Synthesis of Publication Metrics in Kinesiology-Related Journals: Proxies for Rigor, Usage, and Prestige

References

• Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & DiCosta, F. (2023). Correlating article citedness and journal impact: An empirical investigation by field on a large-scale dataset. Scientometrics, 128(3), 1877–1894. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04622-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aksnes, D. W., Langfeldt, L., & Wouters, P. (2019). Citations, citation indicators, and research quality: An overview of basic concepts and theories. SAGE Open, 9(1), 215824401982957. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019829575
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alder, R., Ewing, J., & Taylor, P. (2008). Citation statistics. Joint Committee of Quantitative Assessment of Research, International Mathematical Union. https://www.mathunion.org/fileadmin/IMU/Report/CitationStatistics.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Althouse, B. M., West, J. D., Bergstrom, C. T., & Bergstrom, T. (2009). Differences in impact factor across fields and over time. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(1), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20936
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amin, M., & Mabe, M. B. (2003). Impact factors: Use and abuse. Medicina, 63(4), 347–354. http://www.scielo.org.ar/pdf/medba/v63n4/v63n4a11.pdf
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrews, D. L., Silk, M., Francombe, J., & Bush, A. (2013). Mckinesiology. Review of Education, Pedagogy, & Cultural Studies, 35(5), 335–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714413.2013.842867
   Google Scholar
• Barendse, W. (2007). The strike rate index: A new index for journal quality based on journal size and the h-index of citations. Biomedical Digital Libraries, 4(1), Ar3. https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-5581-4-3
   Google Scholar
• Bjork, B.-C. (2019). Acceptance rates of scholarly peer-reviewed journals: A literature survey. El Profesional de la Information, 28(3), e280407. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2019.jul.07
   Google Scholar
• Bollen, J., Rodriguez, M. A., & Van de Sompel, H. (2006). Journal status. Scientometrics, 69(3), 669–687. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0176-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bollen, J., Van de Sompel, H., Hagberg, A., Chute, R., & Mailund, T. (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. (2011). Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 45(1), 197–245. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112
   Google Scholar
• Bornmann, L. (2017). Confidence intervals for journal impact factors. Scientometrics, 111(3), 1869–1871. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2365-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brembs, B. (2018). Prestigious science journals struggle to reach even average reliability. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 12, Ar37. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00037
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campanario, J. M. (2018). Journals that rise from the fourth quartile to the first quartile in six years or less: Mechanisms of change and the role of journal self-citations. Publications, 6(4), 47. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications6040047
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cardinal, B. J. (2013). Judicious use of journal impact factors and the preservation of our fields of study. The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 84(2), 7–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2013.757172
   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(Suppl. 2), S122–S134. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2005.10599294
   PubMed 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cobey, K. D., Lalu, M. M., Skidmore, B., AHmadazai, N., Grudniewicz, A., & Moher, D. (2018). What is a predatory journal? A scoping review. F1000research, 7, 1001. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15256.1
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Croux, C., & Dehon, C. (2010). Influence functions of the Spearman and Kendall correlation measures. Statistical Methods & Applications, 19(4), 497–515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10260-010-0142-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Custonja, Z., Milanovic, D., & Sporis, G. (2009). Kinesiology in the names of higher education institutions in Europe and the United States of America. Kinesiology, 41(2), 136–146. https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/70891
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dang, Y. (2006). Fluctuation analysis of discipline development based on impact factor. Scientometrics, 67(2), 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0092-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Declaration on Research Assessment. (2013). San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. https://sfdora.org/read
   Google Scholar
• Dorta-Gonza´lez, P., & Dorta-Gonza´lez, M. I. (2013). Comparing journals from different fields of science and social science through a JCR subject categories normalized impact factor. Scientometrics, 95(2), 645–672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0929-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dougherty, M. R., & Horne, Z. (2022). Citation counts and journal impact factors do not capture some indicators of research quality in the behavioural and brain sciences. Royal Society Open Science, 9(8), 220334. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.220334
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egghe, L. (2022). Impact measures: What are they? Scientometrics, 127(1), 385–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04053-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Equator Network. (n.d.). Enhancing the quality and transparency of health research. https://www.equator-network.org/
   Google Scholar
• Finardi, U. (2014). On the time evolution of received citations in different scientific fields: An empirical study. Journal of Informetrics, 8(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.10.003
   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
• 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
• Gau, L.-S. (2013). Trends and topics in sports research in the social science citation index from 1993 to 2008. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 116(1), 305–314. https://doi.org/10.2466/30.03.PMS.116.1.305-314
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glanzel, W., & Moed, H. F. (2002). Journal impact measures in bibliometric research. Scientometrics, 53(2), 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014848323806
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gorraiz, J., Ulrych, U., Glanzel, W., Arroyo-Machado, W., & Torres-Salinas, D. (2022). Measuring the excellence contribution at the journal level: An alternative to Garfield’s impact factor. Scientometrics, 127(12), 7229–7251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04295-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haghdoost, A., Zare, M., Bazrafshan, A., & David Stuart, D. (2014). How variable are the journal impact measures? Online Information Review, 38(6), 723–737. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-05-2014-0102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hallonsten, O. (2021). Stop evaluating science: A historical-sociological argument. Social Science Information, 60(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018421992204
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helmer, S., Blumenthal, D. B., & Paschen, K. (2020). What is meaningful research and how should be measure it? Scientometrics, 125(1), 153–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03649-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429–431. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffman, S. (2011). Slowly but surely “kinesiology” gains foothold as department title. Kinesiology Today, 4(1), 1–3.
   Google Scholar
• Hopkins, W. G. (2021). Journal CiteScores 2017-2019. Sportscience, 21, i. http://sportsci.org/2021/inbrief.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Huang, T.-Y., & Yang, L. (2022). Superior identification index: Quantifying the capability of academic journals to recognize good research. Scientometrics, 127(7), 4023–4043. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04372-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knudson, D. (2007). Prestige of sport biomechanics serials. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference of Biomechanics in Sports (pp. 374–376). https://ojs.ub.uni-konstanz.de/cpa/article/view/487
   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). Characteristics of English-language traditional and open access kinesiology and sport journals. Medicina Sportiva, 18(4), 179–184. https://doi.org/10.5604/17342260.1133109
   Google Scholar
• Knudson, D. (2014b). 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. (2015a). 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. (2015b). Evidence of citation bias in kinesiology related journals. Chronicle of Kinesiology in Higher Education, 26(1), 5–12.
   Google Scholar
• Knudson, D. (2015c). Influential kinesiology journals: The view from outside of the field. The Physical Educator, 72, 149–159.
   Google Scholar
• Knudson, D. (2019). Judicious use of bibliometrics to supplement peer evaluations of research in kinesiology. Kinesiology Review, 8(2), 100–109. https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2017-0046
   Google Scholar
• Knudson, D. (2022). What kinesiology research is most visible to the academic world? Quest, 74(3), 285–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2022.2092880
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knudson, D., & Chow, J. (2008). North American perception of the prestige of biomechanics serials. Gait & Posture, 27(4), 559–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2007.07.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knudson, D. V., Morrow, J. R., Jr., & Thomas, J. R. (2014). Advancing kinesiology through improved peer review. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 85(2), 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2014.898117
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koelblinger, D., Zimmermann, G., Weineck, S. B., Kiesslich, T., & Albuquerque, U. P. (2019). Size matters! Association between journal size and longitudinal variability of the journal impact factor. PLoS ONE, 14(11), e0225360. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225360
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koslow, R. D., & Nix, C. (1989). Publishing and presenting your research: A guide for physical educators. Physical Educator, 46(3), 166–168.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22784
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leta, J., & Rosa, S. (2012). Trends in scientific publications in physical education: A multifaceted field? Journal of Science Communication, 11(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.11010203
   Google Scholar
• Leydesdorff, L. (2009). How are new citation-based journal indicators adding to the bibliometric toolbox? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(7), 1327–1336. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21024
   Web of Science ®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. (2016a). Citations: Indicators of quality? The impact fallacy. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 1, Ar1. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2016.00001
   Google Scholar
• Leydesdorff, L., Wouters, P., & Bornmann, L. (2016b). Professional and citizen bibliometrics: Complementarities and ambivalences in the development and use of indicators—A state-of-the-art report. Scientometrics, 109(3), 2129–2150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2150-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahar, M. T., & Crenshaw, J. T. (2015). AKA salary survey 2015. American Kinesiology Association.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, B. R. (1996). The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research. Scientometrics, 36(3), 343–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02129599
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mason, S., & Singh, L. (2022). When a journal is both at the ‘top’ and the ‘bottom’: The illogicality of conflating citation-based metrics with quality. Scientometrics, 127(6), 3683–3694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04402-w
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mckiernan, E. C., Scimanski, L. A., Nieves, C. N., Matthias, L., Niles, M. T., & ALperin, J. P. (2019). Use of the journal impact factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations. eLIFE, 8, e47338. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.47338
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menke, J., Roelandse, M., Burak, O., Martone, M., & Bandrowski, A. (2020). The rigor and transparency index quality metric for assessing biological and medical science methods. iScience, 23(11), 101698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2020.101698
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miranda, M. A., & Mongeau, D. (1991). An evaluation of journals in physical education, athletics, and sports. The Serials Librarian, 21(1), 89–113. https://doi.org/10.1300/J123v21n01_07
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moed, H. F. (2017). Applied evaluative informetrics. In W. Glanzel & A. Schubert (Series Eds.), Qualitative and quantitative analysis of scientific and scholarly communication. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60522-7
   Google Scholar
• National Academy of Kinesiology. (n.d.). Kinesiology: The discipline and related professions. National Academy of Kinesiology. 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/10.80/00336297.1990.10483999
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ogden, T. L., & Bartley, D. L. (2008). The ups and downs of journal impact factors. Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 52(2), 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/men002
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Olive, R., Townsend, S., & Phillips, M. G. (2022). ‘Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted’: Searching for the value of metrics and altmetrics in sociology of sport journals. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 58(3), 431–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/10126902221107467
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2020). How to avoid borrowed plumes in academia. Research Policy, 49(1), 103831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.103831
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pajic, D. (2015). On the stability of citation-based journal rankings. Journal of Informetrics, 9(4), 990–1006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.08.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park, R. J. (1980). The Research Quarterly and its antecedents. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 51(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1980.10609272
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park, R. J. (2005). “Of the greatest possible worth”: The Research Quarterly in historical contexts. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 76(Supl. 2), S5–S26. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2005.10599286
   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
• Roldan-Valadez, E., Salazar-Ruiz, S. Y., Ibarra-Contreras, Ibarra-Contreas, C., & Ibarra-Contreras, R. (2019). Current concepts on bibliometrics: A brief review about impact factor, Eigenfactor score, CiteScore, SCImago Journal Rank, Source-Normalized Impact per paper, H-index, and alternative metrics. Irish Journal of Medical Science, 188(3), 939–951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-018-1936-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowlands, I. (2018). What are we measuring? Refocusing on some fundamentals in the age of desktop bibliometrics. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 365(8), fny059. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fny059
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Safrit, M. J., & Patterson, P. (1986). Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport survey. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 57(2), 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1986.10762184
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schimanski, L. A., & Alperin, J. P. (2018). The evaluation of scholarship in academic promotion and tenure process: Past, present, and future. F1000 Research, 7, 1605. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.16493.1
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schubert, A., & Glazel, W. (1983). Statistical reliability of comparisons based on the citation impact of scientific publications. Scientometrics, 5(1), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02097178
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seglen, P. O. (1992). The skewness of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43, 628–638. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-457(1199210)43:9<628:AID-ASI5>3.0.CO;2-0
   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), 497–497. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497
   Google Scholar
• Setti, G. (2013). Bibliometric indicators; Why do we need more than one? IEEE Access, 1, 232–246. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2013.2261115
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siler, K., Lee, K., & Bero, L. (2015). Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(2), 360–365. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1418218112
   PubMed Web of Science ®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
• Singh, G., Haddad, K. M., & Chow, C. W. (2007). Are articles in “top” management journals necessarily of higher quality? Journal of Management Inquiry, 16(4), 319–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492607305894
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sperka, L., & Phillips, M. G. (2022). Vistas of the field: Examining quality indicators of health and physical education journals. Sport, Education and Society, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2022.2096585
   Google Scholar
• Starbuck, W. H. (2005). How much better are the most-prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication. Organization Science, 16(2), 180–200. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0107
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sugimoto, C. R., & Larivière, V. (2018). Measuring research: What everyone needs to know®. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-064012-5. https://doi.org/10.1093/wentk/9780190640118.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Sugimoto, C. R., Larivière, V., Ni, C., & Cornin, B. (2013). Journal acceptance rates: A cross-disciplinary analysis of variability and relationships with journal measures. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 897–906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.08.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teixeria da Silva, J. A. (2017). The journal impact factor (JIF): Science publishing’s miscalculating metric. Academic Questions, 30(4), 433–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12129-017-9671-3
   Google Scholar
• Tourish, D., & Willmott, H. (2015). In defiance of folly: Journal rankngs, mindless measures and the ABS guide. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 26, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2014.02.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsigilis, N., Grouios, G., Tsorbatzoudis, H., & Koidou, I. (2010). Impact factors of the sports 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
• Vanclay, J. K. (2009). Bias in the journal impact factor. Scientometrics, 78(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-1778-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanclay, J. K. (2012). Impact factor: Outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification. Scientometrics, 92, 211–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0561-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viiu, G.-A., & Paunescu, M. (2021). The lack of meaningful boundary differences between journal impact factor quartiles undermines their independent use in research evaluation. Scientometrics, 126(2), 1495–1525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03801-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villasenor-Almaraz, M., Islas-Serrano, J., Murata, C., & Roldan-Valadez, E. (2019). Impact factor correlation with Scimago Journal Rank, Source Normalized Impact per Paper, Eigenfactor Score, and CiteScore in radiology, nuclear medicine, & medical journals. La Radiologia Medica, 124(6), 495–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-019-00996-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagner, U. (2016). The publishing game: The dubious mission of evaluating research and measuring performance in a cross-disciplinary field. Scandinavian Sport Studies Forum, 7(1), 63–88.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, D. A. (2003). JMASM9: Converting Kendall’s Tau for correlation or meta-analytic analyses. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 2(2), 525–530. https://doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1067646360
   Google Scholar
• Waltman, L. (2016). A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informatics, 10(2), 354–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2013). Source normalized indicators of citation impact: An overview of different approaches and an empirical comparison. Scientometrics, 96(3), 699–716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0913-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waris, A., Ahmad, S., Isam, C., Abdel-Magid, M., & Hussain, A. (2017). Comparison among journal quality indicators of sports science journals. Library Herald, 55(3), 338–351. https://doi.org/10.5958/0976-2469.2017.00032.X
   Google Scholar
• Welk, G., Fischman, M. G., Greenleaf, C., Harrison, L., Ransdell, L., van der Mars, H., & Zhu, W. (2014). Editorial Board position statement regarding the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) recommendations with respect to journal impact factors. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 85(4), 429–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2014.964104
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• West, J., Bergstrom, T., & Bergstrom, C. T. (2010). Big Macs and Eigenfactor scores: Don’t let correlation fool you. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(9), 1800–1807. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21374
   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
• Willmott, H. (2011). Journal list fetishism and the perversion of scholarship: Reactvity and the ABS list. Organization, 18(4), 429–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508411403532
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilsdon, J., Allen, L., Belfiore, E., Campbell, P., Stephen Curry, S. H., Jones, R., Kain, R., Kerridge, S., Thelwall, M., Jane Tinkler, I. V., Wouters, P., Hill, J. & Johnson, B. (2015). The metric tide: Report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management. Higher Education Funding Council for England. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473978782
   Google Scholar
• Wu, L., Kittur, A., Youn, H., Milojevic, S., Leahey, E., Fiore, S. M., & Ahn, Y.-Y. (2022). Metrics and mechanisms: Measuring the unmeasurable in the science of science. Journal of Informetrics, 16(2), 101290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2022.101290
   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/10.1088/1367-2630/14/3/033033
   Google Scholar