You're staring at a journal's metrics page, coffee cooling beside your keyboard, wondering if Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise is actually worth citing — or submitting to. The impact factor stares back: 5.7. Here's the thing — or was it 6. 2 last year? Does that number even mean what you think it means?
Not obvious, but once you see it — you'll see it everywhere.
Here's the thing most researchers don't say out loud: impact factor is useful, but it's also one of the most misunderstood metrics in academic publishing. And MSSE? It's a special case.
What Is Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
MSSE is the flagship journal of the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM). In practice, published monthly since 1969, it sits at the intersection of exercise physiology, biomechanics, sports medicine, epidemiology, and behavioral science. If it moves, measures, or matters in human performance — it's probably been published here.
And yeah — that's actually more nuanced than it sounds It's one of those things that adds up..
The journal doesn't chase trends. It publishes original investigations, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and the occasional position stand that shifts entire fields. The ACSM Position Stand on Exercise and Type 2 Diabetes? MSSE. But the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans scientific foundation? Heavily drawn from MSSE pages.
Impact factor enters the chat because it's the number administrators, promotion committees, and grant reviewers reach for first. For 2023 (released June 2024), MSSE's Journal Impact Factor sits at 5.Day to day, 7. The 5-year impact factor? 6.2. Consider this: citeScore (Scopus' version) comes in around 9. 8 Small thing, real impact..
Different databases. Different denominators. Different stories.
Why the numbers don't tell the whole story
Impact factor calculates citations in Year X to articles published in Years X-1 and X-2, divided by total citable items in those two years. Simple formula. Messy reality That alone is useful..
MSSE publishes roughly 250–300 articles per year. A single highly cited review — say, on concussion protocols or mitochondrial adaptations — can nudge the number up. A year with more methodological papers? Might dip. The metric doesn't distinguish between a citation that says "this changed my practice" and one that says "this had a fatal flaw Still holds up..
And here's what most people miss: **MSSE's audience isn't just researchers.In practice, ** Clinicians, coaches, policy makers, and graduate students read it. They cite it in theses, guidelines, and continuing education materials — places traditional citation databases don't always capture.
Why It Matters / Why People Care
You care because your next promotion review cares. Or your grant application asks for "high-impact publications." Or you're deciding where to send that manuscript you've been refining for eighteen months.
The promotion committee problem
Most tenure committees still use impact factor as a proxy for quality. Here's the thing — it's lazy, but it's real. Publishing in MSSE signals: this work passed rigorous review in the field's most established journal. That signal carries weight — especially in exercise science, sports medicine, and kinesiology departments Less friction, more output..
Not the most exciting part, but easily the most useful.
But here's the honest part: **a 5.7 in oncology.Day to day, ** Field-normalized metrics exist for a reason. In real terms, 7 in sports science ≠ a 5. Think about it: citation density varies wildly across disciplines. Comparing MSSE's impact factor to Nature Medicine (87.2) tells you nothing about relative quality — only about citation culture.
The funding angle
NIH study sections, NSF panels, and private foundations all look at publication venue. Reviewers recognize it. MSSE carries institutional memory. That recognition matters when you're competing for the same pot of money as fifty other qualified applicants.
The visibility factor
MSSE articles get downloaded. A lot. The journal reports over 2 million article downloads annually. In real terms, your work reaches practitioners who'll never cite you in a paper but will change how they train athletes, prescribe exercise, or design rehab protocols. That's impact the impact factor doesn't measure.
How It Works (and How to Read the Numbers)
Let's break down what you're actually looking at when you pull up MSSE's metrics.
Journal Impact Factor (JIF) — the Clarivate version
Released annually in June via Journal Citation Reports (JCR). Calculated as:
Citations in 2023 to items published in 2021 + 2022 ÷ Total citable items published in 2021 + 2022
For MSSE 2023 JIF = 5.Worth adding: 7. Think about it: that means the average article from 2021–2022 got cited 5. 7 times in 2023 Worth knowing..
But: "Citable items" excludes editorials, letters, news items, and some reviews. MSSE publishes position stands and consensus statements that aren't counted in the denominator but do attract citations. The math gets fuzzy.
5-Year Impact Factor
Same logic, wider window. Citations in 2023 to items from 2018–2022 ÷ items from 2018–2022. MSSE's 5-year IF = 6.2.
This matters because exercise science papers have longer citation half-lives. A biomechanics methods paper might peak at year 4. The 5-year number captures that tail It's one of those things that adds up..
CiteScore (Scopus/Elsevier)
Different database, similar logic. Citations in 2023 to documents from 2020–2022 ÷ documents from 2020–2022. MSSE CiteScore 2023 ≈ 9.8 Simple, but easy to overlook. Which is the point..
Why higher? Scopus indexes more document types (conference papers, book chapters) and has broader coverage in some regions. Neither number is "wrong" — they're measuring slightly different things And it works..
Eigenfactor & Article Influence Score
These weight citations by the prestige of the citing journal. A citation from Nature counts more than one from a low-impact niche journal. MSSE's Eigenfactor typically ranks in the top 1% of its category (Sport Sciences), meaning its citations come from influential sources.
h-index (journal level)
Not the author h-index. Translation: hundreds of papers with hundreds of citations. In practice, for MSSE, that number exceeds 250. The journal h-index: MSSE has published h papers each cited at least h times. Depth, not just spikes.
How to Actually Use These Numbers (Without Getting Played)
If you're submitting a manuscript
Don't pick MSSE because of the impact factor. Pick it because:
- Your work fits the scope (human subjects, exercise/sport focus, mechanistic or applied)
- You want rigorous, fair review — MSSE's average time to first decision is ~30 days
- You value the journal's readership: researchers and practitioners
- You're okay with a rejection rate around 65–70% (it's competitive)
Pro tip: MSSE offers Registered Reports for confirmatory studies. Also, peer review happens before data collection. Accepted papers get published regardless of outcome. That's a different kind of impact — one the impact factor will catch years later.
If you're evaluating a CV
Look at the paper, not the journal badge. 8 IF journal with 80 citations changed practice. Read the abstract. Day to day, a paper in a 2. An MSSE paper with 3 citations in 5 years might be a niche methods paper. Check the citation context (Semantic Scholar, Connected Papers, or just Google Scholar "cited by") And that's really what it comes down to. Surprisingly effective..
If you're building a bibliography
MSSE
MSSE serves as a reliable anchor point. In real terms, its consistency across multiple metrics—from the 5-year impact factor to the impressive h-index—signals stability in a field prone to volatility. When compiling references for a literature review or grant proposal, prioritize MSSE articles not just for their citation counts, but for their methodological rigor and practical relevance Turns out it matters..
The journal’s emphasis on Registered Reports also means that some of its most impactful contributions may not show up immediately in traditional citation analyses. These pre-registered studies, designed to publish null or negative results, contribute to scientific integrity in ways that citation-based metrics alone cannot capture.
The Bigger Picture: Why Metrics Matter (and Don’t)
Exercise science is inherently interdisciplinary—touching kinesiology, physiology, biomechanics, nutrition, and psychology. This breadth makes citation patterns complex. Worth adding: a single paper might be cited by a physical therapist, a strength coach, and a neuroscientist, each for different reasons. Traditional metrics struggle to reflect this multifaceted influence Easy to understand, harder to ignore..
Yet, they still serve a purpose. Funding agencies use them. Also, tenure committees reference them. Promotion boards consider them. So understanding what they actually measure—and what they don’t—is crucial.
Final Thoughts: deal with with Context, Not Just Numbers
Impact factors, CiteScores, and h-indices are tools, not verdicts. In exercise and sport science, where research timelines and application paths vary widely, no single metric tells the whole story.
Use them wisely: cross-reference, contextualize, and always read the paper. Because ultimately, it’s not the journal that makes the discovery—it’s the people behind it Which is the point..
