In the autumn of 2018, I had the great honor of becoming the new Editor-in-Chief (EIC) of Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. I believe the journal is the oldest publication in the field, with the first issue appearing in 1930 under the title of Research Quarterly; it became Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport in 1980. I suspect that the founding EIC, Elmer D. Mitchell, and all his successors, would be overwhelmed with joy that the journal will celebrate its centenary in just over a decade. My own history with the publication is much shorter, but I do recall reading the journal as a naïve, and hopefully enthusiastic, undergraduate student in the United Kingdom in the mid- to late-1980s; who would have thought that more than three decades later I would be entrusted with the task of continuing its long and proud history. Also, two papers from my doctoral thesis were published in the journal in the mid-1990s, which between them have by now been cited more than a 1,000 times. I have contributed articles to the journal periodically ever since, as well as serving in various roles on the Editorial Board.
I could not start my tenure without thanking the outgoing EIC, Weimo Zhu, for his outstanding efforts in raising the profile and impact of the journal over his two terms in office. The continual increase in the journal’s impact factor over the last 5 to 6 years from 1.108 in 2012 to 2.268 in 2017 presents a strong testimony to his efforts, as well as that of his support team of Associate Editors (AE), the journal’s Editorial Board, and of course its reviewers. Having held several similar editorial roles over the years, I am very aware that this service to the field often goes unseen and is certainly not well acknowledged, though paradoxically we are dependent on the success of these journals both for career progression and the continued advancement of our profession. These journals not only serve our academic community, but ultimately contribute to our continued progression as a society through the translational impact of the research published in each issue. As a community of scholars, we are indebted to all those who serve in such roles and help fulfill the remit of the journal, whether this service is as EIC, AE, or reviewer. In this vein, it would be remiss of me not to thank all the AEs that served under Dr. Zhu. Unfortunately, the tenure of more than one half of these AEs came to an end at the same time as that of the outgoing EIC, creating the typical challenges and opportunities offered by such a turnover of personnel. I thank all those who have moved on for their great service on behalf of our field, SHAPE America, and the publishers.
So, with the changing of the guard, comes new opportunities and challenges, as well as considerable responsibility. Over the last few months, I have made a number of changes to try and build on the substantive efforts of my predecessors, working closely with the Editorial Board, SHAPE America, and Routledge. After due consultation with relevant stakeholders, as well as a detailed review of the journal’s impact metrics, a decision was made to reduce the number of organizational sections employed by the journal, coupled with some additional rewording of section titles to reflect subtle changes in emphasis. These changes, which were approved by the Editorial Board, were made because there were relatively few submissions to certain sections, and of course an even smaller number of actual publications in the journal from some discipline areas each year, along with low citation rates. Moreover, some sections had either no AEs at all, or a very small number, necessitating an effort to consolidate and integrate areas of interest. So, the journal now has six sections, each with more critical mass and a reasonably equitable number of AEs: Biomechanics and Motor Behavior; Exercise Physiology; Psychology and Social Sciences (to incorporate papers from historical, philosophical, and sociocultural perspectives); Measurement and Evaluation; Pedagogy; Physical Activity and Health Behavior (to incorporate papers on epidemiology). Although I do not expect a strong consensus of agreement on these changes, given the broad and diverse nature of our field, it is my opinion, and that of the Editorial Board, that these changes help consolidate and present a firm foundation for continued growth in the journal’s impact. These changes, as well as the fact that several AEs had come to the end of their 3-year terms, led to the need to recruit more than a dozen new AEs. I am extremely grateful to all those that have agreed to take on these AE roles and look forward to working with these individuals in trying to enhance the journal’s reputation and influence over the next 3 years, as well as serving our academic community more broadly.
The journal is in a healthy position, with a strong foundation for growth. Consequently, I see the publication evolving progressively over the coming years, in line with continued developments in our field, rather than there being any revolutionary changes; hopefully, there will not be a need to throw tea in the harbor! I have some broad goals for my tenure as EIC. First, I hope to enhance the impact of the journal, as highlighted both by the citation rates of the papers that are published and by the translational impact of the work on society. Ultimately, the journal needs papers that present strong science, as well as, where relevant, this work should have an applied impact on the field. I believe that this balance is best achieved by promoting papers that make a strong conceptual contribution to our field. Although the journal will continue to publish innovative descriptive and purely applied research that is impactful, the preference is for theoretically driven work that increases the generalizability of our findings, potentially contributing to other fields of study and societal domains. Such papers are more likely to increase the journal’s impact factor and its broader influence on society.
Second, in keeping with enhancing the impact of the journal, it is important to enhance its influence and reach. Not merely its influence on the field of kinesiology, but its impact on other fields, such as computing science, human factors, engineering, nursing, and physical therapy, to name but a few. Moreover, though the journal’s history is firmly grounded in the United States, it is important to extend its outreach to other countries across the globe. In this regard, while the majority of AEs remain located in the United States, recent new appointments now mean that several new AEs have been appointed from numerous other countries and continents. We continue to encourage strong contributions from scientists across the globe, as well as any new initiatives that promote inclusivity. The recent annual report indicates that there are subscriptions to the journal from over 30 countries, and submissions from an even broader range of nations, suggesting that the publication already has a substantive global presence.
In keeping with the goals of the preceding EIC, I am equally keen to promote special issues on hot topics, as well as to encourage invited reviews from world-leading academics that can outline research agendas for others in the field to follow. Moreover, I am equally keen to continue the efforts made by Dr. Zhu during his tenure to explore new technology and media to enhance outreach and dissemination, increasing the journal’s altmetrics (a measure of online attention), as well as his efforts to enhance the quality of the statistical analysis and reporting procedures employed in the journal (see Zhu, Citation2018). These are worthy endeavors and they will continue to be supported.
The above are, of course, lofty aims. To have a chance of achieving these aims, the journal needs the strongest scientists across all the various subdisciplines of kinesiology to see the journal as the “outlet of choice” in this field. The journal’s standing, being ranked 19/50 for impact factor in the broad field of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism category and 30/82 in the Psychology, Applied Category, should help in this regard. Our hope of course is to move up both of the above rankings. An efficient and effective review process, supported by an experienced and enthusiastic team of AEs, and constructive and timely reviewers will undoubtedly facilitate this agenda. Our intention is to significantly increase the desk-rejection rate for submissions to the journal, which has historically been low, in an effort to speed up the overall review process, enabling unsuccessful authors to look for an alternative outlet without delay, and more detailed and timely feedback to be provided on papers that progress to the external review stage. A partnership has to be cultivated where we need scientists to submit their best work to the journal, whereas, in return, the journal promises a timely and fair review process. Although the subjective nature of the review process, and the increasing difficulty of attracting external reviewers, ensures that the system will never be perfect, goodwill, empathy, and optimism on both sides should at least ensure that the field of kinesiology is well-served and our efforts to have a translational impact on society globally enhanced.