Bibliographic record
Abstract
I am thrilled to report on the progress of the American College of Sports Medicine’s (ACSM) newest journal, Exercise, Sport, and Movement (ESM). After one full year of publishing, it’s incredible to see how far we’ve come in such a short time. In July 2023, I assumed the role of interim Editor-in-Chief (EIC). I sincerely thank our inaugural EIC, Gary Liguori, whose leadership established a strong foundation for great success for years to come. From him, I inherited a brilliant team of associate editors (AEs), including my two associate EICs, Katrina D. DuBose, Ph.D., FACSM, and Kimberley L. Way, Ph.D., AES-AEP (ESSAM). We recently welcomed two new AEs, Jenevieve L. Roper, Ph.D., CSCS, FACSM, and Celina H. Shirazipour, Ph.D., who will handle our growing submissions in biomechanics and physical activity in those with cancer and disabilities. We are all grateful to our dedicated editorial board for their thoughtful and timely reviews and to the ACSM leadership team, including our outstanding managing editor, Stephanie Custer, for their full support. When I tell people about ESM, the first question I get is, what’s the scope? My answer: all things related to exercise, sport, and movement in basic, clinical, and applied science. The scope is intentionally broad because it helps uphold our commitment to inclusive excellence. Diverse perspectives promote better solutions, and although we welcome all contributions, we are especially interested in publishing papers on topics that have traditionally been excluded from the scientific conversation. We have stacked our leadership team with diverse expertise to handle these essential contributions. We are particularly proud of our papers on Native American cancer survivors (1), sex differences in sports performance (2), and menopause in master athletes (3). We are also proud to be ACSM’s premier open-access journal where everyone anywhere can access the science we publish. We continue to uphold the highest standards in publishing that researchers have come to expect from ACSM and are leading the way in scientific transparency. We are the first ACSM publication to accept registered reports, a model allowing researchers to publish their methods before conducting their study. Methods are reviewed by our team of experts who provide thorough yet rapid feedback, and if the research is completed as planned, the results will be published regardless of the outcome. I see this as a fantastic option for student-led research projects, and I am hoping to offer incentives for student-led papers. We are committed to making science more accessible. Science communication is a personal passion of mine. I believe science should be accessible to everyone, and our open science practices certainly help with this. An essential piece of accessible scientific communication is the way in which information is conveyed. They say a picture is worth a thousand words—images can distill complex scientific concepts, making them easier to understand and remember. This is the purpose of our graphical reviews—brief visual summaries of essential topics in exercise, sport, and movement that can be understood by all. Some of our recent graphical reviews include the following timely and important topics: Resistance training (4) Climate change (5) Dementia (6) My student and I authored this last one; it was a great capstone project for her thesis. Graphical reviews also provide an excellent resource for teachers and clinicians to facilitate knowledge exchange with students and patients. AE L. Bruce Gladden, Ph.D., FACSM, is the brainchild behind our graphical reviews and welcomes new ideas—please reach out at [email protected]. Another meaningful way we are making science more accessible is by enhancing the shareability of our research beyond the walls of academia. Students are at the leading edge of disseminating science via multiple media outlets, and our Digital Editor, Emily F. Blake, MPH, a Ph.D. student at the University of Maryland, has raised the profile of ESM across social media to promote the fantastic research published in our journal. We are currently expanding our digital media team to launch a podcast series. Students interested in joining our digital media team should reach out to [email protected]. I couldn’t be happier with ESM’s progress so far. Guided by the principles of inclusive excellence, scientific transparency, and accessible communication, this is just the beginning of a long and successful journey in publishing the latest and greatest research in exercise, sport, and movement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.193 | 0.134 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".