ABSTRACT
A sharp distinction of journal needs between anatomists in medical vs. nonmedical biological research institutions is documented by diverging publication patterns between 1965–79. This is traced to an historical drifting apart beginning in the nineteenth century. Medically affiliated researchers, who dominate most anatomy journals, are general microscopists who also require journals of embryology, cell biology, pathology, and neurology. Anatomists affiliated with university departments of the zoological sciences and physical anthropology, or with natural history museums, have maintained a small share of papers in some anatomy journals and often continue to stress the classical dissection or reconstruction of remains. They need journals of zoology, marine biology, evolution, paleontology, and physical anthropology. Museum bulletins are shown to be uniquely important to the nonmedical group, while multiscience and academic clinical investigation journals are frequent outlets for only the medically affiliated group. The tables from this study, Journal Citation Reports, and Current Contents, are suggested as interacting selection tools.
