What Kinesiology Research is Most Visible to the Academic World?

Knudson, Duane

doi:10.1080/00336297.2022.2092880

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The substantial number of subdisciplines and skew to citation data limited the data analysis to descriptive observations, however this does not invalidate the trends in scholarly usage of kinesiology subdiscipline research observed in this study that were consistent with previous research on citations in kinesiology (Knudson, 2014;2015a2015b, 2022a. Extensive research has documented high skews and uncited articles in most all fields, so focus on top percentiles of cited research is most relevant approach to study usage of scholarly research (Bornmann & Marx, 2014;Leydesdorff & Bornmann, 2011;Leydesdorff & Opthof, 2010;Owlia et al, 2011;Knudson, 2015aKnudson, , 2015cKnudson, , 2019bKnudson, , 2022aSeglen, 1992;Stern, 1990). The not time-controlled nature of GS, investigator subjectivity in classifying GS profiles as kinesiologyaffiliated, and user profile variation noted above make it impossible to directly replicate this study.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

“…There is also limited data on what scholars create GS Profiles (Kim & Grofman, 2020;Knudson, 2015aKnudson, , 2015bOrduna-Malea & Lopez-Cozar, 2017). The substantial number of subdisciplines and skew to citation data limited the data analysis to descriptive observations, however this does not invalidate the trends in scholarly usage of kinesiology subdiscipline research observed in this study that were consistent with previous research on citations in kinesiology (Knudson, 2014;2015a2015b, 2022a. Extensive research has documented high skews and uncited articles in most all fields, so focus on top percentiles of cited research is most relevant approach to study usage of scholarly research (Bornmann & Marx, 2014;Leydesdorff & Bornmann, 2011;Leydesdorff & Opthof, 2010;Owlia et al, 2011;Knudson, 2015aKnudson, , 2015cKnudson, , 2019bKnudson, , 2022aSeglen, 1992;Stern, 1990).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

“…The large variation in citation patterns between different academic disciplines is a common observation and means they cannot be compared across different fields of scholarship (Declaration on Research Assessment [DORA], n.d.; Hicks et al, 2015;Patience et al, 2007;Podlubny, 2005;Seglen, 1992). This large variation in citation patterns between subdisciplines within kinesiology has also been reported along with the additional confounding factor of strongly skewed citation data (Knudson, 2014;2015a, 2015b, 2022a.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 63%

“…Despite the complexities of bibliometric indexing, searching, and citation metrics the scholarly visibility and usage of kinesiology research can be examined by analysis of kinesiology-related keywords and citation data. Analysis of keywords related to kinesiology may be important to understanding the visibility and use of research by kinesiology scholars (Knudson, 2022a(Knudson, , 2022bMorrow & Thomas, 2010;Rikli, 2006). Knudson (2020a) studied 100 kinesiology journals using Web of Science and reported differences in citation rates across kinesiology subdisciplines and database-assigned subject areas.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Citations in Google Scholar profiles by Kinesiology subdiscipline

Knudson

2022

Jkinwellness

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Keywords are important bibliometric tools for classifying, accessing, and summarizing research. Communication in and external recognition of kinesiology research may be limited by inconsistent use of terms. Citations to the top twenty Google Scholar (GS) Citations Profiles were retrieved for 20 kinesiology-related subject keywords used as GS “labels”. Total citations to top scholars were largest for the disciplinary labels “physical activity,” “exercise,” “physical education,” “sport science,” “sports,” “exercise science,” “sport,” and “kinesiology.” Citations to top scholars using professional labels were in “sports medicine” and “coaching.” The results confirm previously reported trends of slow growth of use of the term kinesiology primarily in the United States even though the highest citations were to the “physical activity” focus of the field. Strong citation counts to the “exercise,” “physical education,” and “sport science” GS labels likely result from the diversity of research interests in the field throughout the world. Kinesiology-associated scholars are influential leaders contributing to a majority of highly cited research using kinesiology subdisciplinary keywords as labels in GS Profiles. The study confirmed previous research of inconsistent use of the terms “sport” and “sports.” Inconsistent use of terms and keywords are a barrier to recognition of and the search for kinesiology-related research.

show abstract