This study documented the citations, citation rates, and citation bias variables for the top 50 cited articles in English-language Kinesiology journals (N = 100) as indexed by Google Scholar (GS). Total citations, citation rate, and the percentage of the total citations for that journal in the top twenty percent of the sample for each journal were identified by searchers of GS, as well as the ... [Show full abstract] percentage of uncited papers over three years was extracted from SCImago Journal and Country Rank. There was consistent evidence of citation bias in these Kinesiology journals with all journals having positively skewed citation distributions. The mean number of citations to the top 20 percent of the top 50 articles was 41 percent of the total citations and the mean percentage of uncited articles in these journals over three years was 44 percent. These skewed citation distributions and high rates of uncited articles supports the hypothesis of citation bias in Kinesiology journals. These data call into question common metrics based on citations for these English-language Kinesiology journals because these metrics will not be representative of the majority of articles published in that journal over the same time period. Kinesiology faculty should not focus on where research is published, but evaluate quality based on a critical evaluation of the individual scholarly articles themselves.