摘要：This paper responds to the issues raised by Cardinal, Schary, and Kim (2014) regarding a recent study published in Comprehensive Psychology (Knudson, 2013a). The issues raised by Cardinal and coworkers are important and related to the misuse of bibliometrics like the impact factor, but are also consistent with the data and interpretation in the Knudson (2013a) article. Both these articles correctly point out problems with the misuse of bibliometric variables in evaluating journals and the adverse consequences this has for research in Kinesiology and other fields. More research documenting the limitations and appropriate use of bibliometrics in evaluating Kinesiology-related journals, integrated with surveys of scholars defining the field of Kinesiology and its journals, are important solutions to the problems of Kinesiology identity and impact factor obsession.
