More than one-half of the physicians trained in the United States in 2013 received no formal education in physical activity and may, therefore, be ill-prepared to assist their patients in a manner consistent with Healthy People 2020, the National Physical Activity Plan, or the Exercise is Medicine initiative. The Bipartisan Policy Center, American College of Sports Medicine, and the Alliance for a Healthier Generation called for a reversal of this situation on June 23, 2014.

In this paper we raise concerns over the methodological approach employed by Knudson (2013a) in attempting to identify core journals in kinesiology. Philosophical concerns about the nature of his results and their meaning are also brought to bear. The authors argue for more consistent, explicit, and inclusive methodology in identifying the journals and the associated measures of impact and prestige, and raise questions about the nature and purpose of scholarship in kinesiology that must be considered more fully. Our intention in raising these concerns is meant to answer the call of Knudson, Morrow, and Thomas (2014), who observed that scholars in kinesiology rarely challenge one another through letters to the editor, replication, or by other means. In the spirit of such scholarly discourse, we off er several observations that we feel should be considered, particularly prior to individuals or institutions attempting to operationalize and/or apply his study results.Scholarship in kinesiology has a long history ( Park, 1980( Park, , 2005, with increased recognition and acceptance following the release of the

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract