Prestige of Kinesiology Journals Across General Research Areas Using Google Scholar Metrics

Abstract

Scholars often select journal outlets for their research based on subjective perceptions of prestige and journal metrics. Potential differences in prestige-associated journal metrics across general research areas were examined in kinesiology-related journals. A sample of 136 unique kinesiology-related journals was identified through Google Scholar Metrics (GSM) searches across 15 general research areas in 2024. The GSM 5-year Hirsch index (GSh5) was compared across research areas using a subsample of journals linked to multiple research areas. Journal prestige estimated by GSh5 and the other metrics had strong positive skew and outliers. Median GSh5 showed significant, large differences (d = 1.39) across research areas within the field. These differences across research areas were also observed in other metrics and were reinforced by moderate-to-large associations among them. The difference in median prestige from smallest to largest across research areas ranged from an unrealistic factor of 3.6 to 51. Given the substantial positive skew, outliers, differing metrics, timeframes, and databases, and large prestige differences across research areas in this study, interpreting journal prestige metrics is difficult in an interdisciplinary field like kinesiology. While it is best to avoid evaluating kinesiology research by a journal's prestige alone; judicious, evidence-based use of multiple journal prestige metrics may supplement scholars' perceptions of prestige when selecting journals.