Influential literature in tennis medicine and science
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52383/itfcoaching.v33i92.489Keywords:
bibliometrics, book, citation, impactAbstract
This study examined the most influential peer-reviewed journal articles and books in tennis medicine and science based on citations (C). Systematic searches were performed to extract authors, titles, year, journal, C, and research focus for the top cited publications indexed in Google Scholar (GS). The top 100 articles had high numbers of citations (85 to 1,164) and citation rates (3 to 41 C/year) that were similar between tennis medicine and science, with fewer citations to tennis books. The influence of tennis research has increased over the last decade, with citations and citation rates were higher than was previously reported (Knudson, 2012). The study confirmed important research topics and journal outlets and identified influential authors. Influential tennis research continues to focus on injuries, physiological and psychological factors, with recent increases in analytics and business aspects of the sport.
Downloads
References
Cross, R., Pollard, G. (2009). Grand slam men’s singles tennis 1991-2009 serve speeds and other related data. ITF Coaching & Sport Science Review, 15(49), 8-10.
Crespo, M., & Over, S. (2010). ITF Coaching and Sport Science Review: A analysis of 17 years—50 Números. ITF Coaching & Sport Science Review, 50(18) 32-33.
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, 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1087/20130206 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1087/20130206
Gehanno, J-F., Takahashi, K., Darmoni, S., & Weber, J. (2007). Citation classics in occupational medicine journals. Scandinavian Journal of Work and Environmental Health, 33(4), 245-251. https://www.jstor.org/sTabla/40967650 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.1139
Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N.R. (2020). What academic search systems are suiTabla for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods, 11, 181-217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378
Haddaway, N.R., Collins, A.M., Coughlin, D., & Kirk, S. (2015). The role of Google Scholar in evidence reviews and its applicability to grey literature searching. PLoS ONE, 10(9), e0138237. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138237 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138237
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 DOI: 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, 787-804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9
Knudson, D. (2015). Evidence of citation bias in kinesiology-related journals. Chronicle of Kinesiology in Higher Education, 26(1), 5-12.
Knudson, D. (2012). Citation classics in tennis medicine and science. Journal of Medicine & Science in Tennis, 17, 118-122.
Knudson, D. (2019). Judicious use of bibliometrics to supplement peer evaluations of research in kinesiology. Kinesiology Review, 8, 100-109. https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2017-0046 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2017-0046
Knudson, D. (2020). Bibliometrics of ITF Coaching and Sport Science Review. ITF Coaching & Sport Science Review, 82(28), 21-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52383/itfcoaching.v28i82.18
Knudson, D., & Myers, N. L. (2021). A bibliometric analysis of the Journal of Medicine & Science in Tennis. Journal of Medicine & Science in Tennis, 26(1), 15-21.
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, 1160-1177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002 DOI: 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, 871-906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4 DOI: 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, 2105-2125. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20677 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20677
Opthof, T., Coronel, R., & Piper, H. M. (2004). Impact factors: No totum pro parte by skewness of citation. Cardiovascular Research, 61, 201-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardiores.2003.11.023 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardiores.2003.11.023
Postma, E. (2007). Inflated impact factors? The true impact of evolutionary papers in non-evolutionary journals. PLoS ONE, 2(10), e999. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000999 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000999
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 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199210)43:9<628::AID-ASI5>3.0.CO;2-0
Schultz, M. (2007). Comparing test searchers in PubMed and Google Scholar. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 95, 442-445. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.95.4.442 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.95.4.442
Walters, W. H. (2009). Google scholar search performance: Comparative recall and precision. Libraries and the Academy, 9, 5-24. https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.0.0034 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.0.0034
Yuhuan, L. (2016). Bibliometric analysis of the sport core periodicals scientific literature of tennis research in recent ten years. Contemporary Sports Technology, 14, 159-160.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Duane Knudson
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
