Article Productivity Among the Faculty of Criminology and Criminal Justice Doctoral Programs, 2010–2014

One important dimension of the quality of a graduate program is the quality of its faculty. Previous assessments of the publication productivity of criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) faculties have been needlessly incomplete and narrow, reflecting publications only in a small number of CCJ journals. Assessments covering only CCJ journals fail to reflect the multi-disciplinary nature of CCJ and bias results against programs whose most productive scholars publish in non-CCJ journals. The present research covers the full array of major journals in which CCJ-related research appears, by searching for articles using the Web of Science and ProQuest databases. This article is an update of two previous evaluations, covering 2000–2004 and 2005–2009. Based on article counts, the most productive faculties are those of Sam Houston State University, Florida State University and the University of Cincinnati. The article also summarizes changes in rankings of CCJ programs from 2000 through 2014.     

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.     

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.     

What Journals are the Most Cited Journals in Criminology and Criminal Justice’s “Big Three” Journals?

Recently, scholars have sought to learn more about scholarly activity within the fields of criminology and criminal justice (CCJ). Research in this area has examined which departments have the most productive faculty, which scholars are the most productive, and which journals are the most prestigious. However, no study of which we are aware has determined what journals criminologists are most likely to cite in their scholarly research. In this study, we rank the most influential journals by the number of times those journals were cited between 2009 and 2013 in Criminology, the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, and Justice Quarterly. Our analyses suggest that Criminology is clearly the most influential CCJ journal in terms of citations, while the American Sociological Review, the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, and the American Journal of Sociology remain influential in CCJ as well.     

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.     

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.     

Academic Integrity and Distance Learning∗

The present study examines research trajectories of 20 academic “stars” relative to scholarship in 20 prominent and 7 elite criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) journals. We employ a modest subset of career concepts (frequency, specialization, seriousness, and co‐offending) to identify divergent pathways open to CCJ professionals as they begin work in academe or subsequently shape more mature careers. Findings suggest that research productivity varies depending on the measure utilized (e.g., type of outlet; weighted or unweighted; standardized or unstandardized). Different measures of central tendency provide different snapshots of institutional output. Publication frequencies are found to be far greater among stars employed at Carnegie Research I institutions. Regarding research type‐mix, the stars tend to be more eclectic than specialized, with indications of a relationship between number of articles published and breadth of topic areas. Future directions for research are also discussed.     

Publication Productivity of Criminologists

This article investigates the number of publications of thousands of members of the American Society of Criminology (ASC) in hundreds of journals listed in the Criminal Justice Periodical Index (CJPI). Publications in 2004–2005 of ASC members in 2005, and publications in 2010–2011 of ASC members in 2011, were investigated. Only ASC members who were considered to be “at risk” of publishing in Criminology and Criminal Justice (CCJ) journals were included. About one-third of ASC members published at least one CJPI article in 2004–2005, but this increased to one-half by 2010–2011. The number of articles published per year by those who published any articles also increased, from 1.0 in 2004–2005 to 1.4 in 2010–2011. The number of articles published in the 26 most central CCJ journals also increased, by about 75%. The most-published scholars in the first time period were Alex R. Piquero, Brian K. Payne, Francis T. Cullen, David W. Webb, and Julian V. Roberts; the most-published scholars in the second time period were Alex R. Piquero, Kevin M. Beaver, Wesley G. Jennings, George E. Higgins, and Matthew J. Delisi. Alex R. Piquero was the most prolific publisher on all measures in both time periods. Female scholars were more likely to appear among the most-published scholars in the second time period.     

Gender Composition of Editors and Editorial Boards in Seven Top Criminal Justice and Criminology Journals from 1985 to 2017

This paper examines the gender composition of editors and editorial board members of seven top criminal justice and criminology (CCJ) journals from 1985 through 2017. The findings indicate that women have historically been, and continue to be, underrepresented in these positions. From 1985 through 2017, women comprised 14% of all Editors-in-Chief, 27% of all Associate Editors, and 22% of all Editorial Board members. While there was a period during the early 2000s when Justice Quarterly and Criminology achieved gender parity in representation across all of the editorial roles, this equality was short lived. The other journals have never achieved gender parity, and, on average, women have comprised 3.8% to 35.2% of the editorial positions at each of the journals. The implications of this imbalance for women’s scholarship and professional success are discussed, and recommendations for changes to CCJ journal policies and practices to ensure more equity are provided.     

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.     

中国会计研究国际化的回顾——来自国外期刊分析的证据

本文基于国际六大财会期刊2002～2009年的1499篇论文,分析了国外期刊的期数、作者数、独著与合著以及研究领域,得出国际财会期刊严把论文质量,追踪会计学术热点且研究领域分布稳定的结论。建议中国学者追踪当下会计学术热点,实现研究与实际工作的衔接,深入开展管理会计研究,强化合作研究团队建设,循序渐进地提升中国会计研究的学术影响力。     

Kinesiology Faculty Citations Across Academic Rank

Citations to research reports are used as a measure for the influence of a scholar’s research line when seeking promotion, grants, and awards. The current study documented the distributions of citations to kinesiology scholars of various academic ranks. Google Scholar Citations was searched for user profiles using five research interest areas related to kinesiology. Total Google Scholar Citations, rank, and country were collected for 741 scholars from 68 countries. Citation data for all ranks had large positive skews and wide variation, so percentile data were reported for scholars from four English-speaking countries with large numbers of Google Scholar Citations profiles (n = 233). There was a significant difference in the distribution of citations across the top three academic ranks. The current data provide confirmatory information on kinesiology scholar research influence from English-speaking countries, which can be used to supplement peer-evaluation of the research reports themselves.     

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.     

Where is the Research on Community College Students?

An understanding of where community college scholarship is published can be beneficial to practitioners seeking to identify and use scholarly evidence to support policies and programs that promote student success. Such an understanding will also benefit aspiring and new scholars seeking to identify community college scholarship. Unfortunately, there has been little effort to document journal characteristics of scholarship focused on community college students. The present study identified, reviewed, and described community college student scholarship published in P–20 education journals between 1990 and 2014. The study also examined trends over time in journals publishing articles focused on community college students. We found a sizable increase in scholarly work published in education journals since 1990—in particular within the past several years. Importantly, results also revealed an underrepresentation of empirical work focused on community college students published in P–20 education, top-tier, and open access journals. A discussion of implications for practice and recommendations for future research was also provided.     

Contemporary Classics? The Early Onset of Influence of Articles Published in Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals, 2010–2015

Citation analysis is a valuable method for tracking the growth and transmission of scientific knowledge. In criminology and criminal justice, such analyses tend to be focused on “classic” works or on highly cited scholars over many years. As an alternative approach, we focus on work that has been cited rather quickly – what we term the “early onset” of impact. In doing so, we identified 221 of the most highly cited peer-reviewed articles, authored by 480 scholars, which were published in criminology and criminal justice journals between 2010 and 2015. Analyses reveal wide variation in substantive topics and methodological approaches, as well as a substantial gender gap with respect to authorship. Additional analyses provide insight into both journal and institutional/program prestige. We conclude with directions for future research and stress the importance of tracking over time articles that appear to be off to an early start with respect to scholarly impact.     

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.     

Illuminating the (in)visibility of female scholars: a gendered analysis of publishing rates within educational technology journals from 2004 to 2015

This research study utilized bibliometric methods to analyze publication rates among female and male lead authors in six prominent, peer-reviewed journals in Educational Technology (ET) fields over the past 12 years. The aim of the inquiry was to determine if differences or trends exist in the number of articles published by each gender. Data analysis revealed notable differences in publication rates between genders, and key findings indicate that while women overall published less than half of the articles from all journals sampled, two journals with a focus on primary and secondary (P-12) educational contexts have consistently published more articles written by female lead authors than male authors. The findings of this study hold practical relevance in terms of addressing the (in)visibility of female scholars in ET fields and may be used to promote discussions and actions related to the intersections between gender, equity, and the culture of scholarly publishing.     

跨学科研究对美国顶尖教育学院青年学者科研产出的影响

本研究以美国排名前十教育学院2009年至2019年取得博士学位的青年教师为例，分析跨学科研究的学科知识整合度对其在WoS索引期刊发表论文的数量和影响力的作用关系。多元线性回归模型分析结果显示，跨学科研究的学科知识整合度对学者在WoS索引期刊发表论文的数量以及高被引数量具有显著的正面促进作用，即高跨学科知识整合度带来高产量和高影响力。本研究认为，提升以扩展学科跨度和广度为要点的跨学科研究整合能力是提高青年学者科研产出与效果的重要策略。同时，也要从组织层面进行优化，打破学科壁垒，基于以问题为导向的社会需求逻辑建构跨学科研究组织；改革人才培养模式，优化课程设计体系，保障跨学科人才供给。