h-Index and m-Quotient Benchmarks of Scholarly Impact in Criminology and Criminal Justice: A Preliminary Note

Because Scopus and metrics like the h-index and m-quotient have become increasingly popular for assessing the impact of social science scholarship, criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) departments may be tempted to use those metrics when making important decisions like tenure and promotion. However, since no discipline-wide standards based on those metrics yet exist, CCJ departments have no comparative basis for interpreting the results of citation analyses of a particular faculty member’s scholarship. To identify what a set of disciplinary standards might look like, we used Scopus and calculated mean and median h-index and m-quotient values for faculty members (n?=?504) in CCJ Ph.D. granting departments (n?=?35) by rank and for editorial board members (n?=?91) of Criminology, Justice Quarterly, and the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. Our results illustrate how comparative disciplinary standards could be developed and used by those in CCJ departments to assess the impact of faculty members’ scholarship.     

Criminology and Criminal Justice Hit Parade: Measuring Academic Productivity in the Discipline

Previous research assessing the productivity of criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) scholars has sought to determine the overall most productive scholars based on various measures (e.g. total articles published, total cites, and articles per year). While such lists may be important for those who rank high, they may be best used to establish benchmarks for the discipline. To date, research examining the stars in CCJ has focused on overall stars. The aim of the current research is to highlight the most productive scholars (in CCJ doctoral programs), but to do so based on academic rank. As such, our sample is more inclusive than others that have assessed highly productive scholars in the field. By disaggregating productivity measures by academic ranks, it is possible to determine rising stars in the discipline as well as top stars overall. Additionally, and we think more importantly, such rankings give insights into the state of the discipline.     

Invisible Colleagues: The Informal Organization of Knowledge Production in Criminology and Criminal Justice

This study seeks to shed light on the informal process of knowledge production in criminology and criminal justice by examining acknowledgements in journal publications. Studying the structure of research collaboration among scholars may enhance our understanding of the discipline’s organization. We test hypotheses derived from prior research by analyzing acknowledgements in 786 articles from five journals in criminology and criminal justice over the last five years. As anticipated by the “invisible college” hypothesis, criminology and criminal justice scholarship contains a small group of individuals who receive a disproportionate share of acknowledgements. Additionally, we find that higher ranked and more productive scholars are awarded more acknowledgements than their lower ranked and less productive counterparts. Integrating acknowledgements as an unofficial assessment tool may improve the collective endeavor of contemporary science in our field. Overall, the influence of the “invisible colleagues,” measured by acknowledgements, demonstrates the value of collaboration in the process of knowledge production.     

Changes in Scholarly Influence in Major American Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals Between 1986 and 2005

To investigate changes in scholarly influence in criminology and criminal justice over 20 years, the most‐cited scholars in six major American journals were determined for 2001–05, and the results were compared with those obtained for 1996–2000, 1991–95, and 1986–90. The most‐cited scholars in 2001–05 were Robert J. Sampson in American criminology journals and Francis T. Cullen in American criminal justice journals. Highly cited scholars in American criminology journals focused on longitudinal/criminal career research and/or criminological theories, while those in American criminal justice journals focused on these topics or on criminal justice issues. Some highly cited authors were specialized, with one or two highly cited major works, while others were versatile, with many different works cited a few times each. Over time, older scholars such as Marvin E. Wolfgang were cited less often, while younger scholars such as Robert J. Sampson were increasingly cited. The waxing and waning of criminological influence careers are documented.     

A study on the attitudes and experiences of chairpersons in American Criminology and Criminal Justice Programs

Building on Todd Clear’s () recent declaration that academic criminal justice has come of age, this study examines chairs in American criminology and criminal justice programs. By way of survey, chairpersons (n?=?78) randomly selected from programs across the United States were questioned in a number of areas related to their positions. The study finds that chairs in these programs are struggling with the same concerns as chairs in other academic disciplines (i.e., competing roles and job‐related stress). As such, while many of them are fairly satisfied with their positions, most of them plan on returning to the faculty once their term is completed. Based on the results of the research, there were two clear implications. First, because of the onerous time demands, young scholars are to be discouraged from taking on significant administrative responsibilities until they have been promoted, tenured, and have achieved some level of accomplishment within the discipline. Second, scholars who are currently chairs and have ambitions of moving through the administrative ranks should be encouraged to do so. As more criminologists progress through the administrative ranks, it is anticipated that the discipline will be viewed and treated more favorably within American universities.     

Press Rankings in Criminology/Criminal Justice: A Preliminary Assessment of Book Publisher Quality

This research examined press rankings in criminology and criminal justice (C/CJ). Based on a large sample of respondents (N = 812) from the American Society of Criminology and the American Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, the authors solicited quality and familiarity rankings on 81 presses that publish in the area of C/CJ. The research revealed that university presses such as Oxford, Cambridge, University of Chicago, and Harvard University dominated the quality rankings. On the other hand, commercial academic presses such as McGraw‐Hill, Sage, and Prentice‐Hall dominated the familiarity rankings. Commercial academic presses including Prentice‐Hall and Sage were the presses most desired by scholars for future book publishing plans. The authors also discuss the significance of the findings for faculty in C/CJ.     

A Content Analysis of Ethnographic Research Published in Top Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals from 2000 to 2009

Despite qualitative research having much to offer to the understanding and prevention of crime, academic research in criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) is primarily quantitative. The relatively limited amount of ethnographic research in the field contributes to difficulties in understanding what represents sound ethnographic designs and the most appropriate ways to present such information. The current study examines the relative frequency with which ethnographic research appears in CCJ journals, and more importantly, the content of these articles. We find that less than 4% of all research published in 15 top CCJ journals use ethnographic methods. We present patterns about the methodological (e.g., sample size, type of data collection, and characteristics of participants) and stylistic (writing style, discussion of coding, and policy recommendations) content of these articles. We conclude with implications for our findings and point to substantive areas of research that may need more attention.     

The Invisible Scholar: Authors of Legal Scholarship in Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals

This study assesses the authorship of legal scholarship within 20 criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) journals from 2005 to 2015, examining trends over time and variation across journals in the prevalence of sole-authorship and the mean number of authors and identifying the most prolific authors of legal scholarship published in CCJ journals. The study thus sheds light on the extent of collaboration among CCJ legal scholars and identifies CCJ legal scholars who have remained largely invisible due to their focus on a marginalized subfield.     

The Current State of Criminological Research in the United States: An Examination of Research Methodologies in Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals

A recurring concern within criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) is how to best investigate criminological theory and criminal justice policy. To assess the current state of research, we conducted a content analysis of articles that appeared in seven CCJ journals over a two-year period (2013–2014). We then examined types and frequencies of data sources, analytic techniques, methodological approaches, and subject matters. Findings demonstrate that articles are predominantly employing quantitative methodologies and data where there is no participant contact. From these findings, we discuss the current state of research and how this could be used to guide graduate education, by recommending a variety of subject matters that graduate schools should emphasize in training new academics.     

Striking Out on Its Own: The Divergence of Criminology and Criminal Justice from Sociology

As education budgets shrink and interest in criminal justice at the collegiate level expands, large classes are being implemented in colleges and universities that traditionally have offered only small ones. If increasing criminal justice class sizes are inevitable, it is crucial that we gain an understanding of how large classes are currently taught and the extent to which these teaching techniques are employed in large criminal justice classes. This paper reports on an exploratory survey of criminal justice programs that ascertained the extent to which large classes are being offered, the organization of these courses, and how they are evaluated. These data enable us to identify current practices, speculate on the future of large classes in the criminal justice field and let us document how university/college characteristics are related to the prevalence, structure, and nature of large courses.     

Criminology/Criminal Justice Representation in the Discipline of Sociology: Changes between 1992 and 2002

This paper examines changes in the representation of criminology, as an area of specialization, in the discipline of sociology between 1992 and 2002. Utilizing the ASA Guide to Graduate Programs in Sociology, we note faculty areas of specialization. We expect that criminology will appear more often as a specialty area in 1992 than 2002. All full‐time faculty in U.S. graduate programs in sociology are included in the analyses. We found no significant change in listing criminal justice as a specialty between 1992 and 2002. Our findings suggest that faculty with terminal degrees from less prestigious institutions and those who teach in less prestigious institutions are more likely to list criminology as a specialty area.     

Persona Non Grata: The Marginalization of Legal Scholarship in Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals

Recently, concern has been voiced within the academy regarding the marginalization of legal scholarship within the criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) discipline. Although conventional wisdom and anecdotal evidence indicate that it is difficult to get legal scholarship published in CCJ journals, there is a dearth of empirical evidence on the representation of legal scholarship in CCJ journals. The present study assesses the representation of legal scholarship in 20 CCJ journals from 2005 to 2015, examining both trends over time and variation across journals. Findings indicate legal scholarship comprises a very small portion of articles published, there has been a steep decline in the number of legal articles published in recent years, and the average number of legal articles per year is very low for nearly all of the journals in the sample. The implications of the marginalization of legal scholarship within the CCJ discipline are discussed.     

刑事审判中心主义完善研究

当前,我国审判中心主义在实施过程中的问题突显,侦查中心主义、庭前法官预断、行政干预司法审判等问题日益严重。而司法实务中这些都在影响司法审判中心主义的践行,同时也反映出司法审判中的刑事诉讼模式所存在的问题。为推动审判中心主义在司法审判中的进程,以拓宽审判中心主义在我国实现的路径,应采取以下措施:从证据审查、平衡控辩主体双方地位为庭审实质化提供保障,防止其流于形式;以原始证据原则保证法官审判中接触的证据材料是最具真实性、权威性的;采用"法官庭前不确定"方法及庭前不接触原则来阻断庭前预断;通过实行法官责任制来增加违法成本消弭行政权的干扰。     

Perceptions on the Trend of Multi-Authored Collaboration: Results from a National Survey of Criminal Justice and Criminology Faculty

Perceptions of the collaborative research trend and personal rationales for authorship collaboration were examined in a sample (n?=?542) of Criminal Justice and Criminology faculty members. Collaboration was pervasive across the sample with approximately half reporting that collaboration was involved in a majority of their published works. Generally, collaboration is perceived to be a combination of social research networks and more pragmatic concerns (ease of collaboration and increasingly diminishing time to do research due to university obligations). Results are disaggregated by academic rank, research orientation, and collaboration involvement. Preliminary evidence of a “culture of collaboration” is presented and discussed.     

大学的有效领导--《大学运行模式--大学组织与领导的控制系统》述评

在《大学运行模式——大学组织与领导的控制系统》一书中，“大学的领导”是贯穿始末的重要问题。基于大学的组织特性，大学的领导具有不同于其它组织领导的特征。如何使大学的领导趋于有效，可以考虑控制性的领导与管理；领导者的复杂化与正确学习；平衡管理。作者的思想对于我们研究大学的领导问题具有借鉴意义，同时也有其局限性。     

Interaction of Imposter Phenomenon and Research Self-Efficacy on Scholarly Productivity

Research self-efficacy, imposter phenomenon, and scholarly productivity were explored among a sample of 247 counselor educators. In most cases, feeling like an imposter hindered scholarly productivity; however, the interaction of a moderate to frequent amount of imposter feelings with high research self-efficacy increased scholarly productivity.     

Faculty Diversity and Program Standing in Criminology and Criminal Justice: Findings for 31 Doctoral Programs in 2008

Ashby's Law of Requisite Variety states that variance prepares systems for daily activities and unforeseeable events, suggesting that academic departments comprising faculty from multiple institutions and disciplines would better adapt to ever‐changing environments. This study outlines the disciplinary heritage of full‐time tenure‐stream faculty (N = 495) within criminology and criminal justice doctoral programs (N = 31), then examines the degree to which those programs adhere to Ashby's principle. The study ranks programs on both institutional and disciplinary variances, and how well the programs balance those competing interests. Findings revealed that programs were quite mixed on both variance measures but that variance rankings had little association with how peers rated programs for 2009, in that highly ranked programs appeared with similar frequencies at both the top and bottom of variance rankings. Thus, it appears national respect is not dependent on the variance of faculties with respect to institutional and disciplinary heritage.     

Changes in the Most-Cited Scholars and Works Over 25 Years: The Evolution of the Field of Criminology and Criminal Justice

Cohn and Farrington’s work in citation analysis has examined scholarly influence within criminological research for over 25 years. The current analysis tracks the ten most-cited scholars and each scholar’s most-cited works in four international criminology journals and six American criminology and criminal justice journals over twenty-five years and five time periods—1986–1990, 1991–1995, 1996–2000, 2001–2005, and 2006–2010. This approach extends the traditional approach to citation analysis by documenting increases and decreases in individual citation careers as well as in the most-cited scholarly contributions of the most-cited scholars during a period of significant growth in criminology. The most-cited works mostly fall within the areas of developmental and life-course criminology and criminal careers, reflecting the importance of these topics in criminology.     

Perceptions of the Trend of Collaborative Publications: Results from a Survey of Criminal Justice and Criminology Department Chairs

Department heads are unique academic positions which can bridge the worlds of faculty and administration. As such, they are sometimes in the unique position where their perceptions and experiences can have real-world impact in the realm of assessing a colleague’s work, tweaking departmental policies of promotion and advancement, and mentoring. While faculty members of all levels have opinions of collaboration, department heads are the leaders who can actually act upon those perceptions, yet these perceptions have not been examined. This study addresses this gap in a survey of Criminal Justice and Criminology department heads (n?=?73). The survey varied authorship order, journal prestige, medium of journal, and also examined co-author prestige. In addition, 12 years of 20 criminal justice journals were coded for solo-authored publications. Results demonstrated differential publication trends between top tier and lower tiered journals, and that department heads attributed these trends as a combination of increasing social research networks and more pragmatic concerns. Of particular interest, is the differential value respondents placed on solo-authored work and collaborative work even when taking into consideration prestige of the journal.