Influential literature in tennis medicine and science


  • Duane Knudson Texas State University



bibliometrics, book, citation, impact


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.


Download data is not yet available.


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. DOI:

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. DOI:

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. DOI:

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. DOI:

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. DOI:

Harzing, A-W., & Alakanagas. S. (2016). Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106, 787-804. DOI:

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. DOI:

Knudson, D. (2020). Bibliometrics of ITF Coaching and Sport Science Review. ITF Coaching & Sport Science Review, 82(28), 21-23. DOI:

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. DOI:

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. DOI:

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. DOI:

Opthof, T., Coronel, R., & Piper, H. M. (2004). Impact factors: No totum pro parte by skewness of citation. Cardiovascular Research, 61, 201-203. DOI:

Postma, E. (2007). Inflated impact factors? The true impact of evolutionary papers in non-evolutionary journals. PLoS ONE, 2(10), e999. DOI:

Seglen, P. O. (1992). The skewness of science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43(9), 628-638.<628::AID-ASI5>3.0.CO;2-0 DOI:<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. DOI:

Walters, W. H. (2009). Google scholar search performance: Comparative recall and precision. Libraries and the Academy, 9, 5-24. DOI:

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.



How to Cite

Knudson, D. (2024). Influential literature in tennis medicine and science. ITF Coaching & Sport Science Review, 32(92), 24–29.