Physical Education Pedagogy Faculty Perceptions of Journal Quality

Purpose

It is important to consider a variety of factors in evaluating journal quality and there often are consequences for publishing in various outlets (e.g., P & T). The purpose of this study was to investigate faculty perceptions of quality across journals in which physical education faculty members have published.

Methods

Participants were recruited by email from many sources, including organization distribution lists, pedagogy event lists, and by examining departmental websites for pedagogy faculty members. Physical education pedagogy faculty (N=264; 59% female) from 38 US states and 10 countries completed an online survey. The survey included 67 journals previously identified as having at least three publications by faculty in physical education pedagogy over a 10 year period across four content areas. The survey format was modeled from instruments used in other fields for rating journal knowledge, perceptions, use, and quality, and the basis for those ratings. Demographic information also was collected. A pilot study with faculty from two countries resulted in minor format and organizational changes. Data management included a number of data cross checks. Data analyses included descriptive statistics, crosstabulations, and correlations.

Analysis/Results

Select findings from the results showed that overall, participants knew about 15 journals (sd=10.57). Faculty were familiar with the largest number of journals from kinesiology (KIN, m=5.24, sd=3.96), followed by physical education (PE, m=4.45, sd=2.73), education and social science (ESS, m=3.55, sd=4.02), and health education and medical (HEM, m=1.23, sd=1.78), respectively. There was a large range for participants' knowledge about various journals. Many had knowledge of a small number of PE and KIN journals and other journals had fewer than 10 participants who knew them. Some journals were rated as high quality and there was variability in the quality ratings. Participants most often reported rating journals based on whether they were refereed, had high standards for acceptance, and high confidence levels in the content. Differences across journal ratings were found by participant's degree held as well as the highest degree offered at the participant's university. Among the many other results, there were significant relationships between knowledge of journals and the number of participant publications in the last five years (r(146) = .44, p < .0001) and total referred publications (r(152) = .47, p < .001).

Conclusions

Results from this study inform the field regarding perceived quality of journals and provides a peer assessment that can be used by scholars and administrators as a measure of journal quality.