INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KINESIOLOGY IN HIGHER EDUCATION

https://doi.org/10.1080/24711616.2022.2111284

RESEARCH

Top Google Scholar Citations to Kinesiology-Related Terms

Duane Knudson
Department of Health & Human Performance, Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Keywords are important bibliometric tools for classifying, accessing, Discipline; exercise science;
and summarizing research. Citations to the top 10 Google Scholar (GS) keyword; physical activity;
Profiles were retrieved for 20 kinesiology-related subject labels/key­ sport
words. Total citations to top scholars were largest for the disciplinary
keywords “physical activity,” “exercise,” “physical education,” “sport
science,” “sports,” “exercise science,” “sport,” and “kinesiology.”
Citations to top scholars using professionally aligned keywords 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” keyword that is the focus of the field in the United
States. Strong citation counts to the “exercise,” “physical education,”
and “sport science” keywords likely result from the diversity of
research interests in the field throughout the world. Inconsistency of
citation and use of keywords and bibliometric subject areas contribute
to slow recognition and access to kinesiology research.

Kinesiology is a diverse and interdisciplinary field focused on all forms of physical activity/
human movement (Knudson & Brusseau, 2021; Newell, 2021). Throughout most of the
world this discipline developed from physical education programs in higher education
institutions (Renson, 1989). The great diversity of human physical activity, and in the
academic and physical cultures across the world contribute to several problems for the
field. Problems like clear identity/mission, inconsistent terminology, and limited scholarly
visibility of kinesiology in academe.
Kinesiology programs reside in a wide variety of university structures (departments,
schools, and colleges) that influence their work. In the United States universities must
report data using a classification of instructional code (CIP) that often has financial and
other unintended consequences of specific codes (Knudson, 2016). This inconsistent iden­
tify and focus of kinesiology is apparent in diverse terminology (Knudson, 2019a; Starosta &
Petryuski, 2007) and the long history of controversy over department/unit names and
mission (e.g., Greendorfer, 1987; Janz et al., 1989; Newell, 1990; Renson, 1989; Rikli,
2006; Sage, 2013; Starosta, 2001; Twietmeyer, 2012).
Kinesiology has become the main term for the study of physical activity in higher
education and doctoral programs in the United States (AKA, 2022; Hoffman, 2009;
Morrow & Thomas, 2010; NAK, n.d.; Reeve, 2007). Surveys have indicated the percentage
of department names using kinesiology grow from 17–20% (Custonja et al., 2009; Hoffman,

CONTACT Duane Knudson dk19@txstate.edu Department of Health & Human Performance, Texas State University,
601 University Drive, San Marcos, TX 78666.
© 2022 The National Association for Kinesiology in Higher Education
2 D. KNUDSON

2009, 2011) to about 50% (Mahar & Crenshaw, 2015). In addition, the majority (55%) of
doctoral program in United States come from departments with kinesiology in the depart­
ment name (Challis, 2021). While this is a majority, there remain large percentages of
physical activity research published under other terms like human movement, exercise and
sport science, physical education, and sports medicine (Custonja et al., 2009; Starosta,
2001).
Most searches for scientific literature begin with electronic bibliometric databases that
often return records based on citation patterns, associated subject areas, and keywords.
Journals and research records are assigned to specific subject areas by each database, but
these are not consistent across databases, particularly in kinesiology (Colakovac & Barkovic,
2022; Knudson, 2022). A study of coverage and subject categories of 100 kinesiology journals
in the prestigious Clarivate Web of Science™ found bias in indexing, coverage, citations, and
31 assigned subject categories (Knudson, 2022). Both authors and scholars can use keywords
and subject areas/categories to help access relevant research, so specific keywords related to
kinesiology are therefore important to the visibility and use of research by scholars both in
and beyond the field (Knudson, 2015c, 2022; Morrow & Thomas, 2010; Rikli, 2006).
Google Scholar (GS) is the most comprehensive bibliometric database service in the
world, covering substantially more peer-reviewed publications than subscription databases
(Delgado-Lopez-Cozar & Cabezas-Clavjo, 2013; Gusenbauer, 2019; Halevi et al., 2017:
Harzing & Alakanagas, 2016; Martin-Martin et al., 2018, 2021; Meho & Yang, 2007). This
great coverage makes GS an important supplement to many disciplinary and multidisci­
plinary curated databases, especially since about half of all databases correctly apply Boolean
logic operators and other limiting features involving quotations, wildcards, and truncation
in searches (Gusenbauer & Haddaway, 2020).
The great coverage of GS comes, however, at a cost of extra effort in sorting for relevant
records and the limited ability to download results (Delgado-Lopez-Cozar & Cabezas-
Clavjo, 2013; Martin-Martin et al., 2021; Meho & Yang, 2007). Searches of GS will return
a total count of all records found but will only display the top 1000 publications based on
their page rank algorithm that closely follows the number of citations to each publication
(Rovira et al., 2019). GS does provide users a “key words” feature to assist in classifying,
sorting, and storing records relevant to their research. Registered GS users who are authors
can also create a GS Profile that collects citation data and provides some curation/record
correction features (Google Scholar, n.d.). GS uses “labels” to attach keywords to research
reports and authors can use them to specify their fields of study or areas of research interest.
Registered GS users can create up to five labels describing their research interests and can
use multiple words for each. For example, kinesiology-related labels in GS could be “label:
physical_activity” or “label:physical_education.”
The extensive, multidisciplinary coverage of GS makes it an attractive source to explore
keywords and GS Profile labels related to kinesiology. What kinesiology-related keywords
are most well cited for scholars with a GS Profile and what does this tell us about the foci and
recognition of kinesiology? This descriptive study explored the current visibility of major
kinesiology-related keywords using citation data from GS Profiles. This study was impor­
tant to gauge the visibility of the multiple visions of kinesiology to the academic world
through analysis of bibliometric keywords. This extends our knowledge beyond bias toward
recently published, biomedical, and sports medicine research in kinesiology journals
indexed by Web of Science™ (Knudson, 2022).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KINESIOLOGY IN HIGHER EDUCATION 3

Method
A person using GS can search for “label:kinesiology” to return GS Profiles of scholars that self-
identify as researchers in the field. The returned profiles are presented in descending order of
total GS citations. Multiple searches of GS Profiles using 20 kinesiology-related terms/phrases
as labels were performed (Table 1). Sixteen of the terms were based on common disciplinary
names of departments from previous studies (Baker et al., 1996; Challis, 2021; Custonja et al.,
2009). The remaining four terms had more professional field alignment to allied health and
coaching. The total citations for the top 10 scholars were extracted and input into Microsoft
Excel. Searches were completed by February 19, 2022.
Descriptive statistics were calculated with JMP Pro 14 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). The
variables studied were total citations, 75th, 50th, and 25th percentile, along with M, SD, and
skew (γ). These citation variables represent the scholarly usage (Bollen et al., 2009;
Franceschet, 2010; Knudson, 2013, 2019b; Zhou et al., 2012) of research aligned with the
physical activity and human movement focus of the field. High usage in a particular keyword
or phrase is a potentially dominant research area where kinesiology scholars work and can be
influential. Given the large skew of citation data and exploratory nature of the study,
qualitative descriptions of trends of median citations to keywords were made. Results were
interpreted in context of previous commentary and studies of the preferred terms for the field.

Results
The citation data for the top 10 GS Profiles were strongly skewed, with only 2 of the 20
keywords meeting the usual standard (γ < 0.5) for no skew (Table 1). The top eight
kinesiology disciplinary keywords used by scholars in descending order by Me citations
were “physical activity,” “exercise,” “sports,” “sport science,” “sport,” “physical education,”

Table 1. Citation data for the top 10 Google Scholar (GS) profiles for Kinesiology-related subject labels.
GS label Total C 75% Me 25% M SD γ
Disciplinary keywords
Exercise Science 290,382 22,868 16,750 12,344 29,038 38,482 3.0
Exercise Sciences 13,129 2,727 786 178 1,313 1,242 0.5
Kinesiology 205,472 20,023 13,060 10,920 20,547 20,240 2.9
Human Movement 99,115 10,756 9,912 4,633 9,912 9,662 2.5
Human Movement Science 49,972 9,302 2,314 1,783 4,997 5,280 1.7
Human Movement Sciences 13,623 1,910 1,196 743 1,362 807 0.8
Human Performance 173,318 24,948 12,312 9,342 17,332 10,201 1.0
Physical Activity 1,276,174 148,177 107,208 81,596 127,617 63,918 1.7
Physical Education 424,522 35,004 22,447 18,754 42,452 59,008 3.1
Sport Science 337,831 44,416 22,949 20,954 33,783 23,147 2.1
Sports Science 145,063 18,152 13,437 9,826 14,507 5,069 0.8
Sport Sciences 142,340 19,310 10,273 8,851 14,234 8,096 1.4
Sports Sciences 158,233 19,833 10,177 6,918 15,823 14,080 2.1
Exercise 1,084,461 119,426 100,273 81,454 108,446 42,515 1.6
Sport 283,158 37,382 22,667 19,288 28,316 10,967 0.9
Sports 315,688 29,859 24,190 12,237 32,569 38,223 2.9
Professional keywords
Athletic Training 71,477 11,129 2,745 1,847 7,148 8,506 1.9
Coaching 317,364 41,781 31,249 18,550 31,736 14,454 0.5
Sport Medicine 100,097 14,157 7,145 3,952 10,010 8,884 1.6
Sports Medicine 523,084 64,249 50,219 37,686 52,308 17,368 0.6
Searches of GS on February 25, 2022 using queries like: “label:physical_activity” or “label:human_movement_science.”
4 D. KNUDSON

“exercise science,” and “kinesiology.” Top scholars linking their work to “exercise sciences,”
“human performance,” “human movement,” and “human movement sciences” had fewer
citations. Rank order of keywords by total citations were subtly different than to Me
citations because of the skew where a few scholars can dominate total citations. There
was little consistency in greater citations for singular and plural forms of general terms like
sport and science. The top scholars using more professionally aligned keywords had
citations qualitatively similar to the bottom half of the disciplinary terms, with “sports
medicine” and “coaching” having the more citations than “athletic training” or “sport
medicine” in the applied areas of the field.

Discussion
There were high citation totals to the top GS Profiles in most of the 20 kinesiology-related
keywords and the citations were highly skewed. There were large qualitative differences in
total and Me citations by the keyword selected by the scholars as one of their GS labels for
their profile. At the most general level of the single-word GS labels of exercise or sport(s);
“exercise” returned 64% and both “sports” or “sport” 36% of the total citations. The relative
size of the remaining disciplinary keywords in descending order of citations were physical
activity (38%), sport[s] sciences[s] (23%), physical education (13%), exercise science[s]
(10%), human movement/performance/science[s] (10%), and kinesiology (6%). Citations
to professional keywords were greater for athletic training/sport[s] medicine (69%) than
coaching (31%), although these applied keywords tended to receive fewer citations than
more global, disciplinary terms.
These results indicate that kinesiology used as a keyword for researchers may not have as
many citations as other common keywords used in the field, like exercise science, sport
science, or physical education. Interestingly, the most highly cited keyword used as a GS
label, and designated focus of kinesiology in North America (AKA, 2022; NAK, n.d.) was
physical activity. Perhaps the top scholars see the keyword physical activity as more
descriptive of their work or recognized than the term kinesiology. Seven of the ten GS
Profiles using kinesiology were from the United States which was consistent with the
Custonja et al. (2009) study of department names reporting greater use of kinesiology
(17%) in the United States than in Europe (3%). Citations were next most common (23%) in
the variations of sport[s] science[s] that are also more common in Europe (Baker et al.,
1996; Custonja et al., 2009; Sporis et al., 2013) than in the United States. The citations to
variations of exercise science[s] and movement/performance/science[s] were just slightly
larger than citations to the kinesiology keyword.
There was, however, inconsistency in the citations to keywords related to sport and
science (Table 1). Scholars using the most general GS label sport and sports had qualita­
tively similar citations; however, sport science had more citations (337,831) than sports
science (145,063). Sports Science and sports sciences had qualitatively similar citations
(142,340 to 158,233) to the plural use of sports science (145,063). Interestingly, the health
professional keyword sports medicine, as a GS label, had much higher citation totals
(523,084) than sport medicine (100,097). The singular and plural, usage of the terms sport
and science contribute to inconsistent usage and keyword difficulties in these areas of the
field.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KINESIOLOGY IN HIGHER EDUCATION 5

The citations to GS Profiles using kinesiology-related keywords as GS labels were

generally consistent with the five major areas of terms used in department names (exercise,
kinesiology, movement science[s], physical education, sport) reported by Custonja et al.
(2009). This diversity of terms and keywords used in kinesiology can be a barrier to
recognition of the field and its research. The slow recognition of kinesiology in higher
education is also consistent with the diversity of subject areas or categories assigned by
bibliometric databases to the field (Colakovac & Barkovic, 2022; Knudson, 2022). The lack
of a uniform classification of subject categories means kinesiology scholarship is found
under numerous medical subject headings (MeSH) in PubMed and the over 250 subject
subcategories in both GS and Web of Science. For example, the kinesiology-related GS
subcategory appears to be “Physical Education & Sports Medicine” within the “Health &
Medical Sciences” category. Research published in kinesiology journals is, of course, on
more diverse topics than health issues. The WoS and its Journal Citation Reports incon­
sistently classify research in 100 kinesiology-related journals into over 30 subject categories
(Knudson, 2022). Scholars looking for kinesiology-related research in Scopus would likely
need to use the “Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation” subject area. The
great diversity of keywords and bibliometric subject areas related to kinesiology likely
contribute to slow recognition and access to kinesiology research.
A limitation of this study was the focus on the top 10 profiles of research indexed in GS.
This does not likely bias the results because the high skew and the large percentage of
uncited articles published in journals leads bibliometric research to focus on top percentiles
of search results (Bornmann & Marx, 2014; Knudson, 2015a, 2015c, 2019b; Seglen, 1992;
Stern, 1990). There is also subjectivity in all scholar’s understanding and use of keywords for
their GS labels. In addition, GS metrics are constantly updated and it is unknown when
researchers establish profiles or which are directly affiliated with a kinesiology-related
academic unit. In addition, the citation totals studied are affected by differences in citation
patterns and rates across different disciplines (Bornmann & Marx, 2013; Leydesdorff &
Bornmann, 2011; Leydesdorff & Opthof, 2010; Owlia et al., 2011) and subdisciplines of
kinesiology (Knudson, 2014, 2015a, 2015b).

Conclusion
It was concluded that kinesiology disciplinary-related keywords used in Google Scholar
Profiles returned high citation totals, particularly for “physical activity,” “exercise,” “physi­
cal education,” “sport science,” “sport(s),” “exercise science,” and “kinesiology.” Citations to
top scholars using professionally aligned keywords were in “sports medicine” and “coach­
ing.” Variation in citation totals across numerous keywords indicates slow growth in the
recognition of kinesiology among the diversity of research interests in the field.
Inconsistency in keywords and bibliometric subject areas also contributes to slow recogni­
tion and access to kinesiology research.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
6 D. KNUDSON

ORCID
Duane Knudson http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0809-7970

References
AKA. (2022). About AKA. American Kinesiology Association. https://www.americankinesiology.org/
SubPages/Pages/About
Baker, J. A. W., Hardman, K., & Pan, D. W. (1996). Perceptions of department titles in the United
States of America and the United Kingdom. Journal of the International Council for Health,
Physical Education, Recreation, Sport and Dance, 33(1), 58–63.
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
Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2013). How good is research really? EMBO Reports, 14(3), 226–230.
https://doi.org/10.1038/embor.2013.9
Bornmann, L., & Marx, W. (2014). How to evaluate individual researchers working in the natural and
life sciences meaningfully? A proposal of methods based on percentiles of citations. Scientometrics,
98(1), 487–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1161-y
Challis, J. H. (2021). The National Academy of Kinesiology 2020 review and evaluation of doctoral
programs in kinesiology. Kinesiology Review, 10(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2020-0049
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
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.
Delgado-Lopez-Cozar, E., & Cabezas-Clavjo, A. (2013). Ranking journals: Could Google Scholar
metrics be an alternative to Journal Citation Reports and Scimago journal rank? Learned
Publishing, 26(2), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1087/20130206
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
Google Scholar. (n.d.). Google Scholar profiles. https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/citations.
html
Greendorfer, S. L. (1987). Specialization, fragmentation, integration, discipline: What is the real issue?
Quest, 39(1), 56–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1987.10483856
Gusenbauer, M. (2019). Google Scholar to overshadow them all? Comparing the sizes of 12 academic
search engines and bibliographic databases. Scientometrics, 118(1), 177–214. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11192-018-2958-5
Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020). Which 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
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
Harzing, A.-W., & Alakanagas, 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
Hoffman, S. (2011). Slowly but surely “kinesiology” gains foothold as department title. Kinesiology
Today, 4(1), 1–3.
Hoffman, S. J. (2009). What’s in a name? Kinesiology Today, 2(1), 1–2.
Janz, K. F., Cottle, S. L., Mahaffey, C. R., & Phillips, D. A. (1989). Current name trends in physical
education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 60(5), 85–93. https://doi.org/10.
1080/07303084.1989.10604462
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF KINESIOLOGY IN HIGHER EDUCATION 7

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
Knudson, D. (2014). Citation rates for highly-cited papers from different sub-disciplinary areas
within kinesiology. Chronicle of Kinesiology in Higher Education, 25(2), 9–17.
Knudson, D. (2015a). Evidence of citation bias in kinesiology-related journals. Chronicle of
Kinesiology in Higher Education, 26(1), 5–12.
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
Knudson, D. (2015c). Influential kinesiology journals: The view from outside of the field. The Physical
Educator, 72, 149–159.
Knudson, D. (2016). A classification of instructional programs (CIP) primer for kinesiology leaders.
Kinesiology Review, 5(4), 215–220. https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2016-0018
Knudson, D. (2019a). Kinesiology’s Tower of Babel: Advancing the field with consistent nomencla­
ture. Quest, 71(1), 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2018.1492427
Knudson, D. (2019b). 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
Knudson, D. (2022). What kinesiology knowledge is most visible to the academic world? Quest, 74(3),
285-298. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2022.2092880
Knudson, D. V., & Brusseau, T. (Eds.). (2021). Introduction to kinesiology (6th ed.). Human Kinetics.
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
Leydesdorff, L., & Opthof, T. (2010). Scopus’s 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
Mahar, M. T., & Crenshaw, J. T. (2015). AKA salary survey 2015. American Kinesiology Association.
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
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
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
Morrow, J. R., & Thomas, J. R. (2010). American Kinesiology Association: A national effort to
promote kinesiology. Quest, 62(1), 106–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2010.10483635
NAK. (n.d.). Kinesiology: The discipline and related professions. National Academy of Kinesiology.
https://nationalacademyofkinesiology.org/SubPages/Pages/What%20is%20Kinesiology
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
Newell, K. M. (2021). Reflections on research in kinesiology. Kinesiology Review, 10(3), 350–356.
https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2021-0031
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
Reeve, T. G. (2007). Kinesiology: Defining the academic core of our discipline. Quest, 59(1), 1–4.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2007.10483531
Renson, R. (1989). From physical education to kinanthropology: A quest for academic and profes­
sional identity. Quest, 41(3), 235–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1989.10483973
8 D. KNUDSON

Rikli, R. (2006). Kinesiology—A “homeless” field: Addressing organization and leadership needs.
Quest, 58(3), 287–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2006.10491884
Rovira, C., Codina, L., Guerrero-Sole, F., & Lopezosa, C. (2019). Ranking by relevance and citation
counts, a comparative study: Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, WoS, and Scopus. Future
Internet, 11(9), 202. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi11090202
Sage, G. H. (2013). Resurrecting thirty years of historical insight about kinesiology: A supplement to
“What is kinesiology? Historical and philosophical insights.” Quest, 65(2), 133–138. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00336297.2013.773534
Seglen, P. O. (1992). The skewness of science. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science, 43(9), 628–638. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199210)43:9<628::AID-
ASI5>3.0.CO;2-0
Sporis, G., Badric, M., Prskalo, I., & Bonacin, D. (2013). Kinesiology-systematic review. Sport Science,
6(1), 7–23.
Starosta, W. (2001). Human movement—Meaning, name, directions of development. Journal of
Human Kinetics, 6(1), 3–22.
Starosta, W., & Petryuski, W. (2007). Selected problems in international terminology of the human
movement science. Kinesiology, 39(1), 5–14.
Stern, R. E. (1990). Uncitedness in the biomedical literature. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science, 41(3), 193–196. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199004)41:3<193::
AID-ASI5>3.0.CO;2-B
Twietmeyer, G. (2012). What is kinesiology: Historical and philosophical insights. Quest, 64(1), 4–23.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2012.653268
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