facing a fast-changing world with “no change”
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria]On: 21 December 2014, At: 18:26Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Click for updates
Research Quarterly for Exercise and SportPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urqe20
Facing a Fast-Changing World With “No Change”Weimo Zhua
a Editor-in-ChiefPublished online: 20 Nov 2014.
To cite this article: Weimo Zhu (2014) Facing a Fast-Changing World With “No Change”, Research Quarterly for Exercise andSport, 85:4, 427-428, DOI: 10.1080/02701367.2014.965550
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2014.965550
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
EDITORIAL
Facing a Fast-Changing World With “No Change”
My, how time flies! It is hard to believe that this issue
represents the long, honorable 85-year journey of Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport (RQES)! So many things
have changed during the past 85 years, and we are now
facing a new world with an even faster-changing pace. The
editorial team of RQES has been working hard to meet the
needs of this new world. From the December 2013 issue to
the September 2014 issue, we have organized a series of
discussions/debates on what is effective teaching in physical
education and how it should be measured and evaluated.
The discussions/debates have been well received.
In addition, the new “Top 10 Research Questions” section,
in which a total of seven articles were published since
the last December issue, was also a great success. After
providing a thorough review, a group of top scholars clearly
described many important and needed research questions in
specific research areas and called for more studies. There
should now be no excuse of “I couldn’t find an interesting
research question” for young scholars and graduate
students!
To meet the changing world, we also created another new
section called “New Research Highlights, Trends, and
Technology” in RQES starting in this issue. The article by
Little and Francois was selected as the first in this section.
In it, the authors summarize the latest effort to integrate a
new training method (high-intensity interval training) and
technology (continuous glucose monitoring) to understand
and battle type 2 diabetes, one of the most rapidly spreading
modern, “civilized” diseases.
What is the best way to deal with a fast-changing world?
This is a question we all have to think about these days.
Interestingly, philosophers in ancient China had faced a
changing world and provided their wisdom and advice on
how to deal with the changes. One of the best-known Tao
strategies in dealing with change is, in fact, to make no
change. The true meaning of “no change” in dealing with
constantly changing situations is to hold to a set of fixed
principles. What is the “no change” principle to which an
academic journal should adhere? High quality of scholar-
ship, I think, because that is the foundation of any academic
journal. How then can the quality of a journal be controlled,
improved, measured, and judged?
Three pieces published in this issue address these
questions to some degree. The first one, by Welk et al., is the
RQES editorial board’s position statement regarding journal
impact factors (IFs). IF was developed initially in the 1960s
to help libraries determine which journals to purchase, but it
was, somehow, inappropriately developed as a measure of
the quality of academic journals, and in turn, it became a
tool to evaluate the scholarship of individuals or institutions.
As a result, it is now often inappropriately used or even
abused. Due to its known limitations (e.g., accounting only
for the information in 2 preceding years), the impact factor
itself is not scientifically approved. How can a measure be
used to evaluate the quality of others if the measure itself
has a significant deficiency? To address the concern, a group
of scholars and academic journals developed a declaration
in December 2012 and called for downplaying the role of IF
in assessing the quality of research. Many individual
scholars and academic journals have signed the declaration
to express their support. I am pleased to report that RQES
also supports the declaration and has become perhaps the
first kinesiology journal to take a strong, supportive position
for the declaration.
The second piece is Jerry R. Thomas’s article on
improved data reporting in RQES. It is great to see scholars
in kinesiology, such as Thomas, who recognize the
limitations of p value-based statistical reasoning and call
for computing the effect size and interpreting the statistical
findings based on the effect size from a long time ago.
Although it pleases me to see that we have made progress in
statistical reporting in RQES, I have to say that statistical
reporting within the kinesiology research community in
general is still in very poor shape, and “sadly, the earth is
still round p , .05” (Zhu, 2012b)! Open any kinesiology
academic journal, and one can easily find inappropriate
p value-based reporting and interpretation of statistical
findings. Worse yet, some journals/authors these days report
only the p value without any other necessary information
(neither descriptive statistics [e.g., mean and standard
deviation] nor statistics themselves [e.g., t value or F value])
at all. With that kind of practice, I am afraid that much of the
information generated is simple “statistical noise,” which
will make little or no contribution to our knowledge and
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 85, 427–428, 2014
Copyright q SHAPE America
ISSN 0270-1367 print/ISSN 2168-3824 online
DOI: 10.1080/02701367.2014.965550
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
AM
Ciu
dad
Uni
vers
itari
a] a
t 18:
26 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014
understanding in kinesiology. Along with p value abuse,
many similar problems exist in examining and reporting
statistical assumptions (Chen & Zhu, 2001) and measure-
ment practice (Zhu, 2012a, 2013), which all could
potentially threaten the quality of our research studies.
I am working with the editorial board to develop more
detailed quantitative and qualitative report guidelines for
RQES, and I hope to further improve the quality of research
reporting in RQES in a consistent way.
Finally, the third piece is Mark G. Fischman’s thoughts
and reflections on the article about peer review by Knudson,
Morrow, and Thomas (2014). Fischman further reminds us
of the importance of collected efforts in improving
scholarship and knowledge generated through publications
by scholars. The few people involved in the review process,
especially reviewers and associate editors, are the keys to
quality control and valuable information generated for an
academic journal. Their time and contributions should be
valued, appreciated, and well recognized. Therefore,
I would like again to take this year-end issue opportunity
to thank all reviewers, associate editors, and editorial
members who were involved in the review and quality-
control process of RQES during this past year, especially
Drs. Noreen Goggin at Texas Tech University, Li Li at
Georgia Southern University, Mark Loftin at University of
Mississippi, Bryan McCullick at University of Georgia,
Tom Raedeke at East Carolina University, and Joonkoo Yun
at Oregon State University, who just finished their
appointments as associate editors, and Drs. Hans van der
Mars at Arizona State University and Gregory Welk at Iowa
State University, who just finished their appointments as
editorial board members. You are the backbone of RQES.
Thank you!
REFERENCES
Chen, A., & Zhu, W. (2001). Re-visiting the assumptions for inferential
statistical analyses: A tutorial for data analysis in physical education
research. Quest, 53, 418–439.
Knudson, D. V., Morrow, J. R. Jr., & Thomas, J. R. (2014). Advancing
kinesiology through improved peer review. Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport, 85, 127–135.
Zhu, W. (2012a). ‘17% at or above the 95th percentile’—What is wrong
with this statement? Journal of Sport and Health Science, 1, 67–69.
Zhu, W. (2012b). Sadly, the earth is still round ( p,0.05). Journal of Sport
and Health Science, 1, 9–11.
Zhu, W. (2013). Reliability: What type, please! Journal of Sport and Health
Science, 2, 62–64.
Weimo Zhu
Editor-in-Chief
428 W. ZHU
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
UN
AM
Ciu
dad
Uni
vers
itari
a] a
t 18:
26 2
1 D
ecem
ber
2014