Journal of Sports Sciences: The first 25 years

At the time the Journal of Sports Sciences was conceived, there were few direct competitors. Indeed, there was not much research activity in the field to report, so that embarking on a new periodical without the inclusion of “sports medicine” or “physical education” in the title was a real risk for the publishers. Starting with a modest three issues per annum in 1983 reduced the risk, but the launch of a new journal was still a shot into the darkness. It was hoped that those existing researchers who hitherto looked towards the sports medicine outlets or the publications of their parent disciplines would commit their material to a new periodical that was ostensibly “sports sciences”; this strategy would buy time while the new subject area with a new generation of researchers was growing up. It was a gamble that has paid off handsomely.

In the early years of the journal's existence, the content was shaped by research activity in the more technologically advanced countries, notably in North America. The recruitment of an Advisory Board consisting of contemporary academic leaders in the field signalled that the aspirations for the new journal were high and non-parochial. Among the initial international members was a crop of outstanding young scientists who are still active today, notable among whom were George Brooks (University of California, Berkeley), Peter Cavanagh (Pennsylvania State University), Karl Newell (University of Illinois), Heikki Rusko (University of Jyväskylä), Niels Secher (Copenhagen University), Charles Tipton (University of Iowa), Bob Wilberg (University of Alberta), and Vladimir Zatsiorsky (then Central Institute of Physical Culture, Moscow). Those no longer alive include Ernest Hamley, Denis Glencross, John Kane, and Michael Ostyn. Other individuals from the United Kingdom who were prominent in supporting the Journal at the beginning included John Atha, David Brodie, Les Burwitz, Bruce Davies, Eric Dunning, Frank Sanderson, and Archie Young. The full list of members forms a veritable “who's who” at the time and is available in Volume 1, Number 1, Spring 1983. As first editor, I was fortunate to have as Editorial Board members John Annett, Roger Bartlett, Clyde Williams, and the late James Hay. There was a pioneering spirit among these members, coupled with a genuine commitment from the publishers to set up a journal that would stand the test of time and contribute in a major way to an exciting new academic field.

These aspirations were realized as publication frequency increased over the years to reach current levels. The reputation of the outlet grew as it included landmark reviews, special issues, and novel experimental findings. The diversity of the content was itself a strength, evident in the range of disciplines and methodologies covered, the inclusion of interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary work, both theoretical and applied projects, and a scope that embraced leisure and habitual activity as well as high-performance sport.

The progress the Journal has made since then has mirrored a phenomenal increase in research activity across the globe. The rate of expansion has been more pronounced in Europe and Australia than in America, where the discipline had a historical head-start. Within Europe, and in the United Kingdom in particular, there was a burgeoning of undergraduate and postgraduate academic programmes that extended the base for mounting research projects. As research strategies became more and more an essential part of universities' academic agenda, activity in the sports sciences fared well when placed in the spotlight of peer assessment. The discipline emerged from being a Cinderella subject with questionable status to one with a solid base and a prominent profile.

Why “sports science” grew disproportionately to other subject areas in the human sciences – such as ergonomics, human factors, human studies or human sciences – is difficult to pinpoint. Although the traditional sciences such as biology, chemistry, and physics struggled to attract students onto academic programmes, the recruitment of students to the sport and exercise sciences experienced an explosion in numbers. It may have been that potential students were put off the classical sciences by the public notion of science as austere, which adversely affected the physical and natural sciences, but the areas of application of the sport and exercise sciences (and sports-related studies) proved more alluring. Yet the aversion was not restricted to science, since international languages and philosophy have also foundered, losing out to studies of subjects such as law and the new interdisciplinary subjects such as communication studies. It seems that cultural changes associated with the information technology revolution and the vibrancy in the communication media have fuelled interests in sport and exercise as an industry. The result is that the study of sports science is an attractive field whereby students can see its relevance and a clear application to their own lives as active individuals. Sports science is also a viable career option for individuals to consider, whether in teaching, research, applied work, health promotion or in related areas.

Side by side with the developments in academic programmes was an increased systemization of applied work. Professional sport, too, has been irrevocably changed by its trans-world appeal, evident in the content of digital television and specialized sports channels. Without comprehensive systems for sports science support, participants in international competitions consider themselves disadvantaged. In this context, the service work must take priority over any research objectives. Nevertheless, the quality of the work is often apparent in the structured approaches towards addressing practical questions, such as are reflected in publications in this Journal (see, for example, the special issue introduced by Williams & Reilly, 2000).

In this present issue, landmark publications in the various disciplines have been highlighted. The reviews cover sports science in general, kinanthropometry, performance analysis, physiology, and psychology. Among the important publications in biomechanics have been the original modelling work of Hatze (1983), the reviews on javelin throwing by Bartlett and Best (1988), on triple jumping by Hay (1992), and biomechanics applied to soccer (Lees & Nolan, 1998). These were complemented by many original experimental reports, the special issues on biomechanics, for example at the 1991 World Student Games in Sheffield (Vol. 11, Number 4, 1993), and the strategic review on the future of biomechanics by Yeadon and Challis (1994).

The pace of developments within the sports sciences is unlikely to continue indefinitely. Nevertheless, there is likely to be a consolidation of the mainstream areas, an acknowledgement of market forces in both teaching and research, and a strengthening of links with health-related areas and with relevant professional bodies. As the subject area is dynamic and constantly evolving and changing, and the institutions engaged in it are complex and self-organizing entities, there is much scope for further innovations in content and approaches. The relatively new sciences of neuroscience, vision science, molecular biology, proteomics, and other specialisms are already part of the programmes in progressive academic departments of sport and exercise sciences. Concepts and practices from parent disciplines will become integrated within the sports sciences where they are likely to have most impact. Clearer communication lines with practitioners should also help to inform theoretical stances, as applied researchers find out what works and what does not before returning to experimental paradigms to find out why or why not. New electronic instrumentation will be designed for monitoring, analysing, and improving performance; new methods and equipment must be subject to scrutiny as a service to practitioners prior to their scientific endorsement by means of published work. In this engagement with the sports industry, researchers must retain their independence and integrity.

The richness of sports science is reflected in the number of sections in the current journal that require a dedicated editor. Still missing is an editor for sociology or social sciences, a gap yet to be filled on the Journal's Boards and a challenge for the future. The demands on current editors and referees are now unrelenting, and there is no hiding place from the incessant call-ups from Manuscript Central. As the Journal of Sports Sciences is already in its second 25 years of life, all those associated with it – both now and over the last 25 years – can feel pride in their achievements. They can also feel a sense of importance for their responsibilities in maintaining a quality control function that is integral to the altruistic peer-review process.