the functions of knowledge in the domain was proposed to categorize the identified AKPs. The source disciplines of each knowledge type were analyzed. Quantitative indicators and a co-occurrence analysis were applied to disclose the integration patterns of different knowledge types.FindingsThe annotated AKPs evidence the major disciplines supplying each type of knowledge. Different knowledge types have remarkably different integration patterns in terms of knowledge amount, the breadth of source disciplines, and the integration time lag. We also find several frequent co-occurrence patterns of different knowledge types.Research limitationsThe collected articles of the field are limited to the two leading open access journals. The stem-matching method to extract AKPs could not identify those phrases with the same meaning but expressed in words with different stems. The type of Research Subject dominates the recognized AKPs, which calls on an improvement of the classification schema for better knowledge integration analysis on knowledge units.Practical implicationsThe methodology proposed in this paper sheds new light on knowledge integration characteristics of an interdisciplinary field from the content perspective. The findings have practical implications on the future development of research strategies in eHealth and the policies about interdisciplinary research.Originality/valueThis study proposed a new methodology to explore the content characteristics of knowledge integration in an interdisciplinary field.

show abstract

Global Ranking of Management- and Clinical-Centered eHealth Journals

Cited by 12 publications

References 77 publications

A design and evaluation framework for digital health interventions

A design and evaluation framework for digital health interventions

A critical evaluation of expert survey‐based journal rankings: The role of personal research interests

Content Characteristics of Knowledge Integration in the eHealth Field: An Analysis Based on Citation Contexts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About