This study documented three domains of journal research quality using metrics from six major publishers and two major database services for a large sample of kinesiology-related journals: Rigor/soundness, usage, and prestige. All journal metrics were highly skewed and variable. Median acceptance rates and initial review time were consistent with rigorous peer-review. Four variables were strongly interrelated (0.849 < r < 0.963) and indicate typical usage of 1 to 3 citations for articles in these journals. The 5-year Eigenfactor Score had a relatively weaker association (0.510 < r < 0.758) with the usage metrics, supporting it as an estimate of the prestige afforded these kinesiology journals in Scopus instead of usage. Care must be taken to interpret multiple journal metrics; taking into account the skew, large variability, and confounding factors such as journal size and subject. Differences across quality domains, metrics, and bias from numerous contextual factors refute the insidious misuse of any single journal metric as quality indictor for ranking journals.