What Kinesiology Research is Most Visible to the Academic World?

References

• Aksnes, D. W., & Sivertsen, G. (2019). A criteria-based assessment of the coverage of Scopus and Web of Science. Journal of Data and Information Science, 4(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2019-0001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bar-Ilan, J. (2018). Tale of three databases: The implications of coverage demonstrated for a sample query. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analysis, 3, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2018.00006
   Google Scholar
• Bollen, J., Van de Sompel, H., Hagberg, A., & Chute, R. (2009). A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures. PLoS One, 4(6), e6022. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0006022
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2013). How good is research really? EMBO Reports, 14(3), 226–230. https://doi.org/10.1038/embor.2013.9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornmann, L., & Mutz, R. (2015). Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(11), 2215–2222. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23329
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brembs, C. (2019). Reliable novelty: New should not trump true. PLoS Biology, 17(2), e30000117. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000117
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brumback, R. A. (2008). Worshiping false idols: The impact factor dilemma. Journal of Child Neurology, 23(4), 365–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/0883073808315170
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cardinal, B. J., & Thomas, J. R. (2005). The 75th anniversary of the Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport: An analysis of status and contributions. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 76(S2), S122-S134. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2005.10599294
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casadevall, A., & Fang, F. C. (2014). Causes for the persistence of impact factor mania. mBio, 5(2), e00064-14. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00064-14
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chavarro, D., Rafols, I., & Tang, P. (2018). To what extent is inclusion in the Web of Science an indicator of journal ‘quality’? Research Evaluation, 27(2), 106–118. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvy001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colakovac, I., & Barkovic, I. (2022). Fifty years of journal Kinesiology: Bibliometric characteristics of categorized papers. Kinesiology, 54(1), 140–154. https://doi.org/10.26582/k.54.1.15
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coleman, A. (2007). Assess the value of a journal beyond the impact factor. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(8), 1148–1161. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20599
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Declaration on Research Assessment. (2015). Declaration on research assessment. http://www.ascb.org/dora/
   Google Scholar
• Delgado-Lopez-Cozar, E., & Cabezas-Clavijo, Á. (2013). Ranking journals: Could Google Scholar metrics be an alternative to Journal Citation Reports and Scimago journal rank? Learned Publishing, 26, 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1087/20130206
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elkins, M. R., Maher, C. G., Herbert, R. D., Moseley, A. M., & Sherrington, C. (2010). Correlation between the Journal Impact Factor and three other journal citation indices. Scientometrics, 85(1), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0262-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franceschet, M. (2010). The difference between popularity and prestige in the sciences and in the social sciences: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 4(1), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2009.08.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franceschini, F., Maisano, D., & Mastrogiacomo, L. (2016). The museum of errors/horrors in Scopus. Journal of Informetrics, 10(1), 174–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/joi2015.11.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freeland, M., Howes, L., Hamstra, E., & Bahnmaier, S. (2014). Citation analysis to assist selection in kinesiology. The Serials Librarian, 67(3), 307–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2014.939327
   Google Scholar
• Gael, Y., & Iselid, L. (2008). Web of Science and Scopus: A journal title overlap study. Online Information Review, 32(1), 8–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520810865958
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes to science: A new dimension in documentation through the association of ideas. Science, 122(3159), 108–111. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.122.3159.108
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA, 295(1), 90–93. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.1.90
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020). What academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods, 11(2), 181–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halevi, G., Moed, H., & Bar-Ilan, J. (2017). Suitability of Google Scholar as a source of scientific information and as a source of data for scientific evaluation— Review of the literature. Journal of Informetrics, 11(3), 823–834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.06.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harzing, A.-W., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106(2), 787–804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429–431. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jasco, P. (2005). As we may search—Comparison of major features of Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced metrics. Current Science, 89(9), 1537–1547.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knudson, D. (2013). Impact and prestige of kinesiology-related journals. Comprehensive Psychology, 2(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.2466/50.17.CP.2.13
   Google Scholar
• Knudson, D. (2014a). Citation rates for highly-cited papers from different sub-disciplinary areas within kinesiology. Chronicle of Kinesiology in Higher Education, 25(2), 9–17.
   Google Scholar
• Knudson, D. (2014b). What is a kinesiology journal? Comprehensive Psychology, 3(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.2466/03.CP.3.20
   Google Scholar
• Knudson, D. (2015a). Evidence of citation bias in kinesiology-related journals. Chronicle of Kinesiology in Higher Education, 26(1), 5–12.
   Google Scholar
• Knudson, D. (2015b). Citation rate of highly-cited papers in 100 kinesiology-related journals. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 19(1), 44–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/1091367X.2014.988336
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knudson, D. (2022). Citations to biomechanics articles from four databases. ISBS-Conference Proceedings Archive. https://commons.nmu.edu/isbs/
   Google Scholar
• Kurmis, A. P. (2003). Understanding the limitations of the journal impact factor. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (Am), 85A(12), 2449–2454. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200312000-00028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lascar, C., & Barnett, P. (2009). Journals not included in BIOSIS previews have notable impact in biology. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 58, r2. https://doi.org/10.5062/F43B5X3W
   Google Scholar
• Leydesdorff, L., & Bornmann, L. (2011). How fractional counting of citations affects the impact factor: Normalization in terms of differences in citation potentials among fields of science. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 62(2), 217–229. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21450
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leydesdorff, L., Bornmann, L., Comins, J. A., & Milojevic, S. (2016). Citations: Indicators of quality? The impact fallacy. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 1. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2016.00001
   Google Scholar
• Leydesdorff, L., & Opthof, T. (2010). Scopus’ source normalized impact per paper (SNIP) versus the journal impact factor based on fractional counting of citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(11), 2365–2396. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21371
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacRoberts, M. H., & MacRoberts, B. R. (2018). The mismeasure of science: Citation analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(3), 474–482. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23970
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin-Martin, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Thelwall, M., & Lopez-Cozar, E. D. (2018). Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1160–1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin-Martin, A., Thelwall, M., Orduna-Malea, E., & Lopez-Cozar, E. D. (2021). Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: A multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scientometrics, 126(1), 871–906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus versus Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 58(13), 2105–2125. https://doi.org/10.1001/asi.20677
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minozzi, S., Pistotti, V., & Forni, M. (2000). Searching for rehabilitation articles on MEDLINE and EMBASE. An example with cross-over design. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 81(6), 720–722. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-9993(00)90099-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moed, H. F., Bar-Ilan, J., & Halevi, G. (2016). A new methodology for comparing Google Scholar and Scopus. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 533–551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.04.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murali, N. S., Murali, H. R., Auethavekiat, P., Erwin, P. J., Mandrekar, J. N., Manek, N. J., & Ghoush, A. K. (2004). Impact of FUTON and NAA bias on visibility of research. Mayo Clinics Proceedings, 79(8), 1001–1006. https://doi.org/10.4065/79.8.1001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Academy of Kinesiology. (n.d.). Kinesiology: The discipline and related professions. https://nationalacademyofkinesiology.org/SubPages/Pages/What%20is%20Kinesiology
   Google Scholar
• Newell, K. M. (1990). Kinesiology: The label for the study of physical activity in higher education. Quest, 42(3), 279–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1990.10483999
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nisonger, T. E. (2008). The “80/20 Rule” and core journals. The Serials Librarian, 55(1/2), 62–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/03615260801970774
   Google Scholar
• Owlia, P., Vasei, M., Goliaei, B., & Nassiri, I. (2011). Normalized impact factor (NIF): An adjusted method for calculating the citation rate of biomedical journals. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 44(2), 216–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2010.11.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips, M. G. (2020). Sizing up sport history journals: Metrics, sport humanities, and history. The International Journal of the History of Sport, 37(8), 692–704. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523367.2020.1796652
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pozsgai, G., Lovei, G. L., Vasseur, L., Gurr, G., Batary, P., Korponai, J., Littlewood, N. A., Liu, J., Mora, A., Obrycki, J., Reynolds, O., Stockan, J. A., VanVolkenburg, H., Zhang, J., Zhou, W., & You, M. (2021). Irreproducibility in searches of scientific literature: A comparative analysis. Ecology and Evolution, 11(21), 14658–14668. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.8154
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pranckute, R. (2021). Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The titans of bibliographic information in today’s academic world. Publications, 9, 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9010012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramos-Remus, C., Suarez-Almazor, M., Dorgan, M., Gomez-Vargas, A., & Russell, A. S. (1994). Performance of online biomedical databases in rheumatology. The Journal of Rheumatology, 21(10), 1912–1921.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riley, S. P., Swanson, B. T., Shaffer, S. M., Sawyer, S. F., & Cleland, J. A. (2022). Do prospective intent and established metrics correlate with journal impact factor in musculoskeletal physical therapy trials?: A secondary analysis of a methodological review. Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy. https://doi.org/10.1080/10669817.2022.2041285
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossner, M., Van Epps, H., & Hill, E. (2007). Show me the data. The Journal of Cell Biology, 179(6), 1091–1092. https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.200711140
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seglen, P. O. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. British Medical Journal, 314(7079), 497–502. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497
   Google Scholar
• Silverman, S., Kulinna, P. H., & Phillips, S. R. (2014). Physical education pedagogy faculty perceptions of journal quality. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 33(1), 134–154. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2013-0052
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, D. R. (2012). Impact factors, scientometrics and the history of citation-based research. Scientometrics, 92(2), 419–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0685-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Starbuck, W. H. (2005). How much better are the most-prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication. Organization Science, 16(2), 18–200. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0107
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The PLoS Medicine Editors. (2006). The impact factor game. PLoS Medicine, 3(6), e291. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0030291
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsigilis, N., Grouios, G., Tsorbatzoudis, H., & Koidou, I. (2010). Impact factors of the sport sciences journals: Current trends, relative positions, and temporal stability. European Journal of Sport Science, 10(2), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461390903125152
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• West, R. E., & Rich, P. J. (2012). Rigor, impact, and prestige: A proposed framework for evaluating scholarly publications. Innovative Higher Education, 37(5), 359–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-012-9214-3
   Google Scholar
• Wu, Y. P., Aylward, B. S., Roberts, M. C., & Evans, S. C. (2012). Searching the scientific literature: Implications for quantitative and qualitative reviews. Clinical Psychology Review, 32(6), 553–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012.06.007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamato, T. P., Arora, M., Stevens, M. L., Elkins, M. R., & Moseley, A. M. (2018). Quality, language, subdiscipline and promotion were associated with article accesses on Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). Physiotherapy, 104(1), 122–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2017.08.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, L., Rousseau, R., & Sivertsen, G. (2017). Science deserves to be judged by its contents, not by its wrapping: Revisiting Seglen’s work on journal impact and research evaluation. PLoS One, 12(3), e0174205. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174205
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou, Y. B., Lu, L., & Li, M. (2012). Quantifying the influence of scientists and their publications: Distinguishing between prestige and popularity. New Journal of Physics, 14(3), 033033. https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/14/3/03303
   Google Scholar