Most Influential Scholars in Criminology and Criminal Justice, 1986-2020 3031235959, 9783031235955

Citation preview

SpringerBriefs in Criminology Ellen G. Cohn · David P. Farrington · Guy C.M. Skinner

Most Influential Scholars in Criminology and Criminal Justice, 1986-2020

SpringerBriefs in Criminology

SpringerBriefs in Criminology present concise summaries of cutting edge research across the fields of Criminology and Criminal Justice. It publishes small but impactful volumes of between 50-125 pages, with a clearly defined focus. The series covers a broad range of Criminology research from experimental design and methods, to brief reports and regional studies, to policy-related applications. The scope of the series spans the whole field of Criminology and Criminal Justice, with an aim to be on the leading edge and continue to advance research. The series will be international and cross-disciplinary, including a broad array of topics, including juvenile delinquency, policing, crime prevention, terrorism research, crime and place, quantitative methods, experimental research in criminology, research design and analysis, forensic science, crime prevention, victimology, criminal justice systems, psychology of law, and explanations for criminal behavior. SpringerBriefs in Criminology will be of interest to a broad range of researchers and practitioners working in Criminology and Criminal Justice Research and in related academic fields such as Sociology, Psychology, Public Health, Economics and Political Science.

Ellen G. Cohn • David P. Farrington Guy C. M. Skinner

Most Influential Scholars in Criminology and Criminal Justice, 1986-2020

Ellen G. Cohn Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice Florida International University Miami, FL, USA

David P. Farrington Institute of Criminology University of Cambridge Cambridge, UK

Guy C. M. Skinner Research and Evidence Directorate The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust London, UK

ISSN 2192-8533     ISSN 2192-8541 (electronic) SpringerBriefs in Criminology ISBN 978-3-031-23595-5    ISBN 978-3-031-23596-2 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23596-2 © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

This book documents the most-cited scholars in major criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) journals, and their most-cited works, over a 35-year period. It is based on the belief that the most-cited scholars also tend to be the most influential in the field. Three series of longitudinal analyses are described: (1) the most-cited scholars in four international journals from 1986–90 to 2016–20, (2) the most-cited scholars in six American journals from 1986–90 to 2016–20; and (3) the most-cited scholars in 20 American and international journals from 1990 to 2020. We studied citations in a small number of the most prestigious CCJ journals in order to overcome the many problems (described in Chap. 1) of using large-scale online sources of citations such as Web of Science, Google Scholar, or Scopus. The main strength of our research lies in its careful checking and correcting of citations, its exclusion of self-citations, and its longitudinal comparative analyses (using exactly the same methods) over a 35-year period. Circumstances were very different when we began our research in 1988. There was no Internet and very little interest in citation analysis or any other research on scholarly influence in criminology and criminal justice. In the past 35 years, there has been a massive increase in interest in research on scholarly influence in general and citation analysis in particular. The Internet and the various electronic resources that are now available make large-scale citation analyses a lot easier, but such analyses are typically full of problems and errors, many of which have been corrected in our analyses. We trace the waxing and waning of scholarly influence over time, as older scholars such as Marvin E.  Wolfgang give way to younger scholars such as Robert J. Sampson, who in turn are now being usurped by still younger scholars such as Alex R.  Piquero. We carried out this research without funding because we were curious about the results. Citation research is highly controversial. While many scholars are fascinated by the results, others (especially those who are not highly cited) are very hostile to citation analysis. Nevertheless, it is clear that citation analysis is very important, and it has the advantage of being a scientific, objective, and quantitative technique. The raw data (citations in journals) are freely available to anyone who wishes to replicate our analyses. However, researchers should be v

vi

Preface

warned that there were well over 500,000 cited scholars in nine major CCJ journals during our 35-year period. We hope that readers will find our results fascinating. We are very grateful to Maureen Brown for providing excellent secretarial assistance. Miami, FL, USA Cambridge, UK London, UK October 2022

Ellen G. Cohn David P. Farrington Guy C. M. Skinner

Contents

1

 Citation Analysis in Criminology and Criminal Justice����������������������    1 1.1 Overview������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    1 1.2 Uses of Citation Analysis������������������������������������������������������������������    2 1.3 Sources of Data ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������    3 1.4 Cohn and Farrington’s Citation Research ����������������������������������������    4 1.5 Most-Cited Scholars and Works in Four Major International Journals������������������������������������������������������������������������    4 1.6 Most-Cited Scholars and Works in Six Major American Journals����������������������������������������������������������������������������    8 1.7 Most-Cited Scholars and Works in 20 Journals��������������������������������   11 1.8 Criminal Career Concepts in Citation Analysis��������������������������������   14 1.9 Limitations of Citation Analysis ������������������������������������������������������   15 1.10 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   15 References in the Text��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   16

2

Methodology ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   21 2.1 Selecting a Source of Citation Data��������������������������������������������������   21 2.2 Journal Selection������������������������������������������������������������������������������   23 2.3 Selecting Four International Journals ����������������������������������������������   24 2.4 Selecting Six American Journals������������������������������������������������������   24 2.5 Selecting 20 American and International Journals����������������������������   26 2.6 Obtaining the Citation Data��������������������������������������������������������������   27 2.7 Counting Citations����������������������������������������������������������������������������   29 2.8 Limitations of This Methodology ����������������������������������������������������   30 2.9 Strengths of This Methodology��������������������������������������������������������   31 2.10 The Current Research ����������������������������������������������������������������������   32 References in the Text��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   32

3

 Most-Cited Scholars in Four International Journals ��������������������������   35 3.1 Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology (ANZ)����������   35 3.2 British Journal of Criminology (BJC)����������������������������������������������   36 3.3 Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice (CJC)��������   40 vii

viii

Contents

3.4 Criminology (CRIM)������������������������������������������������������������������������   41 3.5 Most-Cited Scholars in all Four Journals������������������������������������������   45 3.6 Most-Cited Works of the Most-Cited Scholars��������������������������������   48 3.7 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   48 References in the Text��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   53 4

Most-Cited Scholars in Six American Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals����������������������������������������������������������������   55 4.1 Journal of Quantitative Criminology (JQC)��������������������������������������   55 4.2 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency (JRCD)������������������   58 4.3 Justice Quarterly (JQ) ����������������������������������������������������������������������   60 4.4 Journal of Criminal Justice (JCJ)������������������������������������������������������   62 4.5 Criminal Justice and Behavior (CJB)�����������������������������������������������   63 4.6 Most-Cited Scholars in Six American Journals��������������������������������   67 4.7 Most-Cited Works of the Most-Cited Scholars��������������������������������   71 4.8 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   73 References in the Text��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   74

5

 Most-Cited Scholars in 20 Journals ������������������������������������������������������   75 5.1 Citations in 20 Journals��������������������������������������������������������������������   75 5.2 Most-Cited Scholars in Each Journal������������������������������������������������   77 5.3 Most-Cited Scholars in Groups of Five Journals������������������������������   77 5.4 Most-Cited Scholars in Groups of 10 Journals ��������������������������������   81 5.5 Most-Cited Scholars in all 20 Journals ��������������������������������������������   84 5.6 Most-Cited Works of the Most-Cited Scholars��������������������������������   87 5.7 Prevalence, Frequency, Specialization, and Versatility ��������������������   87 5.8 Conclusion����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   90 References in the Text��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   92

6

Conclusions����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   93 6.1 The Main Contribution of this Book������������������������������������������������   93 6.2 Policy Implications ��������������������������������������������������������������������������   94 6.3 The Way Forward������������������������������������������������������������������������������   97 6.4 Final Conclusions�����������������������������������������������������������������������������   99 References in the Text��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   99

References ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  101 Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  109

About the Authors

Ellen G. Cohn  is Associate Professor of Criminal Justice and an affiliated faculty member in Women’s Studies at Florida International University. Her research focuses primarily on the effect of weather, spatial, and temporal variables on crime and criminal behavior as well as the relationship between immigration and involvement in crime. David P. Farrington  O.B.E., is Emeritus Professor of Psychological Criminology at the Institute of Criminology, Cambridge University. His major research interest is in developmental criminology, and he is Director of the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development, which is a prospective longitudinal survey of over 400 London males from age 8 to age 61. In addition to 905 published journal articles and book chapters on criminological and psychological topics, he has published 132 books, monographs, and government publications, and 164 shorter publications (total = 1201). Guy  C.  M.  Skinner  is a Postdoctoral Research Associate at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust and a Visiting Researcher at the Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Cambridge University. He completed his PhD in Psychological Criminology at the Institute of Criminology, Cambridge University. He is an experienced mixed methods practitioner with a particular interest in life course approaches and developmental criminology, using linked data, longitudinal approaches, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

ix

Chapter 1

Citation Analysis in Criminology and Criminal Justice

1.1 Overview Our purpose in writing this book is to create a comprehensive documentation of the prestige and influence of scholars and works in the field of criminology and criminal justice (CCJ), as well as changes in influence and prestige over a period of 35 years, based on citation analysis. This book builds upon decades of research we have conducted in the field of citation analysis. Our previous research has examined changes within and across specific time periods and across a wide range of major CCJ journals, examining citations in a variety of CCJ journals beginning in 1986. Our most recent book, Most-Cited Scholars in Criminology and Criminal Justice, 2006–2010 (Cohn, Farrington, & Iratzoqui, 2014) focused on citations in major journals in 2006–10, comparing them to previous years from 1986–90 onwards. The current book updates and extends the prior research to citations in 2016–20, to examine changes over a longer time period, in groups of 4 major international CCJ journals, 6 major American CCJ journals, and 20 major international and American criminology and criminal justice journals. Our analysis covers 35 years of data (1986 through 2020) on the most-cited scholars in these major journals. This chapter reviews the importance of citation research as a means of examining prestige and influence in CCJ, including studies using citation analysis to evaluate scholars, journals, published works, and university departments. More specifically, this chapter describes existing studies that used the methodology we developed, and provides a sense of direction for our current research on the most-cited scholars in American and international criminology and criminology justice journals from 1986 to 2020.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. G. Cohn et al., Most Influential Scholars in Criminology and Criminal Justice, 1986-2020, SpringerBriefs in Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23596-2_1

1

2

1  Citation Analysis in Criminology and Criminal Justice

1.2 Uses of Citation Analysis Citation analysis provides an objective quantitative method for determining the impact of a scholar, journal, or department on the field (Cohn & Farrington, 2005). The main assumptions in citation analysis are that highly-cited works are important to the scholars who cite them and that citations indicate scholarly influence (Meadows, 1974). Essentially, if multiple researchers working independently on the same problem all cite the same source, that material is considered to have scholarly influence. If a scholar’s work is highly cited, this suggests that others in the field find that scholar’s work important and valuable. Cohn and Farrington (1994a) define influential scholars as those who are most cited in the major criminological journals. Thus, scholarly influence does not only refer to the actual number of citations, but to the fact that these citations are in articles published in the most prestigious CCJ journals. This method is objective and replicable. The raw citation data are readily available to any scholars who wish to replicate the findings of any citation analysis. Identifying the most-cited scholars in major CCJ journals helps to identify the most influential scholars and topics during a particular time period, and to document the historical development of the field (Cohn & Farrington, 1998b, 2012). For example, the recent presence of Robert J. Sampson as one of the most-cited scholars indicates the enduring influence of his follow-ups of the Glueck boys (Sampson & Laub, 1993; Laub & Sampson, 2003) and his work on collective efficacy (Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997). Citation analysis rose to prominence in criminology with Wolfgang, Figlio, and Thornberry’s (1978) book Evaluating Criminology. They used this technique to determine the most-cited American books and journal articles in criminology between 1945 and 1972. Their work, which examined citations in almost 4000 scholarly publications, revealed a characteristically skewed distribution. A small number of publications were highly cited, while the remainder received few or no citations. Twenty years later, their research inspired Cohn, Farrington, and Wright (1998) to address scholarly influence in their book, Evaluating Criminology and Criminal Justice. In this book, we used citation analysis to examine the most-cited scholars and works in a variety of American and international journals in criminology and criminal justice over a 10-year period (1986–95). Similar to our predecessors, we observed that, like “chronic offenders,” a small number of scholars accounted for a disproportionate fraction of all citations (see also Cohn & Farrington, 1994a). In addition to studying scholarly influence and prestige, citation analysis has also been applied to other topics as well. Research on the quality of doctoral program faculty has been assessed by counting the number of citations of their publications (DeZee, 1980; Thomas & Bronick, 1984; Sorensen, Patterson & Widmayer, 1992, 1993; Cohn & Farrington, 1998c). Faculty whose work is more often cited can be viewed as being more influential, bringing greater prestige to their department and their university. Also, this perspective has been developed

1.3  Sources of Data

3

into a subsidiary form of citation analysis, known as productivity analysis. Productivity analysis, which looks at the productivity of faculty members in terms of their numbers of publications, has been used in CCJ to evaluate CCJ departments (Parker & Goldfeder, 1979; DeZee, 1980; Fabianic, 1981; Taggart & Holmes, 1991; Sorensen et al., 1992; Sorensen, 1994; Cohn & Farrington, 1998c; Cohn, Farrington, & Sorensen, 2000; Fabianic, 2001, 2002; Sorensen & Pilgrim, 2002; Steiner & Schwartz; 2006, 2007; Kleck, Wang, & Tark, 2007; Kleck & Barnes, 2011, Oliver; Swindell, Marks, & Balsusek, 2009; Davis & Sorensen, 2010; Kleck & Mims, 2017). It has also been used either in place of or in addition to citation analysis to study the scholarly influence of individual scholars in CCJ (Cohn et al., 2000; Rice, Cohn, & Farrington, 2005; Shutt & Barnes, 2008; Long, Boggess, & Jennings, 2011; Rice, Terry, Miller, & Ackerman, 2007; Khey, Jennings, Higgins, Schoepfer, & Langton, 2011; Frost, Phillips, & Clear, 2007; Jennings, Gibson, Ward, & Beaver, 2008; Stack, 2001; Steiner & Schwartz, 2006, 2007; Orrick & Weir, 2011; Jennings, Schreck, Sturtz, & Mahoney, 2008; Oliver et al., 2009; Fabianic, 2012).

1.3 Sources of Data There are three main sources of citation data in CCJ (Cohn, 2009; Cohn & Farrington, 2012), all of which are discussed in greater detail in Chap. 2. The first is Clarivate’s Web of Science, which includes the Science Citation Index (SCI), the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), and the Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI). These indexes list literally millions of bibliographic references included in thousands of journals published throughout the world. For the purposes of criminological research, the SSCI clearly is the most useful of the three. The second source of citation data is an online scientific archive, such as Elsevier’s Scopus and Google Scholar, both of which have been in operation since 2004. SSCI, Scopus, and Google Scholar overlap but each source includes different citation data and, as a result, each produces different results; in general, Scopus, and especially Google Scholar, produce higher citation counts than SSCI. Both SSCI and the various online archives have a number of problems and limitations that may significantly impact the accuracy of any research based on them (see e.g., Cohn & Farrington, 2012). The third method of gathering citation data involves examining the reference lists of journals, scholarly books, textbooks, monographs, and other works in a given field and counting the number of citations of a given scholar, scholarly work, or journal. Although this method is considerably more labor-intensive and time-­consuming, it does permit researchers to avoid many of the problems inherent in the use of other sources of data. The technique of studying the reference lists of works in the most prestigious journals in CCJ was pioneered by Cohn and Farrington (1990) and is explained in detail in Chap. 2.

4

1  Citation Analysis in Criminology and Criminal Justice

1.4 Cohn and Farrington’s Citation Research We (Cohn and Farrington) have been working and publishing in the area of citation analysis for over 30 years. According to Cullen (2012, p. viii), we “have been the leading scholars in the use of citations to assess scholarly influence within criminology” and are widely recognized as two of the leading experts in the field. One reason for this acclaim is because we try hard to minimize errors and our method of citation research is objective and easily replicable, as the data are publicly available. The major results of our research may be found in a series of books and articles published between 1990 and 2022. We have three main areas of research, all of which focus on identifying the mostcited scholars and works in criminology and criminal justice journals. The first examines the major CCJ journals in the United States and in the major English-­ speaking countries around the world (Australia and New Zealand, Canada, and the United Kingdom). The second focuses specifically on American CCJ journals, looking at three major criminology journals and three major criminal justice journals. Our third stream of research examines 20 American and international journals, including the nine journals studied in the first two research series and adding an additional eleven journals. Each of these research areas is discussed separately in this book. While the results of each stream of research varies according to the time period, as the influence of scholars and works waxes and wanes, when the results are compared within each wave, there is a considerable amount of consistency. This consistency within a replicated methodology indicates a high degree of internal reliability. Additionally, the most influential scholars identified by citation analysis tend to be those identified by other measures of scholarly influence, such as the receipt of scholarly prizes and prestigious appointments, which also demonstrates the validity of this methodology (Cohn & Farrington, 1995).

1.5 Most-Cited Scholars and Works in Four Major International Journals Our first foray into the field of citation analysis (Cohn & Farrington, 1990) compared citations in one American journal (Criminology) and one British journal (the British Journal of Criminology). We subsequently expanded our focus to include the major CCJ journals in three additional English-language countries: Canada (the Canadian Journal of Criminology; now the Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice) and Australia and New Zealand (the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology; now the Journal of Criminology). The goal of the research was to determine the most influential scholars in CCJ in the Englishspeaking world by examining all citations in these journals during the five-year period 1986 to 1990 (Cohn & Farrington, 1994a).

1.5  Most-Cited Scholars and Works in Four Major International Journals

5

Using a combined measure of influence that controlled for the number of citations in a journal and thus gave equal weight to citations in all four journals, we found that the most-cited scholars in 1986–90 were Marvin E.  Wolfgang, Alfred Blumstein, David P.  Farrington, James Q.  Wilson, and Stanley Cohen. We also examined the most-cited publications of these scholars and found that in most cases, their high citation counts were driven at least in part by the large number of their different works that were cited. Interestingly, while we discovered that scholars who were highly cited in Criminology tended to be highly cited in the other three journals as well, the reverse was not true; highly-cited scholars in the non-American journals were less likely to be highly cited in Criminology. In particular, the most-­ highly cited scholars in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology did not tend to be highly cited in the other three journals, suggesting that it was the most isolated journal. We also found that Criminology had the lowest proportion of non-­ native highly-cited scholars; the vast majority of citations in that journal were of American scholars, whereas much larger proportions of citations in the other three journals were of scholars in other countries. Therefore, Criminology was the most parochial of the four journals. This line of research was continued over subsequent five-year periods, using the same four journals, to assess changes in scholarly influence over time. In the second wave, which covered the years 1991–95 (Cohn & Farrington, 1998a; see also Cohn et  al., 1998), the most cited scholars were Travis Hirschi, David P.  Farrington, Michael R. Gottfredson, Alfred Blumstein, and John Braithwaite. An examination of the 50 most-cited scholars in each journal found that only two (Farrington and Marvin E. Wolfgang, who was ranked ninth overall) were among the 50 most-cited scholars in all four journals, and only Wolfgang was among the 50 most-cited scholars in all four journals in both time periods. During the third time period, 1996–2000 (Cohn & Farrington, 2007a), John Braithwaite, David Garland, David P.  Farrington, Richard V.  Ericson, and Ken Pease were the most cited scholars in the four major journals. There were no scholars during this time period who were among the most-cited in all four journals, and only five scholars (Braithwaite, Garland, Farrington, Ericson, and the Australian Patrick O’Malley) were among the 50 most-cited scholars in three of the four journals. We also found that scholars who were highly cited in Criminology were less likely to be highly cited in the other three journals than in the past waves of data, while the number of Australian scholars who were highly cited in one of the other three journals had increased. We (Cohn, 2011a; see also Cohn & Farrington, 2012) then examined the fourth wave of data (2001–05) and found that the most-cited scholars in all four journals were David P Farrington, Robert J. Sampson, Travis Hirschi, Michael R. Gottfredson, and Lawrence W. Sherman. Unlike the previous time period, in which no scholar was among the most-cited in all four journals, this study found that the four most-­ cited scholars were among the 50 most-cited scholars in all four journals and the next two scholars (Sherman and Terrie E. Moffitt) were among the most-cited in three journals. We (Cohn, 2011a) noted that the average number of cited scholars per article was increasing over time, possibly due to the increasing volume of

6

1  Citation Analysis in Criminology and Criminal Justice

literature in CCJ or the greater availability of full-text materials online (or both). We also found that the four journals tended to be parochial, so that the majority of articles published in each journal were written by scholars from their own countries, suggesting that CCJ as a field was not reflecting the increasing globalization of society. In the fifth wave of data (2006–10), we (Cohn, Farrington, & Iratzoqui, 2014) identified the five most-cited scholars as Robert J. Sampson, David P. Farrington, John H. Laub, David Garland, and Daniel S. Nagin. The top three most-cited scholars were among the 50 most-cited scholars in all four journals, as were the sixth and the eighth (Francis T. Cullen and Alex R. Piquero). Garland and Nagin were among the most-cited in three of the four journals. As in the prior wave, the average number of cited scholars per article was found to be increasing over time, and the journals continued their tendency to be parochial. We (Iratzoqui, Cohn, & Farrington, 2019) examined the sixth wave of data (2011–15) and found that the five most-cited scholars in the four journals were Robert J. Sampson, David P. Farrington, John H. Laub, Alex R. Piquero, and Francis T.  Cullen. All except Piquero were among the 50 most-cited scholars in all four journals, as were three other scholars (Daniel S.  Nagin, ranked 6, Stephen W.  Raudenbush, ranked 7, and Per-Olof H.  Wikstrom, ranked 26). Piquero was among the most-cited in three of the four journals. The most recent analysis of citations in these four major journals, during the years 2016–20, is reported in Chap. 3. We also looked at the most-cited works of the most-cited scholars during each time period, as a way of examining changes and trends in the focus of criminological research (see Table 1.1). During the 1986–90 time period (Cohn & Farrington, 1994a), it was clear that longitudinal and criminal career research (Wolfgang, Figlio, & Sellin, 1972; West & Farrington, 1977; Blumstein, Cohen, Roth, & Visher, 1986) was highly influential, along with theoretical research on criminal behavior (Hirschi, 1969; Wilson & Herrnstein, 1985). During the 1991–95 time period (Cohn & Farrington, 1998a; see also Cohn et al., 1998), the most-cited works of the most-­ cited scholars were more concerned with criminological theories than during the previous wave. The most-cited work of both Hirschi and Gottfredson was A General Theory of Crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Farrington’s most-cited work was the article “Criminal career research: Its value for criminology” (Blumstein, Cohen & Farrington, 1988); Blumstein’s was Criminal Careers and “Career Criminals” (Blumstein et al., 1986); and Braithwaite’s was Crime, Shame, and Reintegration (Braithwaite, 1989). Our (Cohn & Farrington, 2007a) examination of citations in 1996–2000 showed an increasing emphasis on not only the causes of crime but also on correctional theories emphasizing ways of dealing with offenders. Braithwaite’s most-cited work was, again, Crime, Shame, and Reintegration (Braithwaite, 1989); Garland’s was Punishment and Modern Society (Garland, 1990); Farrington’s was the article “The onset and persistence of offending” (Nagin & Farrington, 1992); Ericson’s was Policing the Risk Society (Ericson & Haggerty, 1997); and Pease’s was an article, “Crime placement, displacement, and deflection” (Barr & Pease, 1990). During the next period, 2001–05 (Cohn & Farrington, 2012), general theories and life

1.5  Most-Cited Scholars and Works in Four Major International Journals

7

Table 1.1  Most-Cited Works of the Most-Cited Scholars in Four International Journals Wave 1986– 1990

1991– 1995

1996– 2000

2001– 2005

2006– 2010

2011– 2015

Most-cited scholars M. E. Wolfgang A. Blumstein

Most-cited works Delinquency in a Birth Cohort (Wolfgang et al., 1972) Criminal Careers and “Career Criminals” (Blumstein et al., 1986) D. P. Farrington The Delinquent Way of Life (West & Farrington, 1977) J. Q. Wilson Crime and Human Nature (Wilson & Herrnstein, 1985) S. Cohen Visions of Social Control (Cohen, 1985) T. Hirschi A General Theory of Crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990) D. P. Farrington “Criminal career research: Its value for criminology” (Blumstein et al., 1988) M. R. Gottfredson A General Theory of Crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990) A. Blumstein Criminal Careers and “Career Criminals” (Blumstein et al., 1986) J. Braithwaite Crime, Shame, and Reintegration (Braithwaite, 1989) J. Braithwaite Crime, Shame, and Reintegration (Braithwaite, 1989) D. Garland Punishment and Modern Society (Garland, 1990) D. P. Farrington “The onset and persistence of offending” (Nagin & Farrington, 1992) R. V. Ericson Policing the Risk Society (Ericson & Haggerty, 1997) K. Pease “Crime placement, displacement, and deflection” (Barr & Pease, 1990) D. P. Farrington “Life course trajectories of different types of offenders” (Nagin et al., 1995) R. J. Sampson Crime in the Making (Sampson & Laub, 1993) T. Hirschi A General Theory of Crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990) M. R. Gottfredson A General Theory of Crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990) L. W. Sherman Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising (Sherman et al., 1997) R. J. Sampson Crime in the Making (Sampson & Laub, 1993) D. P. Farrington “The criminal career paradigm” (Piquero et al., 2003) J. H. Laub Crime in the Making (Sampson & Laub, 1993) D. Garland The Culture of Control (Garland, 2001) D. S. Nagin Group-Based Modeling of Development (Nagin 2005) R. J. Sampson Crime in the Making (Sampson & Laub, 1993) & “Neighborhoods and violent crime” (Sampson et al., 1997) D. P. Farrington Key Issues in Criminal Career Research(Piquero et al., 2007) J. H. Laub Crime in the Making (Sampson & Laub, 1993) A. R. Piquero “Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients” (Paternoster et al., 1998) F. T. Cullen “Assessing macro-level predictors and theories of crime” (Pratt & Cullen, 2005)

course research continued to dominate, along with a focus on crime prevention. Farrington’s most-cited work during this time period was “Life-course trajectories of different types of offenders” (Nagin, Farrington, & Moffitt, 1995) and Sampson’s was Crime in the Making (Sampson & Laub, 1993). A General Theory of Crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990) was the most-cited work of both Hirschi and Gottfredson; while Sherman’s most-cited work was Preventing Crime: What Works,

8

1  Citation Analysis in Criminology and Criminal Justice

What Doesn’t, What’s Promising (Sherman, Gottfredson, MacKenzie, Eck, Reuter, & Bushway, 1997). In the fifth period (2006–10), we (Cohn, Farrington, & Iratzoqui, 2014) found that the most-cited works of the most-cited scholars were predominantly books, rather than journal articles. As before, career criminality and life course research continued to be prominent. The most-cited work of both Sampson and Laub was Crime in the Making (Sampson & Laub, 1993), while Farrington’s was “The criminal career paradigm” (Piquero, Farrington, & Blumstein, 2003). Nagin’s most-cited work, Group-Based Modeling of Development (Nagin, 2005), describes a statistical method for the analysis of longitudinal data, which is particularly applicable to life course research. Garland’s most-cited work, The Culture of Control (Garland, 2001), examines the changes that took place in criminal justice in both the U.S. and Great Britain in the late 1900s, Finally, in 2011–15, we (Iratzoqui, Cohn, & Farrington, 2019) found that developmental and life-course criminology and criminological theories were again prominent. As before, both Sampson and Laub’s most-cited work was Crime in the Making (Sampson & Laub, 1993), while Farrington’s was Key Issues in Criminal Career Research (Piquero, Farrington, & Blumstein, 2007) and Cullen’s was “Assessing macro-level predictors and theories of crime” (Pratt & Cullen, 2005). Statistical methodology was also important, as Piquero’s most-cited work was “Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients” (Paternoster, Brame, Mazerolle, & Piquero, 1998).

1.6 Most-Cited Scholars and Works in Six Major American Journals In addition to our examination of major international CCJ journals, we also conducted a series of studies tracing scholarly influence in three major American criminology journals (Criminology, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, and Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency) and three major American criminal justice journals (Justice Quarterly, Journal of Criminal Justice, and Criminal Justice and Behavior). We examined citations in each journal separately, in the two groups of journals, and in all six journals combined. We (Cohn & Farrington, 1994b) found that the most-cited scholars in the six journals in 1986–90 were Marvin E. Wolfgang, Michael J. Hindelang, Alfred Blumstein, Travis Hirschi, and Michael R. Gottfredson. Of these, only Wolfgang, Hindelang, and Gottfredson were among the most-cited scholars in every journal studied. Of the ten most-cited scholars, nine (all except James Q. Wilson, who was ranked eighth) were relatively more cited in criminology than in criminal justice journals. We also reported that, while there tended to be significant agreement among most of the journals regarding the most-cited scholars, those scholars who were most-cited in Criminal Justice and Behavior were not often highly ranked in any of the other journals.

1.6  Most-Cited Scholars and Works in Six Major American Journals

9

We continued this line of research over subsequent five-year periods, using the same six journals, to examine changes in scholarly influence over time. In the second wave, which covered the years 1991–95 (Cohn & Farrington, 1998b; see also Cohn et al., 1998), the most cited scholars in all six journals were Travis Hirschi, Michael R.  Gottfredson, Robert J.  Sampson, Alfred Blumstein, and Lawrence E. Cohen. Only two scholars (Hirschi and David P. Farrington) were among the 50 most-cited scholars in all six journals, and Hirschi was the only scholar ranked in the top five in both categories of journals (criminology and criminal justice). As in the previous time period, the majority of the most-cited scholars were relatively more cited in criminology journals; only four of the fifteen most-cited scholars (John L. Hagan, James Q. Wilson, Francis T. Cullen, and Lawrence W. Sherman) were relatively more cited in criminal justice journals. In the third time period, 1996–2000 (Cohn & Farrington, 2007b), the most-cited scholars in all six journals were Travis Hirschi, Michael R.  Gottfredson, David P. Farrington, Robert J. Sampson, and Delbert S. Elliott. Hirschi was ranked among the ten most-cited scholars in each of the six journals, and seven scholars (Hirschi, Gottfredson, Farrington, Elliott, David Huizinga, Douglas A. Smith, and Lawrence W. Sherman) were among the 50 most-cited scholars in all six journals. As in the previous waves, the majority of the 20 most-cited scholars were relatively more cited in criminology journals (all except Francis T. Cullen, Wesley G. Skogan, and Lawrence W. Sherman). The analysis was extended through the years 2001–05 (Cohn, 2011b) and the most-cited scholars in the six journals were then found to be David P. Farrington, Robert J.  Sampson, Travis Hirschi, Francis T.  Cullen, and Raymond Paternoster. Only four scholars (Farrington, Cullen, Terrie E.  Moffitt, and Rolf Loeber) were ranked among the 50 most-cited scholars in all six journals, and 25 of the 30 most-­ cited scholars (all except Cullen, Harold G.  Grasmick, John L.  Hagan, Wesley G. Skogan, and Lawrence W. Sherman) were relatively more cited in criminology rather than criminal justice journals. We (Cohn et al., 2014) identified the five most-cited scholars in the six journals in 2006–10 to be Robert J.  Sampson, Alex Piquero, Francis T.  Cullen, David P. Farrington, and Travis Hirschi. All five were among the 50 most-cited scholars in all six journals, along with two others (Michael R. Gottfredson and Terrie E. Moffitt). Finally, in 2011–15, Cohn, Farrington, and Iratzoqui (2020) found that the five most-cited scholars in the six journals were Alex R. Piquero, Robert J. Sampson, David P. Farrington, Francis T. Cullen, and Daniel S. Nagin. All five were among the 50 most-cited scholars in all six journals, as were four other scholars (John H. Laub, Travis Hirschi, Terrie E. Moffitt, and Michael R. Gottfredson). The most recent analysis of citations in these six major journals, during the years 2016–20, is reported in Chap. 4. An examination of the most-cited works of the most-cited scholars helps to illustrate how the focus and priorities of criminology in the United States has changed over time (see Table 1.2). In 1986–90, the most-cited works of the mostcited scholars focused primarily on criminal career and longitudinal research

10

1  Citation Analysis in Criminology and Criminal Justice

Table 1.2  Most-Cited Works of the Most-Cited Scholars in Six American Journals Wave 1986– 1990

1991– 1995

1996– 2000

2001– 2005

2006– 2010

2011– 2015

Most-cited scholars M. E. Wolfgang M. J. Hindelang A. Blumstein

Most-cited works Delinquency in a Birth Cohort (Wolfgang et al., 1972) Measuring Delinquency (Hindelang et al., 1981) Criminal Careers and “Career Criminals” (Blumstein et al., 1986) T. Hirschi A General Theory of Crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990) M. R. Gottfredson A General Theory of Crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990) R. J. Sampson Crime in the Making (Sampson & Laub, 1993) A. Blumstein Criminal Careers and “Career Criminals”(Blumstein et al., 1986) L. E. Cohen “Social changes and crime rate trends” (Cohen & Felson, 1979) T. Hirschi A General Theory of Crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990) M. R. Gottfredson A General Theory of Crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990) D. P. Farrington “Age and crime” (Farrington, 1986) R. J. Sampson Crime in the Making (Sampson & Laub, 1993) D. S. Elliott Explaining Delinquency and Drug Use (Elliott et al., 1985) D. P. Farrington “Life-course trajectories of different types of offenders” (Nagin et al., 1995) R. J. Sampson Crime in the Making (Sampson & Laub, 1993) T. Hirschi A General Theory of Crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990) F. T. Cullen “The social dimensions of correctional officer stress” (Cullen et al., 1985) R. Paternoster “Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients” (Paternoster et al., 1998) R. J. Sampson Crime in the Making (Sampson & Laub, 1993) A. R. Piquero “Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients” (Paternoster et al., 1998) F. T. Cullen “The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analysis” (Pratt & Cullen, 2000) D. P. Farrington “The criminal career paradigm” (Piquero et al., 2003) T. Hirschi A General Theory of Crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990) A. R. Piquero “Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients” (Paternoster et al., 1998) R. J. Sampson Crime in the Making (Sampson & Laub, 1993) D. P. Farrington “The criminal career paradigm” (Piquero et al., 2003) F. T. Cullen “The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analysis” (Pratt & Cullen, 2000) D. S. Nagin Group-Based Modeling of Development (Nagin, 2005)

(e.g., Wolfgang et al., 1972; Blumstein et al., 1986). A particular characteristic of the most-cited works during this time period was that most were books rather than journal articles. During the following time period, 1991–95 (Cohn & Farrington, 1998b), the most-­cited works of the most-cited scholars continued to focus on criminal career and longitudinal research, with an increasing emphasis on theory. Hirschi’s most-cited work was Causes of Delinquency (Hirschi, 1969); Gottfredson’s was A General Theory of Crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990); Sampson’s was Crime in the Making (Sampson & Laub, 1993); Blumstein’s was

1.7  Most-Cited Scholars and Works in 20 Journals

11

Criminal Careers and “Career Criminals” (Blumstein et al., 1986); and Cohen’s was the article “Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach” (Cohen & Felson, 1979). This trend continued during the third time period, 1996–2000 (Cohn & Farrington. 2007b). A General Theory of Crime (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1990) was both Hirschi and Gottfredson’s most-cited work; Farrington’s most-cited work was “Age and crime” (Farrington, 1986); Sampson’s was Crime in the Making (Sampson & Laub, 1993); and Elliott’s was Explaining Delinquency and Drug Use (Elliott, Huizinga, & Ageton, 1985). In 2001–05 (Cohn & Farrington, 2012), the most-cited works of the most-cited scholars again focused on criminal career research and criminological theories. Interestingly, unlike the earlier waves of data, during this time period, the most-cited works were as likely to be articles as books. Farrington’s most-cited work in 2001–05 was “Life-course trajectories of different types of offenders” (Nagin, Farrington, & Moffitt, 1995); Sampson’s was Crime in the Making (Sampson & Laub, 1993); Hirschi’s was Measuring Delinquency (Hindelang, Hirschi, & Weis, 1981); Cullen’s was “The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime” (Pratt & Cullen, 2000); and Paternoster’s most-cited work was “Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients” (Paternoster et al., 1998). In the next time period (2006–10), we (Cohn et  al., 2014) found that both trends continued: the increasing presence of articles compared to books, and the focus on criminal career research and criminological theories. Sampson’s mostcited work in 2006–10 was Crime in the Making (Sampson & Laub, 1993); Piquero’s was “Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients” (Paternoster et  al., 1998); Cullen’s was “The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime” (Pratt & Cullen, 2000); Farrington’s was “The criminal career paradigm” (Piquero et  al., 2003); and Hirschi’s was A General Theory of Crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). These trends also continued in the most recent examination of citations in 2011–15 (Cohn et al., 2020). Piquero’s most-cited work was “Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients” (Paternoster, et  al., 1998); Sampson’s was Crime in the Making (Sampson & Laub, 1993); Farrington’s was “The criminal career paradigm” (Piquero et  al., 2003); Cullen’s was “The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime” (Pratt & Cullen, 2000); and Nagin’s was Group-Based Modeling of Development (Nagin, 2005).

1.7 Most-Cited Scholars and Works in 20 Journals One of the concerns with our methodology is that it relies on a relatively small number of mainstream journals and that the results may be biased against scholars working in more specialized areas. To address this, we expanded our methodology to

12

1  Citation Analysis in Criminology and Criminal Justice

include citations in 20 journals, examining citations in five American criminology journals (Criminology; Journal of Quantitative Criminology; Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency; Journal of Interpersonal Violence; and Violence and Victims), five American criminal justice journals (Justice Quarterly; Journal of Criminal Justice; Crime and Delinquency; Criminal Justice Review; and Federal Probation), five international criminology journals (Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology; British Journal of Criminology; Canadian Journal of Criminology; Crime, Law, and Social Change; and Criminologie), and five international criminal justice journals (Crime and Justice; Criminal Justice and Behavior; International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice; International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology; and Social Justice). Cohn et al. (1998) justified the choice of these 20 journals. Because of the large amount of data involved in this undertaking, citations were only analyzed for one year in each journal, beginning in 1990. Compared with the previous analyses, the expansion to 20 journals benefitted international scholars such as John Braithwaite and Ronald V. Clarke, and scholars in less mainstream areas such as Richard J. Gelles (Cohn & Farrington, 1999). In the 1990 analysis, Marvin E. Wolfgang, Travis Hirschi, David P. Farrington, Alfred Blumstein, and Michael R.  Gottfredson were the most-cited scholars in these 20 journals (Cohn et  al., 1998). These results were extremely consistent with those obtained from the studies of six American and three international journals in 1986–90. For 1995, Lawrence W. Sherman, Travis Hirschi, Michael R. Gottfredson, David P. Farrington, and Robert J. Sampson were the most-cited scholars, with both Sherman and Sampson having increased citations in the five-year intervening period (Cohn & Farrington, 1999). One surprising finding was that Marvin E. Wolfgang, who was the most-cited scholar in 1990, was not among the 50 most-cited scholars in 1995. The most-cited scholars in 2000 were Robert J. Sampson, David P. Farrington, Francis T. Cullen, Travis Hirschi, and Terrie E. Moffitt (Cohn & Farrington, 2008). As in the previous waves of data, there was considerable consistency with the most-­ cited scholars in the nine journals during 1996–2000, although there were more highly-cited international scholars on the list of most-cited scholars in 20 journals. In 2005, Robert J.  Sampson was again the most-cited scholar, followed by John H.  Laub, David P.  Farrington, Francis T.  Cullen, and James L.  Bonta (Cohn & Farrington, 2012). Once again, there was considerable overlap of the most-cited scholars in 20 journals and in the nine journals studied for the years 2001–05. It also was clear that international scholars and scholars in less mainstream areas of research tended to be ranked higher in the 20 journal analysis than in the studies examining smaller numbers of journals. Robert J.  Sampson continued to be the most-cited scholar in 2010, followed by Alex R. Piquero, Francis T. Cullen, David P. Farrington, and Daniel S. Nagin (Cohn et al., 2014). As before, there was clear consistency with the most-cited scholars in the nine journals during 2006–2010. Finally, in 2015, the most-cited scholars were Robert J. Sampson, Alex R. Piquero, David P.  Farrington, Francis T.  Cullen, and John H.  Laub (Cohn, Farrington, & Iratzoqui, 2021). These were the same as the top five scholars found in the nine

1.7  Most-Cited Scholars and Works in 20 Journals

13

journals in 2011–15, although Piquero and Farrington reversed places in the rankings. The most recent analysis of citations in these 20 journals, in 2020, is reported in Chap. 5. We also looked at the most-cited works of the most-cited scholars, as an indicator of the most influential topics in criminological research within each time period (see Table 1.3). The 1990 data (Cohn et al., 1998) revealed the major influence of criminal career research (e.g., Blumstein et al.,1986; Wolfgang et al., 1972), as well

Table 1.3  Most-Cited Works of the Most-Cited Scholars in 20 CCJ Journals Most-cited Wave scholars 1990 M. E. Wolfgang T. Hirschi D. P. Farrington A. Blumstein M. R. Gottfredson 1995 L.W. Sherman T. Hirschi M. R. Gottfredson D. P. Farrington R. J. Sampson 2000 R. J. Sampson D. P. Farrington F. T. Cullen T. Hirschi T. E. Moffitt 2005 R. J. Sampson J. H. Laub D. P. Farrington F. T. Cullen J. L. Bonta 2010 R. J. Sampson A. R. Piquero F. T. Cullen D. P. Farrington D. S. Nagin 2015 R. J. Sampson A. R. Piquero D. P. Farrington F. T. Cullen J. H. Laub

Most-cited works Delinquency in a Birth Cohort (Wolfgang et al., 1972) Causes of Delinquency (Hirschi, 1969) “Criminal career research” (Blumstein et al., 1988) Criminal Careers and “Career Criminals” (Blumstein et al., 1986) “The true value of lambda would appear to be zero” (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1986) Policing Domestic Violence (Sherman, 1992) A General Theory of Crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990) A General Theory of Crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990) Understanding and Controlling Crime (Farrington et al., 1986) Crime in the Making (Sampson & Laub, 1993) Crime in the Making (Sampson & Laub, 1993) “The development of offending and antisocial behavior from childhood” (Farrington, 1995) “Does correctional treatment work?” (Andrews et al., 1990) A General Theory of Crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990) “Adolescence-limited and life-course persistent antisocial behavior” (Moffitt, 1993) Crime in the Making (Sampson & Laub, 1993) Crime in the Making (Sampson & Laub, 1993) “The criminal career paradigm” (Piquero et al., 2003) “Does correctional treatment work?” (Andrews et al., 1990) The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (Andrews & Bonta, 1994, 1998, 2003) “Neighborhoods and violent crime” (Sampson et al., 1997) “Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients” (Paternoster et al. 1998) “The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analysis” (Pratt & Cullen, 2000) “The criminal career paradigm” (Piquero et al., 2003) Group-Based Modeling of Development (Nagin 2005) “Neighborhoods and violent crime” (Sampson et al., 1997) “Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients” (Paternoster et al. 1998) “The criminal career paradigm” (Piquero et al., 2003) “The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analysis” (Pratt & Cullen, 2000) Crime in the Making (Sampson & Laub, 1993)

14

1  Citation Analysis in Criminology and Criminal Justice

as Francis T. Cullen’s work on rehabilitation (Cullen & Gilbert, 1982) and Ronald V. Clarke’s work on rational choice theory and situational crime prevention (Cornish & Clarke, 1986). By 1995 (Cohn & Farrington, 1999), citations reflected the increasing influence of more general theories of crime and relevant criminal justice policies. Sherman’s Policing Domestic Violence (Sherman, 1992), Gottfredson and Hirschi’s A General Theory of Crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990), Farrington and colleagues’ Understanding and Controlling Crime (Farrington, Ohlin, & Wilson, 1986), and Crime in the Making (Sampson & Laub, 1993) were the most-cited works in 1995. Our (Cohn & Farrington, 2008) evaluation of citations in 2000 highlighted a new shift, with increasing numbers of citations of articles in addition to citations of books; the most-cited works of three of the five most-cited scholars were journal articles. The most-cited works of the most-cited scholars were Crime in the Making (Sampson & Laub, 1993), “The development of offending and antisocial behavior from childhood” (Farrington, 1995), “Does correctional treatment work?” (Andrews, Zinger, Hoge, Bonta, Gendreau, & Cullen, 1990), A General Theory of Crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990), and “Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior” (Moffitt, 1993). In 2005 (Cohn & Farrington, 2012), the most-­ cited works of the most-cited scholars illustrated the field’s continued attention to life-course and longitudinal research, a topic that remains at the forefront of criminological research today. In both 2010 (Cohn et al., 2014) and 2015 (Cohn et al., 2021), the most-cited works of the most-cited scholars focused on criminological theories and criminal career research.

1.8 Criminal Career Concepts in Citation Analysis We (Cohn & Farrington, 1996) argued that concepts originally developed in criminal career research could be employed in citation analysts to enhance understanding. Our work focused particularly on the concepts of prevalence and frequency of citations. There are two ways in which a scholar might obtain a large number of citations in a particular journal or group of journals. First, the scholar might have a high prevalence, if they are cited in many different articles in the target journal(s). A high prevalence of citations could occur either because a small number of works by the scholar are repeatedly cited or because many different works by the scholar are cited only a few times each. Second, the scholar might have a high frequency, if many different works by the scholar are cited in only a few articles. In general, Cohn and Farrington (1996) argued that a high prevalence may be a more accurate measure of a scholar’s influence on many others in the field, because a high frequency of citations may reflect a significant influence on only a small number of other scholars. We (Cohn & Farrington, 1996) also distinguished between specialization and versatility. A specialized author has a small number of works (possibly only one or two) that are frequently cited; these works are often books that present a major theory. Versatile scholars are those that have many different works cited, with no

1.10 Conclusion

15

single seminal work standing out as being particularly highly-cited. It is possible to be both specialized and versatile, for example by having one highly-cited seminal work as well as having a wide variety of different works cited. A high frequency of citations must be associated with versatility, while a high prevalence may be (but is not always) associated with specialization; a versatile author could have a high prevalence if a large number of the scholar’s works were cited in many different articles in a journal. This would also indicate a great influence on other researchers.

1.9 Limitations of Citation Analysis While the use of citation analysis to study scholarly prestige and influence has some notable advantages, particularly the objective, quantitative, and replicable nature of the research, some concerns have been raised (see Cohn & Farrington, 2012 for a more detailed discussion). One of the most frequent objections is the claim that citation analysis emphasizes quantity rather than quality. However, research has consistently found correlations between citation counts and other measures of scholarly influence, including peer ratings (see e.g., Myers, 1970), scholarly awards and recognition (see e.g., Myers, 1970; Rushton & Endler, 1979; Cole & Cole, 1971); and scholarly productivity and publication rates (see e.g., Gordon & Vicari, 1992). Another issue is that citation counts may be biased against those scholars working in very specialized and less popular areas. While these researchers may be extremely influential in their own areas, the limited number of others working in that specialized area may mean that these scholars are less likely to be highly cited in mainstream journals (Chapman, 1989). It has also been suggested that methodological papers are likely to be highly cited (see e.g., Peritz, 1983; Douglas, 1992). However, in our longitudinal studies of citations, we found that books and articles focusing on research methodology were rarely among the most-cited works of the most-cited scholars. Chapman (1989) argued that citation analysis does not allow scholars to differentiate between citations that are positive, negative, or neutral, pointing out that “Citation does not necessarily denote approval” (Chapman, 1989, p.341). However, it appears that the vast majority of citations are either positive or neutral (see e.g., Cole, 1975; Garfield, 1979; Cohn & Farrington, 1994a). As we (Cohn & Farrington, 1994a) pointed out, if a researcher takes the time and effort to formally criticize a scholarly work in print, that work clearly has had some influence on that researcher.

1.10 Conclusion This chapter has reviewed the use of citation analysis, especially the research we conducted, and its contributions to the body of criminological literature and to the study of scholarly prestige and influence. For more detailed reviews of the use of

16

1  Citation Analysis in Criminology and Criminal Justice

citation analysis in CCJ and other disciplines, see Cohn and Farrington (2012, Chap. 1). This book presents the most recent analysis of citations in CCJ using the methods we developed. Chap. 2 describes the methodology in detail. Chapters 3, 4, and 5 examine the most-cited scholars and works in four international journals, six American CCJ journals, and 20 American and international journals, respectively. Finally, Chap. 6 discusses the policy implications of this research and possible future research on citation analysis.

References in the Text Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. L. (1994). The psychology of criminal conduct (1st ed.). Anderson. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. L. (1998). The psychology of criminal conduct (2nd ed.). Anderson. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. L. (2003). The psychology of criminal conduct (3rd ed.). Anderson. Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J. L., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369–404. Barr, R., & Pease, K. (1990). Crime placement, displacement, and deflection. Crime and Justice, 12, 277–318. Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Roth, J. A., & Visher, C. (Eds.). (1986). Criminal careers and “career criminals” (Vol. 1). National Academy Press. Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., & Farrington, D. P. (1988). Criminal career research: Its value for criminology. Criminology, 26, 1–35. Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame, and reintegration. Cambridge University Press. Chapman, A.  J. (1989). Assessing research: Citation-count shortcomings. The Psychologist, 2, 336–344. Cohen, S. (1985). Visions of social control: Crime, punishment, and classification. Polity. Cohen, L.  E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608. Cohn, E. G. (2009). Citation and content analysis. In J. M. Miller (Ed.), 21st century criminology: A reference handbook (pp. 391–397). Sage. Cohn, E. G. (2011a). Changes in scholarly influence in major international criminology journals, 1986–2005. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 53, 157–188. Cohn, E. G. (2011b). Changes in scholarly influence in major American criminology and criminal justice journals between 1986 and 2005. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 22, 493–525. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (1990). Differences between British and American criminology: An analysis of citations. British Journal of Criminology, 30, 467–482. Cohn, E.  G., & Farrington, D.  P. (1994a). Who are the most influential criminologists in the English-speaking world? British Journal of Criminology, 34, 204–225. Cohn, E.  G., & Farrington, D.  P. (1994b). Who are the most-cited scholars in major American criminology and criminal justice journals? Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 517–534. Cohn, E.  G., & Farrington, D.  P. (1995). The validity of citations as a measure of influence in criminology. British Journal of Criminology, 35, 143–145. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (1996). Crime and Justice and the criminology and criminal justice literature. Crime and Justice, 20, 265–300. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (1998a). Changes in the most-cited scholars in major international journals between 1986–90 and 1991–95. British Journal of Criminology, 38, 156–170.

References in the Text

17

Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (1998b). Changes in the most-cited scholars in major American criminology and criminal justice journals between 1986–1990 and 1991–1995. Journal of Criminal Justice, 26, 99–116. Cohn, E.  G., & Farrington, D.  P. (1998c). Assessing the quality of American doctoral program faculty in criminology and criminal justice, 1991–1995. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 9, 187–210. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (1999). Changes in the most-cited scholars in twenty criminology and criminal justice journals between 1995 and 1995. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 345–359. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2005). Citation research in criminology and criminal justice. In R. A. Wright & J. M. Miller (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminology (pp. 176–177). Routledge. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2007a). Changes in scholarly influence in major international journals between 1986 and 2000. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 40, 335–360. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2007b). Changes in scholarly influence in major American criminology and criminal justice journals between 1986 and 2000. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 18, 6–34. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2008). Scholarly influence in criminology and criminal justice journals in 1990–2000. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 11–21. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2012). Scholarly influence in criminology and criminal justice. Nova Science Publishers. Cohn, E.  G., Farrington, D.  P., & Wright, R.  A. (1998). Evaluating criminology and criminal justice. Greenwood Press. Cohn, E. G., Farrington, D. P., & Sorenson, J. R. (2000). Journal publications of Ph.D. graduates from American criminology and criminal justice programs, 1988–1997. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 11, 35–49. Cohn, E.  G., Farrington, D.  P., & Iratzoqui, A. (2014). Most-cited scholars in criminology and criminal justice, 2006–2010. Springer. Cohn, E. G., Farrington, D. P., & Iratzoqui, A. (2020). Changes in scholarly influence in major American criminology and criminal justice journals between 1986 and 2015. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 31, 580–608. Cohn, E. G., Farrington, D. P., & Iratzoqui, A. (2021). Changes in the most-cited scholars in 20 criminology and criminal justice journals between 1990 and 2015 and comparisons with the Asian Journal of Criminology. Asian Journal of Criminology, 16, 279–292. Cole, S. (1975). The growth of scientific knowledge: Theories of deviance as a case study. In L. A. Coser (Ed.), The idea of social structure: Papers in honor of R.K. Merton (pp. 175–200). Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Cole, J., & Cole, S. (1971). Measuring the quality of sociological research: Problems in the use of the Science Citation Index. American Sociologist, 6, 23–29. Cornish, D., & Clarke, R. V. G. (Eds.). (1986). The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending. Springer. Cullen, F. T. (2012). Foreword. In E. G. Cohn & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Scholarly influence in criminology and criminal justice (pp. vii–ix). Nova Science Publishers. Cullen, F. T., & Gilbert, K. E. (1982). Reaffirming rehabilitation. Anderson. Cullen, F. T., Link, B. G., Wolfe, N. T., & Frank, J. (1985). The social dimensions of correctional officer stress. Justice Quarterly, 2, 503–533. Davis, J., & Sorenson, J.  R. (2010). Doctoral programs in criminal justice and criminology: A meta-analysis of program ranking. Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, 7, 6–23. DeZee, M.  R. (1980). The productivity of criminology and criminal justice faculty. Joint Commission on Criminology and Criminal Justice Education and Standards. Douglas, R.  J. (1992). How to write a highly cited article without even trying. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 405–408. Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D. S., & Ageton, S. S. (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use. Sage.

18

1  Citation Analysis in Criminology and Criminal Justice

Ericson, R., & Haggerty, K. (1997). Policing the risk society. Oxford University Press. Fabianic, D.  A. (1981). Institutional affiliation of authors in selected criminal justice journals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 9, 247–252. Fabianic, D. A. (2001). Frequently published scholars and educational backgrounds. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29, 119–125. Fabianic, D.  A. (2002). Publication productivity of criminal justice faculty in criminal justice journals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 549–558. Fabianic, D.  A. (2012). Publication profiles at point of promotion of criminal justice faculty. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 23, 65–80. Farrington, D. P. (1986). Age and crime. Crime and Justice, 7, 189–250. Farrington, D.  P. (1995). The development of offending and antisocial behavior from childhood: Key findings from the Cambridge study in delinquent development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36, 929–964. Farrington, D.  P., Ohlin, L.  E., & Wilson, J.  Q. (1986). Understanding and controlling crime: Toward a new research strategy. Springer. Frost, N. A., Phillips, N. D., & Clear, T. R. (2007). Productivity of criminal justice scholars across the career. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 18, 428–443. Garfield, E. (1979). Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics, 1, 359–375. Garland, D. (1990). Punishment and modern society. Clarendon Press. Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control. Oxford University Press. Gordon, R. A., & Vicari, P. J. (1992). Eminence in social psychology: A comparison of textbook citation, Social Sciences Citation Index, and research productivity ratings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 26–38. Gottfredson, M.  R., & Hirschi, T. (1986). The true value of lambda would appear to be zero. Criminology, 24, 213–234. Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press. Hindelang, M. J., Hirschi, T., & Weis, J. G. (1981). Measuring delinquency. Sage. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. University of California Press. Iratzoqui, A., Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2019). Thirty years of scholarly influence in international journals and its relation to the most-cited scholars in Asian criminology. Asian Journal of Criminology, 14, 179–200. Jennings, W. G., Gibson, C. L., Ward, J. T., & Beaver, K. M. (2008). “Which group are you in?”: A preliminary investigation of group-based publication trajectories of criminology and criminal justice scholars. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 19, 227–250. Jennings, W. G., Schreck, C. J., Sturtz, M., & Mahoney, M. (2008). Exploring the scholarly output of academic organization leadership in criminology and criminal justice: A research note on publication productivity. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 19, 404–416. Khey, D. N., Jennings, W. G., Higgins, G. E., Schoepfer, A., & Langton, L. (2011). Re-ranking the top female academic ‘stars’ in criminology and criminal justice using an alternate method: A research note. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 22, 118–129. Kleck, G., & Barnes, J. C. (2011). Article productivity among the faculty of criminology and criminal justice doctoral programs, 2005–2009. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 22, 43–66. Kleck, G., & Mims, B. (2017). Article productivity among the faculty of criminology and criminal justice doctoral programs, 2010–2014. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 28, 467–487. Kleck, G., Wang, S. K., & Tark, J. (2007). Article productivity among the faculty of criminology and criminal justice doctoral programs, 2000–2005. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 18, 385–405. Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives. Harvard University Press. Long, H., Boggess, L. N., & Jennings, W. G. (2011). Re-assessing publication productivity among academic ‘stars’ in criminology and criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 22, 102–117. Meadows, A. J. (1974). Communication in science. Butterworths.

References in the Text

19

Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674–701. Myers, C.  R. (1970). Journal citations and scientific eminence in contemporary psychology. American Psychologist, 25, 1041–1048. Nagin, D. S. (2005). Group-based modeling of development. Harvard University Press. Nagin, D.  S., & Farrington, D.  P. (1992). The stability of criminal potential from childhood to adulthood. Criminology, 30, 235–260. Nagin, D. S., Farrington, D. P., & Moffitt, T. E. (1995). Life-course trajectories of different types of offenders. Criminology, 33, 111–139. Oliver, W.  M., Swindell, S., Marks, J., & Balusek, K. (2009). Book ‘em Dano: The scholarly productivity of institutions and their faculty in criminal justice books. Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, 6, 59–78. Orrick, E. A., & Weir, H. (2011). The most prolific sole and lead authors in elite criminology and criminal justice journals, 2000–2009. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 22, 24–42. Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. R. (1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36, 859–866. Peritz, B. C. (1983). Are methodological papers more cited than theoretical or empirical ones? The case of sociology. Scientometrics, 5, 211–218. Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., & Blumstein, A. (2003). The criminal career paradigm. Crime and Justice, 30, 359–506. Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., & Blumstein, A. (2007). Key issues in criminal career research. Cambridge University Press. Pratt, T.  C., & Cullen, F.  T. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38, 931–964. Pratt, T.  C., & Cullen, F.  T. (2005). Assessing macro-level predictors and theories of crime: A meta-analysis. Crime and Justice, 32, 373–450. Rice, S. K., Terry, K. J., Miller, H. V., & Ackerman, A. R. (2007). Research trajectories of female scholars in criminology and criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 18, 360–384. Rushton, J. P., & Endler, N. S. (1979). More to-do about citation counts in British psychology. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 32, 107–109. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Harvard University Press. Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924. Sherman, L. W. (1992). Policing domestic violence: Experiments and dilemmas. Free Press. Sherman, L.  W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Shutt, J. E., & Barnes, J. C. (2008). Reexamining criminal justice ‘star power’ in a larger sky: A belated response to Rice et al. on sociological influence in criminology and criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 19, 213–226. Sorenson, J. R. (1994). Scholarly productivity in criminal justice: Institutional affiliation of authors in the top ten criminal justice journals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 535–547. Sorenson, J. R., & Pilgrim, R. (2002). The institutional affiliations of authors in leading criminology and criminal justice journals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 11–18. Sorenson, J.  R., Patterson, A.  L., & Widmayer, A. (1992). Publication productivity of faculty members in criminology and criminal justice doctoral programs. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 3, 1–33. Sorenson, J. R., Patterson, A. L., & Widmayer, A. (1993). Measuring faculty productivity in a multidisciplinary field: A response to Professor Marenin. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 4, 193–196.

20

1  Citation Analysis in Criminology and Criminal Justice

Stack, S. (2001). The effect of field of terminal degree on scholarly productivity: An analysis of criminal justice faculty. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 12, 19–34. Steiner, B., & Schwartz, J. (2006). The scholarly productivity of institutions and their faculty in leading criminology and criminal justice journals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 393–400. Steiner, B., & Schwartz, J. (2007). Assessing the quality of doctoral programs in criminology in the United States. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 18, 53–86. Taggart, W. A., & Holmes, M. D. (1991). Institutional productivity in criminal justice and criminology: An examination of author affiliation in selected journals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 19, 549–561. Thomas, C. W., & Bronick, M. J. (1984). The quality of doctoral programs in deviance, criminology, and criminal justice: An empirical assessment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 12, 21–37. West, D. J., & Farrington, D. P. (1977). The delinquent way of life. Heinemann. Wilson, J. Q., & Herrnstein, R. J. (1985). Crime and human nature. Simon and Schuster. Wolfgang, M. E., Figlio, R. M., & Sellin, T. (1972). Delinquency in a birth cohort. University of Chicago Press. Wolfgang, M. E., Figlio, R. M., & Thornberry, T. P. (1978). Evaluating criminology. Elsevier.

Chapter 2

Methodology

2.1 Selecting a Source of Citation Data In our early research, we (Cohn & Farrington, 1994a, 1994b) originally decided to obtain citation data from a small number of prestigious journals in criminology and criminal justice rather than using data from larger sources such as the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI). At that time (1986–90), SSCI was only available in print format, although today it is part of Clarivate’s online Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection. While this resource provides access to citations in a large number of social science journals in a variety of disciplines, it also has some significant disadvantages. Some of the problems in the print version of SSCI have been corrected by the conversion to electronic format, but a number remain. First, the WoS includes self-citations, which need to be excluded if the purpose of the research is to examine one scholar’s influence on others in the field. Additionally, any errors present in journal reference lists, such as spelling mistakes or incorrect initials, are carried over and reproduced in the WoS. If the journal permits the use of the generic “et al.” or “…” in the reference list, those additional authors will not be included in the WoS. The list of journals used by the WoS is not fixed; new journals are constantly being added and older ones removed from the master journal list, which is updated on at least a monthly basis (Clarivate, 2022). The frequency of the changes to this list of journals clearly makes longitudinal research extremely difficult, if not impossible. The database is primarily limited to journals; while some books, and conference proceedings are included, the primary focus is on citations from journals. This may result in a significant bias, especially in fields like criminology and criminal justice, where books are often highly significant (Cohn & Farrington, 1994b). As many journal reference lists only include the last names and first initials of the authors, the WoS listings also may merge the citations of multiple scholars with the same surname and first initials. This problem is compounded by scholars who have the same first name as well (e.g., the multiple Richard Berks or David Smiths) or © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. G. Cohn et al., Most Influential Scholars in Criminology and Criminal Justice, 1986-2020, SpringerBriefs in Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23596-2_2

21

22

2 Methodology

who use middle initials that may be omitted in the reference lists (e.g., Ellen G. vs. Ellen S.  Cohn). The WoS does generate algorithmically-created author records, which are “groups of publications that are likely by one person” (Clarivate, 2019). However, works may be incorrectly assigned to the wrong author record or appear on multiple records. Additionally, the same author may have more than one author record. Another source of citation data is an online scientific archive such as Google Scholar and Elsevier’s Scopus, both of which began operations in 2004. Google Scholar is a free online scientific archive that trawls full-text journals and bibliographic databases and includes citations not only from journal articles and books but also from technical reports, court opinions, theses, patents, and a number of “scholarly” web pages. In general, Google Scholar tends to produce more citations than the WoS (Bauer & Bakkalbasi, 2005; Meho & Yang, 2007). However, there are a number of limitations that impact the accuracy of Google Scholar data. Brezgov (2019) found that, in its attempt to be as comprehensive as possible, Google Scholar includes predatory journals, which are not properly peer reviewed. It is also impossible to obtain information on the coverage of the database, such as which journals are included, which databases are trawled, which time periods are covered, or how often Google Scholar is updated (Cohn & Farrington, 2012b). Another concern is that the ordering of papers presented in Google Scholar searches may be determined by existing citations, with highly-cited papers presented first and new papers further down the list. Some scholars have claimed that this ranking algorithm may strengthen the Matthew effect; because the less well-known research articles appear lower in the search listings, users are less likely to cite them (see e.g., Beel & Gipp, 2009). In fact, Serenko and Dumay (2015) suggest the existence of the Google Scholar Effect, in which researchers cite works that are highly ranked by Google Scholar, in the belief that journal editors and reviewers will expect these works to be cited. Additionally, Google Scholar does not screen out or identify self-citations. Scopus is a fee-based abstract and citation database operated by Elsevier. As of 2020, it contained over 25,100 active titles from over 5000 publishers, including over 23,452 peer-reviewed journals, about 294 trade publications, over 852 book series, and almost 10 million conference papers, as well as articles in press from over 5500 journals. The Scopus journals list also includes over 14,000 inactive titles, many of which are predecessors of the currently active titles, while the Scopus Books title list contains over 210,000 books. Scopus also includes over 44 million patent records. In total, there are over 77.8 million records (Scopus, 2020). While it is very user-friendly and fast, there are a number of limitations of Scopus (see e.g., Dess, 2006). Documents published prior to 1970 do not include cited references (Scopus, 2020), which limits citation tracking and longitudinal research. Additionally, Dess (2006) reported that the number of records identified by a search varies depending on the order in which search terms are entered, especially if the “search within” function is used (and a recent search we conducted employing the same keywords used by Dess found that the same problem still appears). Mongeon and Paul-Hus (2016) found that both Scopus and the WoS tend to be biased in favor of natural sciences, engineering, and biomedical research, in

2.2  Journal Selection

23

comparison to the social sciences and arts and humanities. Moed et  al. (2016) reviewed a number of studies suggesting that Google Scholar has the same bias; they also point out that all three sources also tend to be biased towards English language publications. The third option open to citation analysis researchers is to directly examine the reference lists of journals and books in a given field and to count the number of citations of a given scholar, work, or journals. While this method is significantly more time-consuming than using online databases, it avoids many of the problems inherent in their use. We developed and used this method successfully in our early research (see e.g., Cohn & Farrington, 1990, 1994a, 1994b, 1996; Wright & Cohn, 1996). This method is objective, quantitative, transparent, and replicable, as the raw data are available to any researcher with access to the chosen journals and their reference lists. Using reference lists allows researchers to focus on a specific field of study, to identify self-citations, and, if desired, to use non-English-language publications.

2.2 Journal Selection Selecting the specific journals to be studied was the first step in our research process. We began this line of research in the late 1980s so, while both American and international journals were considered, the journals were chosen based on the needs of the specific research projects that we were conducting at that time. Additionally, because of language limitations, we limited ourselves to journals published primarily (although not necessarily completely) in English. In our first analysis of citations in 1986–90, journal selection was, of course, limited to journals being published in 1986, so newer journals such as Criminology and Public Policy, the European Journal of Criminology, and the Journal of Experimental Criminology, which were not then in print, were not possible sources of citation data at that time. As we are conducting a longitudinal study, it is not possible to add or remove journals from the study and still have results that may be compared to those obtained in earlier waves. There are a wide variety of journals that publish articles in criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) but which focus predominantly on other fields, such as sociology (e.g., Social Forces, American Sociological Review, and Social Problems), child and adolescent psychology and psychopathology (e.g., Development and Psychopathology, Journal of Adolescence, and the Journal of Youth and Adolescence), legal/social issues (e.g., Law and Human Behavior, Law and Social Inquiry, Behavioral Sciences and the Law, and Law and Society Review), and so on (see Vaughn et al., 2004, for an annotated list of 326 journals relating to CCJ). While it is possible that scholars who were initially trained in a cognate discipline and who conduct research in CCJ may prefer to publish some or all of their research in the mainstream journals of their original discipline, we chose to focus on journals that are centrally concerned with CCJ.

24

2 Methodology

There are also many specialized journals within criminal justice that publish on very specific topics within the field. These include journals such as Homicide Studies, Journal of Threat Assessment, Juvenile and Family Court Journal, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, Child Maltreatment, and the American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse. While these and other specialist journals publish many extremely important works, we chose not to include them in our analyses because their focus is very narrow, and they do not encompass the entire field of CCJ. Our research is focused on mainstream CCJ journals.

2.3 Selecting Four International Journals Our original research (Cohn & Farrington, 1990) used citations to examine differences between criminology in the United States and the United Kingdom by comparing citations in two key criminology journals, Criminology (CRIM) and the British Journal of Criminology (BJC). CRIM is the official journal of the American Society of Criminology (ASC) and is sent to all members, giving it an extremely wide circulation and increasing the likelihood that articles in this journal will be noticed and read by American criminologists, more so than articles in other American criminology journals. BJC, published by Oxford University Press, is unambiguously the leading criminological journal in the United Kingdom. The analysis was later expanded to include the leading peer-reviewed criminology journals in other English-speaking countries – specifically Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (Cohn & Farrington, 1994a). The leading criminological journal in Canada is the Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice (CJC), formerly the Canadian Journal of Criminology, which is published by the Canadian Criminal Justice Association. While this journal is published partly in French, many articles are in English and those that are not in English include an English abstract. The primary journal in Australia and New Zealand is the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology (ANZ), which is published by the Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology and sent to all members of the society. This journal was renamed the Journal of Criminology in 2021, but we will continue to refer to it as ANZ.

2.4 Selecting Six American Journals Our next study involved an examination of citations in major American CCJ journals (Cohn & Farrington, 1994b), which we limited to CCJ journals with American editors and publishers. Journals with significant international content, and journals published and edited outside the United States, were excluded from this analysis. Three of the journals we selected were centrally concerned with criminology  – CRIM, the Journal of Quantitative Criminology (JQC), and the Journal of Research

2.4  Selecting Six American Journals

25

in Crime and Delinquency (JRCD). The other three were centrally concerned with criminal justice – Justice Quarterly (JQ), the Journal of Criminal Justice (JCJ), and Criminal Justice and Behavior (CJB). A review of the literature available at the time provided considerable empirical evidence to support the claim that these were among the most prestigious American journals in CCJ.  Shichor et  al. (1981) asked American criminologists to rank American and international journals containing articles on CCJ and found that the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (JCLC) had the highest average rating, followed by CRIM and JRCD. JCJ was ranked fifth in the survey, after Crime and Delinquency (CD). The next most-highly ranked American CCJ journals were Criminal Justice Review (CJR), Federal Probation (FP), and CJB.  A similar but much larger survey conducted by Regoli et al. (1982) found that the most highlyranked and prestigious CCJ journals were CRIM, JRCD, JCLC, CD, JCJ, and CJB. A survey of criminal justice professionals (rather than academic criminologists) conducted by Fabianic (1980) obtained similar results, finding that the most highly-ranked journals were JCLC, JCJ, CRIM, and JRCD. Parker and Goldfelder’s (1979) survey of heads of graduate programs found that the most highly-ranked CCJ journals were JCLC, CRIM, CD, JCJ, FP, JRCD, and CJB. Citation analysis also supports the selection of these journals as among the most prestigious American CCJ journals. Poole and Regoli’s (1981) study of journal citations in CRIM between 1975 and 1979 found that citation-based rankings of journals were highly correlated (rank correlation = 0.75) with the subjective rankings obtained by Shichor et al. (1981); based on citations, the most highly ranked journals were JCLC, CRIM, CD, JRCD, and FP. After controlling for the number of articles available to be cited, Cohn and Farrington (1990) found that the most cited journals in CRIM between 1984 and 1988 were CRIM, JCLC, JRCD, CD, JCJ, and CJB. Stack’s (1987) research using SSCI also controlled for the number of articles that could be cited and found that the most-cited American CCJ journals were CRIM, JRCD, CD, JCLC, CJB, and JCJ. Although these studies found that CD, FP, and JCLC were considered to be among the most important American CCJ journals, we did not use these journals in our research. Almost half of the issues in CD were special issues that included solicited articles on specific topics rather than unsolicited articles on general topics in CCJ. FP was a specialist journal focusing specifically on probation, rather than a general journal presenting topics spanning the field of CCJ. The legal style of footnoting used by JCLC in the 1980s used only the last names of the authors cited, omitting initials and therefore making it nearly impossible to determine the identity of authors who shared the same surname. Although JCLC now includes the first name or initials of authors, the footnoting style of citation still makes it extremely difficult to obtain valid and reliable citation information. Because footnotes appear throughout an article (as opposed to collecting all references at the end of the article), it would have been necessary to search through each article for those footnotes that contained references, identify and delete any extraneous material in the footnote, and then copy each reference to a new file. As JCLC begins references with first names, each reference would have to be individually edited to reverse the first

26

2 Methodology

and last names so that references could be sorted by last name. Additionally, Sorensen (2009) found that a large percentage of articles in JCLC dealt with topics relating to criminal law rather than criminal justice and/or criminology. Both JQ and JQC were not listed among the most prestigious journals in many of these early studies because they did not begin publishing until 1984 and 1985 respectively. However, by the time we began our research, we believed that these journals were more prestigious than several of the other journals identified by the earlier research (e.g., Criminal Justice Review; Journal of Crime and Justice). JCJ was, and JQ is, the house journal of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (ACJS).

2.5 Selecting 20 American and International Journals The selection process described above resulted in a total of nine CCJ journals: three American criminology journals (CRIM, JQC, and JRCD), three American criminal justice journals (JQ, JCJ, and CJB), and three international journals (ANZ, BJC, and CJC). In a separate study, we also examined citations in Crime and Justice: A Review of Research (CAJ) (Cohn & Farrington, 1996), bringing the total number of publications studied to 10. While these are all well-known, high-quality, peer reviewed publications, we were concerned that the limited number of journals studied could potentially create a bias against scholars who publish in less mainstream or slightly lower-tier journals, as it could be argued that the results might vary depending on the particular journals being analyzed. We therefore decided to investigate the most-cited scholars in a much larger number of American and international CCJ journals (Cohn et al., 1998), doubling the number of journals studied from 10 to 20. As we had already been assessing American and international journals and comparing criminology and criminal justice journals, we decided to examine five journals in each of four possible groupings: American criminology journals, American criminal justice journals, international criminology journals, and international criminal justice journals. Selecting the additional ten journals was a difficult undertaking. We first eliminated non-academic publications such as The Police Chief and Corrections Today, as well as mainstream academic journals in cognate disciplines (e.g., psychology, psychiatry, sociology, economics, drug and alcohol studies), and then considered a wide variety of academic journals. Some prestigious journals such as the Journal of Crime and Justice and the Howard Journal of Criminal Justice had too few citations to be reasonably analyzed. In 1990, the most cited scholar in the Journal of Crime and Justice had only four citations, and only three scholars had four or more citations in the Howard Journal of Criminal Justice in 1990. Other journals focused on specific topics within CCJ (e.g., Victimology, Policing, The Prison Journal, Criminal Justice History, Police Studies) or focused primarily on related disciplines such as legal psychology, socio-legal studies, and the sociology of deviance.

2.6  Obtaining the Citation Data

27

We eventually selected ten additional CCJ journals: CD, Criminal Justice Review (CJR), FP, Criminologie (CRGE), Contemporary Crises (now renamed Crime, Law and Social Change: CLSC), the International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice (IJCA), the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology (IJOT), Journal of Interpersonal Violence (JIV), Social Justice (SJ), and Violence and Victims (VV). As the original research using these 20 journals was conducted in 1990, we used data from that year to classify journals as American or international. Of the five journals we identified as international criminology journals, four (ANZ, BJC, CJC, and CRGE) were published outside the United States and contained very few American authors, while the fifth, CLSC, was at that time subtitled “An International Journal” and was published in The Netherlands. In 2005, only 18% of the authors in CLSC were American and the journal included 14 non-Americans out of 27 editors, senior editors, and associate editors. One of the five international criminal justice journals, IJCA, is the official journal of the American Society of Criminology’s Division of International Criminology and is explicitly international in its focus. The second, IJOT, is also explicitly international in its focus, and included 29 non-Americans out of fifty-six consulting and associate editors in 2005. SJ included an international editorial advisory board drawn from 13 countries in addition to the United States in 2005. CJB, the official publication of the International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology, is subtitled “An International Journal,” and the journal information clearly states that “articles… are welcomed from throughout the world”. CAJ, according to its promotional material, has, “since 1979 […] presented a review of the latest international research”. Its editor, Michael H. Tonry, was located in the United Kingdom in 1999–2004. For the original nine journals, we obtained citations for each year of publication and studied them in five-year periods (beginning with the earliest study that examined citations in 1986–90). However, the extensive amount of work involved in the process of data collection was too great to permit annual data collection for all 20 journals; therefore, we only analyzed one year of data out of each five year period (beginning with 1990).

2.6 Obtaining the Citation Data The citation data are obtained from the reference lists of each article in each of the journals. Articles are defined as including research articles, research notes, comments, and rejoinders. Book reviews, book review articles, editorials, introductions to special issues, letters, and obituaries are excluded from the analyses. The reference pages for each article have to be entered into the computer. Originally, this was done by photocopying the reference lists, scanning them into the computer with an optical scanner and OCR software, and editing the resulting text to correct the large number of typographical errors created by the scanning process. Today, however,

28

2 Methodology

the increasing prevalence of full-text online journals allows references from most journals to be downloaded directly into a word processing program for editing, significantly streamlining the data entry process, not only reducing the time and cost of the process but also greatly decreasing errors in the reference lists. In addition to downloading journal reference lists, we also print out the title page and reference pages of each article, as well as the table of contents for each journal issue. Using this material for cross-checking helps to ensure that no articles or references have been omitted. After downloading the reference lists, the citations must be converted into a format that is suitable for analysis. For references with multiple authors, this involves making duplicate listings of the reference, with each individual co-author listed first in one of the listings. This is extremely labor-intensive but is essential as it ensures that all co-authors receive equal credit for being cited, rather than only acknowledging the first author (this was a serious problem with SSCI until recently). Selfcitations are identified and marked for later exclusion, and institutional authors (e.g., Home Office, National Institute of Justice, New York Times) are removed from the data set. Originally, this process was done manually, but recently we have been able to accomplish much of this using Excel programs. In journals such as CJB, that permit the use of “et al.” in the reference list, the names of the additional co-authors are, when possible, obtained and included in the data. All cited authors receive equal credit; citation counts are not inversely weighted according to the number of coauthors (this is more common in publication productivity studies such as Rice et al., 2005; Steiner & Schwartz, 2006; Shutt & Barnes, 2008). Restricting the study to published works was not feasible so all works cited are included (e.g., unpublished papers, theses and dissertations, conference presentations). Self-citations are excluded from analysis, although co-author citations are noted but not excluded (Cohn & Farrington, 1996). Co-author citations occur when the author of an article cites one of their own multi-authored works. For example, if Robert J.  Sampson publishes an article in CRIM in which he cites a work he co-authored with John H. Laub, Laub is a co-author citation. In that situation, Laub would be credited with a citation, but Sampson would not. We carried out an extensive amount of checking to ensure that no references were omitted, that all self-citations were identified and excluded, that typographical errors were minimized, and to detect and if possible correct mistakes in the original reference lists (which were unfortunately extremely common). This process involved cross-checking using the photocopied pages of the reference lists. For each article, we counted the number of cited authors in the reference list and identified self-citations and co-author citations. This information was compared with the corresponding information in the computer file and any discrepancies were identified and corrected. We also compiled information on the total number of authors cited in each article, the number of self-citations, and the number of co-author citations. This permitted us to compute the number of “eligible” citations, by subtracting the number of self-citations in an article from the total number of authors cited in that article. We also recorded the number of authors of each article and the nationality of each author. Nationality was defined by the country of the institution with which an

2.7  Counting Citations

29

author was affiliated; when an author listed multiple affiliations in different countries, the first-listed institution was used. For those authors with no institutional affiliation, their geographic location was used.

2.7 Counting Citations After completing the editing process for an individual journal, the list of citations is sorted into alphabetical order and examined to determine the number of times each scholar was cited; the previously-identified self-citations were noted but not included in a scholar’s total citation count. This process is often very difficult because, in many journals, the reference lists include only last names and initials rather than full names, creating confusion when there are multiple scholars with the same last name and initials; this problem is compounded even further in situations where middle initials are omitted. In those cases, references are cross-checked against the original source publications to distinguish between, for example, the various D. Smiths (David A., David E., David J., Douglas A., etc.), the various J. Cohens (Jacqueline, Jacob, Joseph, etc.) and the three P.  Brantinghams (Paul J., Patricia L., and P.  Jeffrey). In addition, there are several cases where two or more scholars share the same name (e.g., David Brown, Richard Sparks, Richard Wright, Patrick O’Malley); in those situations it is necessary to examine the complete citation listings carefully to distinguish among them. Citations to scholars with multiple names (e.g., Kimberly Kempf/Leonard) also have to be amalgamated, when they are known. We also have to check and correct a distressingly large number and variety of errors made in the original reference lists. Authors’ names were often misspelled (e.g., T.  Hirsch or T.  Hirshi instead of T.  Hirschi; D.P.  Farringdon instead of D.P. Farrington; R. Lober instead of R. Loeber) and initials were often omitted or were incorrect (e.g., J.  Sampson or R.A.  Sampson instead of R.J.  Sampson; A.P Piquero instead of A.R. Piquero). This is a difficult task and one that requires considerable knowledge of the field. Our extensive experience in citation analysis enabled us to easily determine from the title of an article or the co-authors that, for example, a citation to “R.A. Sampson” really referred to “R.J. Sampson” or a citation to “K. Cohen” really referred to “J. Cohen.” However, someone with less familiarity with the criminology literature might not recognize these errors and might instead carry them over into the citation count data. Of course, they would also be carried over in any mechanical analysis of citations using internet sources such as Google Scholar and Scopus. While it is unlikely that we were able to correct every error in every reference list, we are confident that we were able to detect and correct the vast majority of them, particularly those involving the most-cited authors in each journal. As has been noted, citation analysis is both objective and quantitative. Another advantage is that the raw data are readily available to anyone with access to the journals, making this research highly replicable. However, it is important to realize that

30

2 Methodology

one year of citations in a journal such as JCJ may include over 15,000 cited authors to be checked and counted. In total, we analyzed approximately 560,000 cited authors in nine journals from 1986–2020. It is possible that another researcher may fail to exactly replicate our results because of mistakes in the spelling of authors’ names that we or the other researcher did not detect, difficulties in distinguishing between authors with the same surname and first initial, possible inconsistencies in the definition of “article,” or because of minor and infrequent clerical errors that may creep into such a large data set, despite extremely careful checking. However, the prevalence of and large support for the previous Cohn and Farrington research suggests that our main conclusions would hold up with only marginal changes in any replication. Once the citation data are counted and checked, the 50 most-cited scholars in each journal are identified and ranked; when multiple scholars have the same number of citations in a specific journal, they are given the same average ranking. We also determined the number of different works cited and the number of different articles in which the most-cited scholars were cited; this provided measures of prevalence, frequency, specialization, and versatility (see the discussion of career concepts in citation analysis in Chap. 1). The present rankings are compared to those obtained during earlier waves of research to provide information about changes in an individual scholar’s influence on others in the field.

2.8 Limitations of This Methodology There are a number of limitations of this type of citation analysis research, many of which are attributable to the longitudinal design being employed. First, it is based on citations in a relatively small number of mainstream CCJ journals. Scholars who publish in journals that focus on cognate disciplines, such as sociology or psychology, or who publish in more specialized CCJ journals that focus on a narrow area within the field, may not be highly cited in the journals studied, and their influence may be underestimated. Second, because this is a longitudinal study, only those journals that existed at the time the research began could be used (in 1986 for the nine major international and American CCJ journals and in 1990 for the expanded 20 journal study). Journals that were not then being published, such as Criminology and Public Policy, the European Journal of Criminology, the Journal of Experimental Criminology, or the Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, cannot be incorporated into the study. Third, because of the longitudinal design, the research cannot be revised to take advantage of the many new sources of citation data such as the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Similarly, the methods of analyzing the citation data cannot be changed. For example, while our method has eliminated self-citations, co-author citations are included in the data. While it would be interesting and possibly instructive to look at the impact of co-author citations on rankings, it is not possible at this point to remove those citations.

2.9  Strengths of This Methodology

31

2.9 Strengths of This Methodology Although the longitudinal design of this research does result in a number of limitations, it is also one of the primary strengths of this research methodology. This study is based on citation data collected from major CCJ journals over a period of 35 years. Because electronic sources of citation data may have incomplete collections of older materials, it would be difficult to carry out such a long-term study based on those data sources. For example, in their study of the citations in CJ, Cohn et al. (2018) found that WoS did not index all issues of CJ  – 131 articles in 15 issues were not indexed. Secondly, this research used the same set of journals throughout. Electronic sources of citation data are constantly changing the source journals from which they obtain citation data, making it almost impossible to obtain comparable longitudinal data over time. Another important strength of this research is the careful and extensive checking of the data that was carried out in an effort to locate and correct the many errors that appear in the original reference lists, such as misspelled authors’ names, incorrect or omitted initials, and incorrect reference dates. When online sources of citation data are used, these errors remain because citations are not checked for accuracy. We conducted a detailed examination, informed by an extensive and in-depth knowledge of the literature and the individual scholars in CCJ, that, while it may not have corrected every error, clearly corrected many that would have otherwise been missed. Fourth, this research excludes self-citations, which do not indicate a scholar’s influence on others in the field. Online sources of citation data do not do this; nor do they always clearly identify self-citations so that they can be extracted manually. Finally, while it may be argued that the limited number of journals examined under our method is a limitation, it is also a strength of this research. All the journals being studied are well-regarded, prestigious, and widely-read mainstream journals in CCJ. More general sources of citation data, such as Web of Science or Scopus, collect citations from a wider variety of journals but include trade publications as well as journals that are less prestigious or that are only peripherally associated with CCJ. Additionally, the massive increase in the number of open access publications, which charge researchers an often substantial author processing fee, further brings into question the quality of data that is obtained from these sources. Some may in actuality be “predatory journals,” which do not require research to go through a rigorous peer review process prior to publication; these journals often reach out to researchers who have published in more reputable outlets, inviting them to submit their research to the predatory journal. Unfortunately, it is often difficult for scholars to identify whether a journal is reputable or predatory. The inclusion of these journals in general sources of citation information significantly dilutes the validity of the conclusions that may be drawn from the data.

32

2 Methodology

2.10 The Current Research The original analysis developing the Cohn and Farrington methodology was a study of citations in four major international criminology journals during the years 1986–90 (Cohn & Farrington, 1994a). This was then extended over the next five five-year periods: 1991–95 (Cohn et al., 1998; Cohn & Farrington, 1998a), 1996–00 (Cohn & Farrington, 2007a), 2001–05 (Cohn, 2011a; see also Cohn & Farrington, 2012b), 2006–10 (Cohn & Iratzoqui, 2016), and 2011–15 (Farrington et al., 2019; see also, Iratzoqui et al., 2019). The analysis of six major American CCJ journals also originally examined citations during the period 1986–90 (Cohn & Farrington, 1994b) and also was continued through the next five time periods: 1991–95 (Cohn & Farrington, 1998b; see also Cohn et  al., 1998), 1996–00 (Cohn & Farrington, 2007b), 2001–05 (Cohn, 2011b; see also Cohn & Farrington, 2012b), 2006–10 (Cohn et al., 2014), and 2011–15 (Cohn et al., 2020). The present research extends these analyses through 2016–20 and analyzes longitudinal trends in scholarly influence over the 35-year period. Cohn and Farrington’s analysis of 20 major journals originally covered the year 1990 (Cohn et al., 1998) and was later extended to cover the years 1995 (Cohn & Farrington, 1999), 2000 (Cohn & Farrington, 2008), 2005 (Cohn & Farrington, 2012a), 2010 (Cohn et al., 2014), and 2015 (Cohn et al., 2021). This book extends this to the year 2020 and examines changes in scholarly influence over time.

References in the Text Bauer, K. & Bakkalbasi, N. (2005). An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly communication environment. D-Lib Magazine [On-line serial], 11(9). Available from http://dlib.org/ dlib/september05/bauer/09bauer.html Beel, J., & Gipp, B. (2009). Google Scholar’s ranking algorithm: The impact of citation counts (An empirical study). In A. Flory & M. Collard (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2009 third international conference on research challenges in information sciences (pp. 439–446). Retrieved on August 25, 2002, from: https://isg.beel.org/pubs/Google%20Scholar%27s%20Ranking%20 Algorithm%20-%20The%20Impact%20of%20Citation%20Counts%20%2D%2D%20preprint.pdf Brezgov, S. (2019, May 27). Google Scholar is filled with junk science. Scholarly OA. Retrieved on August 25, 2022, from: https://scholarlyoa.com/google-scholar-is-filled-with-junk-science/ Clarivate. (2019). Web of Science Core Collection: Author Search Beta. Retrieved on August 25, 2022, from: http://images.mail.discover.clarivate.com/Web/ClarivateAnalytics/%7B93be44b66532-4194-8816-7f9d9e3f09a7%7D_WoS_CC_PROFILES_QRG.pdf?utm_campaign=EM_ Profiles_Researchers_SAR_Global_2019&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua Clarivate. (2022). Web of Science Group Master Journal List: Help Center. Retrieved on August 25, 2022, from: https://mjl.clarivate.com/help-center Cohn, E. G. (2011a). Changes in scholarly influence in major international criminology journals, 1986–2005. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 53, 157–188. Cohn, E. G. (2011b). Changes in scholarly influence in major American criminology and criminal justice journals between 1986 and 2005. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 22, 493–525.

References in the Text

33

Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (1990). Differences between British and American criminology: An analysis of citations. British Journal of Criminology, 30, 467–482. Cohn, E.  G., & Farrington, D.  P. (1994a). Who are the most influential criminologists in the English-speaking world? British Journal of Criminology, 34, 204–225. Cohn, E.  G., & Farrington, D.  P. (1994b). Who are the most-cited scholars in major American criminology and criminal justice journals? Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 517–534. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (1996). Crime and Justice and the criminology and criminal justice literature. Crime and Justice, 20, 265–300. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (1998a). Changes in the most-cited scholars in major international journals between 1986–90 and 1991–95. British Journal of Criminology, 38, 156–170. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (1998b). Changes in the most-cited scholars in major American criminology and criminal justice journals between 1986–1990 and 1991–1995. Journal of Criminal Justice, 26, 99–116. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (1999). Changes in the most-cited scholars in twenty criminology and criminal justice journals between 1995 and 1995. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 345–359. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2007a). Changes in scholarly influence in major international journals between 1986 and 2000. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 40, 335–360. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2007b). Changes in scholarly influence in major American criminology and criminal justice journals between 1986 and 2000. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 18, 6–34. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2008). Scholarly influence in criminology and criminal justice journals in 1990–2000. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 11–21. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2012a). Scholarly influence in criminology and criminal justice journals in 1990–2005. Criminal Justice Review, 37, 360–383. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2012b). Scholarly influence in criminology and criminal justice. Nova Science Publishers. Cohn, E.  G., & Iratzoqui, A. (2016). The most-cited scholars in five international criminology journals, British, American, and European criminology journals, 2006–2010. British Journal of Criminology, 56, 602–623. Cohn, E.  G., Farrington, D.  P., & Wright, R.  A. (1998). Evaluating criminology and criminal justice. Greenwood Press. Cohn, E.  G., Farrington, D.  P., & Iratzoqui, A. (2014). Most-cited scholars in criminology and criminal justice, 2006–2010. Springer. Cohn, E. G., Iratzoqui, A., Farrington, D. P., Piquero, A. R., & Powell, Z. A. (2018). Most-cited articles and authors in Crime and Justice, 1979–2015. Crime and Justice, 47, 475–508. Cohn, E. G., Farrington, D. P., & Iratzoqui, A. (2020). Changes in scholarly influence in major American criminology and criminal justice journals between 1986 and 2015. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 31, 580–608. Cohn, E. G., Farrington, D. P., & Iratzoqui, A. (2021). Changes in the most-cited scholars in 20 criminology and criminal justice journals between 1990 and 2015 and comparisons with the Asian Journal of Criminology. Asian Journal of Criminology, 16, 279–292. Dess, H.  M. (2006). Database reviews and reports: Scopus. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, Winter. Fabianic, D. A. (1980). Perceived scholarship and readership of criminal justice journals. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 8, 15–20. Farrington, D. P., Cohn, E. G., & Iratzoqui, A. (2019). Who are the most-cited scholars in Asian criminology compared with Australia, New Zealand, North America, and Europe? Asian Journal of Criminology, 14, 61–76. Iratzoqui, A., Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2019). Thirty years of scholarly influence in international journals and its relation to the most-cited scholars in Asian criminology. Asian Journal of Criminology, 14, 179–200.

34

2 Methodology

Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 2105–2125. Moed, H. F., Bar-Ilan, J., & Halevi, G. (2016). A new methodology for comparing Google Scholar and Scopus. Journal of Infometrics, 10, 533–551. Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106, 213–228. Parker, L. C., & Goldfelder, E. (1979). Productivity ratings of graduate programs in criminal justice based on publication in ten critical journals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 7, 125–133. Poole, E. D., & Regoli, R. M. (1981). Periodical prestige in criminology and criminal justice: A comment. Criminology, 19, 470–478. Regoli, R. M., Poole, E. D., & Miracle, A. W. (1982). Assessing the prestige of journals in criminal justice: A research note. Journal of Criminal Justice, 10, 57–67. Rice, S. K., Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2005). Where are they now? Trajectories of publication ‘stars’ from American criminology and criminal justice programs. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 16, 244–264. Scopus. (2020). Scopus content coverage guide. Retrieved on August 25, 2022, from: https://www. elsevier.com/data/assets/pdf_file/0007/69451/Scopus_ContentCoverage_Guide_WEB.pdf Serenko, A., & Dumay, J. (2015). Citation classics published in knowledge management journals. Part II: Studying research trends and discovering the Google Scholar Effect. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19, 1335–1355. Shichor, D., O’Brien, R.  M., & Decker, D.  L. (1981). Prestige of journals in criminology and criminal justice. Criminology, 19, 461–469. Shutt, J. E., & Barnes, J. C. (2008). Reexamining criminal justice ‘star power’ in a larger sky: A belated response to Rice et al. on sociological influence in criminology and criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 19, 213–226. Sorensen, J. R. (2009). An assessment of the relative impact of criminal justice and criminology journals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 505–511. Stack, S. (1987). Measuring the relative impacts of criminology and criminal justice journals: A research note. Justice Quarterly, 4, 475–484. Steiner, B., & Schwartz, J. (2006). The scholarly productivity of institutions and their faculty in leading criminology and criminal justice journals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 393–400. Vaughn, M. S., Del Carmen, R. V., Perfecto, M., & Charand, K. X. (2004). Journals in criminal justice and criminology: An updated and expanded guide for authors. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 15, 61–192. Wright, R. A., & Cohn, E. G. (1996). The most-cited scholars in criminal justice textbooks, 1989 to 1993. Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 459–467.

Chapter 3

Most-Cited Scholars in Four International Journals

As discussed in Chap. 2, our original research focused on citations in major English-­ speaking countries and examined the most-cited scholars in the major international criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) journals of five countries: Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology (ANZ), British Journal of Criminology (BJC), Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice (CJC), and Criminology (CRIM), which is the journal of the American Society of Criminology. In this chapter, we extend that analysis to the most recent time period, 2016–20. The most-cited works of the most-cited scholars are also listed. Comparisons are made with six earlier five-year time periods (1986–90, 1991–95, 1996–00, 2001–05, 2006–10 and 2011–15) so that changes in the influence and prestige of scholars during the past 35 years can be documented.

3.1 Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology (ANZ) This journal was renamed the Journal of Criminology in 2021, but we will continue to refer to it as ANZ in this book. In ANZ in 2016–20, 151 articles were published by a total of 379 authors (not necessarily different authors, since one individual scholar could be an author or co-author on more than one article); 64% of authors were located in Australia and 6% were located in New Zealand. The other authors were most commonly from the United States (6%) or the United Kingdom (6%). Both the number of articles and the number of authors published in this time period increased markedly compared to the previous time period (115 articles and 267 authors in 2011–15). These articles contained a total of 15,769 cited scholars, of which 837 were self-citations and 640 were coauthor citations. The 14,932 eligible

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. G. Cohn et al., Most Influential Scholars in Criminology and Criminal Justice, 1986-2020, SpringerBriefs in Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23596-2_3

35

36

3  Most-Cited Scholars in Four International Journals

cited scholars (an average of 99 per article) may be compared with 10,152  in 2011–15 (88 per article). These numbers have increased considerably since 1986–90, when there were 3620 eligible cited scholars (43 per article; see Cohn & Farrington, 1994a). Table 3.1 shows the most-cited scholars in ANZ in 2016–20 (those with ranks up to 50). The most-cited scholar, Tom R, Tyler, was cited 63 times. He was quite versatile, with 26 different works cited in 16 different articles (11% of all ANZ articles). His most-cited work, Why People Obey the Law (Tyler, 2006), was cited 12 times. Tyler first entered the ANZ table in 2006–10 (ranked 10) and then advanced to 3 in 2011–15. The second most-cited scholar, Don Weatherburn, was cited 47 times, while the third, Alex R.  Piquero, was cited 45 times. The highest-ranked female scholars were Kristina Murphy (ranked 11), Samantha Jeffries (13.5), and Christine E. W. Bond (15). Highly-cited scholars who were journal editors are noted in the table because it is possible that being an editor may affect a person’s citations. Table 3.1 also shows the comparable rankings of these scholars in the six previous time periods. Robert J. Sampson was the most-cited scholar in 2011–15 and 2006–10, while Lawrence W. Sherman was the most-cited scholar in 2001–05. Only 19 of the 50 most-cited scholars in 2016–20 (38%) were among the most-cited scholars in 2011–15. Between 2011–15 and 2016–20, big advances were made by Don Weatherburn (from 34.5 to 2), Jonathan Jackson (from 39.5 to 6), David Weisburd (from 26.5 to 10), and Kristina Murphy (from 34.5 to 11). The highest new entrants in 2016–20 were Ben Bradford (8), Stephen Farrall (13.5), Samantha Jeffries (13.5), and Christine E. W. Bond (15). Only five of the 10 most-cited scholars in ANZ in 2011–15 were still among the most-cited 50 scholars in 2016–20. The missing five were Terrie E. Moffitt (ranked 4 in 2011–15), Rolf Loeber (6), Daniel S. Nagin (7), Julian V. Roberts (8), and John H. Laub (9). Only Arie Freiberg and John Braithwaite were ranked in the top 50 in all seven time periods, while four other scholars were ranked in the top 50 in six of the seven time periods (David P. Farrington, Lawrence W. Sherman, Janet B. L. Chan, and David Garland). Of the top 10 scholars in 2016–20, only David P. Farrington had also been ranked in the top 50 in the earliest period of 1986–90.

3.2 British Journal of Criminology (BJC) In BJC in 2016–20, 357 articles were published by a total of 759 authors; 41% of authors were located in the United Kingdom, 17% in the United States, 13% in Australia, and 7% in Canada. The number of articles and authors increased markedly compared to the previous time period (284 articles and 551 authors in 2011–15). These articles contained a total of 36,803 cited scholars, of which 1866 were self-­ citations and 1345 were coauthor citations. The 34,937 eligible cited scholars (an average of 98 per article) may be compared with 26,404 in 2011–15 (93 per article). These numbers have increased considerably since 1986–90, when there were 5665 cited scholars (44 per article).

3.2  British Journal of Criminology (BJC)

37

Table 3.1  Most-Cited Scholars in Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology (ANZ) Rank in 16–20 1 2 3 4

Rank in 11–15 3 34.5 2 5

Rank in 06–10 10 8 6.5 2

Rank in 01–05 x 34.5 x 3

Rank in 96–00 x x x x

Rank in 91–95 x x x 29.5

Rank in 86–90 x x x 43

5

1

1

5

x

x

x

6 7 8 9 10

39.5 x x 12 26.5

x 9 x 19 x

x 50 x x x

x 4.5 x x x

x 9.5 x x x

x x x x x

11 12 13.5 13.5 15

34.5 x x x x

x 26 x x x

x 34.5 x x x

x x x x x

x x x x x

x x x x x

16.5

30

26

1

29.5

17.5

x

16.5

45.5

x

x

x

x

x

18.5 18.5 22 22 22

x x x x x

x x x x 39.5

x x x x x

x x x x 16

x x x x 24

x x x x x

22 22 25.5 25.5 28

x 17 x x x

30 x x x x

34.5 x x x x

22.5 x x x x

45.5 x x x x

21 x x x x

28

x

x

x

x

x

x

28

x

x

x

x

x

x

32 32 32 32

x 12 x x

x 33 x x

x 20.5 x x

x 35.5 x x

x 15 45.5 x

x 6.5 x x

Name Tom R. Tyler Don Weatherburn Alex R. Piquero David P. Farrington Robert J. Sampson Jonathan Jackson Chris Cunneen Ben Bradford Francis T. Cullen David L. Weisburd Kristina Murphy Ronald V. Clarke Stephen Farrall Samantha Jeffries Christine E.W. Bond Lawrence W. Sherman Wesley G. Skogan Liqun Cao Adrian Cherney Eileen Baldry Lorana Bartels Roderic G. Broadhurst Janet B.L. Chan Shadd Maruna Emile Durkheim Kelly Richards Steven F. Messner Philip C. Stenning (1) Anna L. Stewart (1) John E. Eck Arie Freiberg Peter K. Manning James R.P. Ogloff

Cites 63 47 45 44 43 39 37 31 30 29 28 27 22 22 21 20 20 19 19 18 18 18 18 18 17 17 16 16 16 15 15 15 15

(continued)

38

3  Most-Cited Scholars in Four International Journals

Table 3.1 (continued) Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in 16–20 11–15 06–10 01–05 96–00 91–95 86–90 Name 32 19.5 39.5 x x x x Stephen W. Raudenbush 37.5 22.5 3 2 1 1 3.5 John Braithwaite 37.5 12 39.5 x 35.5 x x J. Michael Hough 37.5 x x x x x x Jason Payne 37.5 26.5 26 11 x 17.5 x Clifford D. Shearing 37.5 x x x x x x Lucy Snowball 37.5 x x x 29.5 x x Rob White 45.5 x x x 18 x x Don A. Andrews 45.5 45.5 x x 16 x x James L. Bonta 45.5 x 33 50 x x x Marcus Felson 45.5 10 22 6 2 12 x David Garland 45.5 x x x x x x Jude McCulloch 45.5 x 48.5 50 x x x Tim Newburn 45.5 x x x x x x Anastasia Powell 45.5 x x x 35.5 x x Robert Reiner 45.5 x x x x x x Rick Sarre 45.5 x x x x x x Ronald Weitzer

Cites 15 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13

(1) Editors, 2012–16

Table 3.2 shows the most-cited scholars in BJC in 2016–20. The most-cited scholar, Robert J. Sampson, was cited 163 times. He had 45 different works cited in 73 different articles (20% of all BJC articles). His most-cited work, “Neighbourhoods and violent crime” (Sampson et al., 1997), was cited 21 times. Robert J. Sampson was ranked in the top five in each of the last four time periods. The second most-­ cited scholar, Tom R. Tyler, was cited 131 times, while Jonathan Jackson was cited 122 times. The fourth most-cited scholar, David P. Farrington, was ranked in the top 10 or 11 in all seven time periods over 35 years. The highest-ranked female scholars were Sandra Walklate (ranked 11), Alison Liebling (14.5), and Kristina Murphy (28). Sandra Walklate was editor of the BJC in 2014–19. Table 3.2 also shows the comparable rankings of these scholars in the six previous time periods. Robert J. Sampson was the most-cited scholar in 2011–15, as was David Garland in 2006–10 and John Braithwaite in 2001–05. As many as 33 of the 50 most-cited scholars in 2016–20 (66%) were among the most-cited scholars in 2011–15. Between 2011–15 and 2016–20, big advances were made by Ben Bradford (from 27.5 to 7), Stephen Farrall (from 27.5 to 8), Sandra Walklate (from 27.5 to 11), and Shadd Maruna (from 27.5 to 12). The highest new entrants in 2016–20 were Ben Crewe (10), Alison Liebling (14.5), Wim Bernasco (16), and Matthew L. Williams (17). Every one of the top 11 scholars in 2011–15 were still among the most-cited 50 scholars in 2016–20. Remarkably, nine scholars were ranked in the top 50  in all seven time periods: David P.  Farrington, David Garland, Anthony

3.2  British Journal of Criminology (BJC)

39

Table 3.2  Most-Cited Scholars in British Journal of Criminology (BJC) Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in 16–20 11–15 06–10 01–05 96–00 91–95 86–90 Name 1 1 5 5 x 44.5 x Robert J. Sampson 2 2 12 x x x x Tom R. Tyler 3 8 x x x x x Jonathan Jackson 4 10.5 7.5 2 6 5.5 3.5 David P. Farrington 5 3 1 3 9 26.5 14 David Garland 6 5 11 x x x x Ian Loader 7 27.5 x x x x x Ben Bradford 8 27.5 13.5 x x x x Stephen Farrall 9 x 45.5 45.5 x x 30 Stuart Hall 10 x x x x x x Ben Crewe 11 27.5 x x x x x Sandra Walklate (1) 12 27.5 41.5 x x x x Shadd Maruna 13 22.5 21 23.5 13.5 8 6 Anthony E. Bottoms 14.5 7 27.5 x x x x John H. Laub 14.5 x x x x x x Alison Liebling 16 x x x x x x Wim Bernasco 17 x x x x x x Matthew L. Williams 18 x 45.5 x x x x Alex R. Piquero 19.5 27.5 19 6 28 12 1 Stanley Cohen 19.5 32 x x x x x David L. Weisburd 21.5 9 4 1 8 10 19 John Braithwaite 21.5 22.5 3 26.5 11 17 24 Michel Foucault 23 x x x x x x Simon Winlow 25 50 10 19 36.5 x x Richard V. Ericson 25 18 6 34 23 x x Patrick O’Malley 25 32 30.5 x x x x Loic Wacquant 28 6 17 10 2 5.5 9 Ronald V. Clarke 28 40.5 45.5 x x x x Francis T. Cullen 28 x x x x x x Kristina Murphy 31.5 x x 20.5 x x x Adam Crawford 31.5 22.5 x x x x x Keith J. Hayward 31.5 4 2 17.5 4 2 3.5 J. Michael Hough 31.5 44.5 34.5 x x x x Julian V. Roberts 35 18 x 15 17 x x Marcus Felson 35 x x x x x x Fergus McNeill

Cites 163 131 122 114 101 97 89 87 86 83 82 69 62 61 61 60 58 56 55 55 54 54 53 51 51 51 50 50 50 49 49 49 49 47 47

(continued)

40

3  Most-Cited Scholars in Four International Journals

Table 3.2 (continued) Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in 16–20 11–15 06–10 01–05 96–00 91–95 86–90 Name 35 x x x s x x Sveinung Sandberg 38 47 x x x x x Paul J. Brantingham 38 x x x x x x Kelly Hannah-Moffat 38 20 34.5 31.5 x 29 x Lawrence W. Sherman 40 13.5 x x x x x Stephen W. Raudenbush 43.5 x 34.5 x x x x Pierre Bourdieu 43.5 13.5 15 23 x x x J. Richard Sparks 43.5 x x x x x x Patricia L. Brantingham 43.5 16 22 12.5 48 x x Tim Newburn 43.5 x x x x x x Thomas Ugelvik 43.5 x x x x x x Federico Varese 47 10.5 17 7 17 3.5 2 Jock Young 48 37 17 4 11 x x Clifford D. Shearing 49.5 42.5 26 x x x x Daniel S. Nagin 49.5 x x x x x x Gresham M. Sykes

Cites 47 46 46 46 45 44 44 44 44 44 44 43 42 41 41

(1) Editor, 2014–19

E. Bottoms, Stanley Cohen, John Braithwaite, Michel Foucault, Ronald V. Clarke, J.  Michael Hough, and Jock Young. Of the top 10 scholars in 2016–20, David P. Farrington, David Garland, and Stuart Hall had also been ranked in the top 50 in the earliest time period of 1986–90.

3.3 Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice (CJC) In CJC in 2016–20, 103 articles were published by a total of 260 authors; 87% of authors were located in Canada, 9% in the United States, and 2% in the United Kingdom. The number of articles decreased slightly and the number of authors increased slightly compared to the previous time period (111 articles and 241 authors in 2011–15). These articles contained a total of 11,065 cited scholars, of which 446 were self-citations and 493 were coauthor citations. The 10,619 eligible cited scholars (an average of 103 per article) may be compared with 8682 in 2011–15 (78 per article). These numbers have increased considerably since 1986–90, when there were 4049 cited scholars (30 per article).

3.4  Criminology (CRIM)

41

Table 3.3 shows the most-cited scholars in CJC in 2016–20. Because of ties (11 scholars ranked 49), there are 54 scholars in this table with ranks up to 50. The most-cited scholar, Julian V. Roberts, was cited 47 times. He had 32 different works cited in 20 different articles (19% of all CJC articles). His most-cited work, “Aboriginal incarceration in Canada since 1978” (Roberts & Reid, 2017), was cited six times. Julian V. Roberts was ranked in the top two in each of the last five time periods. The next most-cited scholars, Anthony N. Doob and Alex R. Piquero, were each cited 44 times. The highest-ranked female scholars were Patricia L. Brantingham (ranked 14.5), Jane B. Sprott and Cheryl M. Webster (both ranked 28). Table 3.3 also shows the comparable rankings of these scholars in the six previous time periods. Anthony N. Doob was the most-cited scholar in 2011–15, as he had been in 1986–90. He was ranked among the top three scholars in all seven time periods over 35 years. Julian V. Roberts was most-cited in 2006–10, 2001–05, and 1996–2000. Nearly half (26) of the 54 most-cited scholars in 2016–20 (48%) were among the most-cited scholars in 2011–15. Between 2011–15 and 2016–20, big advances were made by Martin A. Andresen (from 27 to 7), John H. Laub (from 41.5 to 17.5), and Jerry H. Ratcliffe (from 41.5 to 25.5). The highest new entrants in 2016–20 were David Weisburd (8), Liqun Cao (10), Paul J. Brantingham (12), and Shawn D. Bushway (16). Ten of the top 11 scholars in 2011–15 (all except Jean-­ Paul Brodeur) were still among the most-cited 50 scholars in 2016–20. Only four scholars were ranked in the top 50  in all seven time periods: Julian V.  Roberts, Anthony N. Doob, Don A. Andrews, and Paul Gendreau. Of the top 11 scholars in 2016–20, five had also been ranked in the top 50  in the earliest time period of 1986–90: Julian V. Roberts, Anthony N. Doob, James L. Bonta, Don A. Andrews, and Francis T. Cullen.

3.4 Criminology (CRIM) In CRIM in 2016–20, 133 articles were published by a total of 326 authors; 85% of authors were located in the United States, 5% in the United Kingdom, and 3% in the Netherlands. The number of articles and the number of authors decreased compared to the previous time period (148 articles and 405 authors in 2011–15). These articles contained a total of 27,060 cited scholars, of which 1082 were self-citations and 1183 were coauthor citations. The 25,978 eligible cited authors (a very high average of 195 per article) may be compared with 23,258  in 2011–15 (157 per article). These numbers have increased considerably since 1986–90, when there were 11,655 cited scholars (70 per article). Table 3.4 shows the most-cited scholars in CRIM in 2016–20. Because of ties, there are 51 scholars in this table. The most-cited scholar, Robert J. Sampson, was cited 216 times. He had 65 different works cited in 74 different articles (a remarkable 56% of all CRIM articles). His most-cited work, Shared Beginnings, Divergent Lives (Laub & Sampson, 2003), was cited 19 times. Remarkably, Robert J. Sampson was the most-cited scholar in five time periods, from 1996–2000 to 2016–20. The

42

3  Most-Cited Scholars in Four International Journals

Table 3.3  Most-Cited Scholars in Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice (CJC) Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in 16–20 11–15 06–10 01–05 96–00 91–95 86–90 Name 1 2 1 1 1 23 16 Julian V. Roberts (1) 2.5 1 2 3 2 2.5 1 Anthony N. Doob 2.5 9 34.5 x x x x Alex R. Piquero 4.5 8 13 2 9.5 x 11 James L. Bonta 4.5 4 6 16.5 20.5 x x Robert J. Sampson 6 6 10 7 6 13 9 Don A. Andrews 7 27 x x x x x Martin A. Andresen 8 x x x x x x David L. Weisburd 10 x x x x x x Liqun Cao 10 7 20.5 12 7.5 x 4.5 Francis T. Cullen 10 x 34.5 x x x x Tom R. Tyler 12 x x x x x x Paul J. Brantingham 13 5 3.5 6 40.5 31 x David P. Farrington 14.5 x x x x x 47.5 Patricia L. Brantingham 14.5 13.5 24 x x x x Scot Wortley 16 x x x x x x Shawn D. Bushway 17.5 41.5 18 x x x x John H. Laub 17.5 x x x 18 x x Raymond Paternoster 19 x x 8 x 44.5 x Lawrence W. Sherman 20 10.5 x x x x x J. Stephen Wormith 21.5 x x 46.5 x x x John E. Eck 21.5 10.5 x x x x x Marcus Felson 23 x x x x x x Ronald Weitzer 24 x x x x x x Rod K. Brunson 25.5 13.5 x x x x x Daniel S. Nagin 25.5 41.5 x x x x x Jerry H. Ratcliffe 28 x x x x x x Shadd Maruna 28 21.5 x 12 12 x x Jane B. Sprott 28 27 x x x x x Cheryl M. Webster 31.5 41.5 24 4 15 37.5 2 Paul Gendreau 31.5 x x x x x x Elizabeth R. Groff 31.5 x x x x x x Shane D. Johnson

Cites 47 44 44 41 41 40 38 37 34 34 34 32 31 27 27 26 24 24 23 22 21 21 20 19 18 18 17 17 17 16 16 16

(continued)

3.4  Criminology (CRIM)

43

Table 3.3 (continued) Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in 16–20 11–15 06–10 01–05 96–00 91–95 86–90 Name 31.5 x x x x x x Shannon J. Linning 37 x x x x x x Ben Bradford 37 13.5 20.5 14 x x x Peter J. Carrington (2) 37 23 x x x x 36 Lawrence E. Cohen 37 x x x x x x Jonathan Jackson 37 49.5 x x x x x Pierre Tremblay 37 x x x x x x Leslie M. Helmus 37 x x x x x x Nicolas Malleson 42 x x x x x x Anthony A. Braga 42 x x x x x x Jeffrey Fagan 42 49.5 x 34 5 x 14 John L. Hagan 49 x x x x x x Wim Bernasco 49 49.5 24 x x 31 22 Alfred Blumstein 49 x x x x x x Marvin D. Krohn 49 x x x x x x Michael E. Lamb 49 13.5 42 x 34 18.5 x Carol LaPrairie 49 x x x x x x Christopher T. Lowenkamp 49 18.5 x x x x x Carlo Morselli 49 41.5 x x x x x Samuel Perreault 49 x x x x x x Samuel R. Sommers 49 x x x x x x William Terrill 49 x x x x x x Yuning Wu

Cites 16 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 14 14 14 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13

(1) Editor, 1993–2004 (2) Editor, 2005–14

next most-cited scholar, Alex R.  Piquero, was cited 184 times, while the third, Raymond Paternoster, was cited 129 times. The highest-ranked female scholars were Terrie E. Moffitt (ranked 21), Devah Pager (23), and Elizabeth Cauffman (34.5). Table 3.4 also shows the comparable rankings of these scholars in the six previous time periods. Travis Hirschi was the most-cited scholar in 1986–90 and 1991–95. The majority (29) of the 51 most-cited scholars in 2016–20 (57%) were among the most-cited scholars in 2011–15. Between 2011–15 and 2016–20, big advances were made by Christopher Uggen (from 34.5 to 10), Scott H. Decker (from 24.5 to 12), and Bruce Western (from 31 to 13). The highest new entrants in 2016–20 were Laurence Steinberg (7), Tom R. Tyler (8), Thomas A. Loughran (17), and Andrew V. Papachristos (19). All of the top 10 scholars in 2011–15 were still among the top 50 scholars in 2016–20. Six scholars were ranked in the top 50 in all seven time periods: Robert J. Sampson, Travis Hirschi, John L. Hagan, David P. Farrington,

44

3  Most-Cited Scholars in Four International Journals

Table 3.4  Most-Cited Scholars in Criminology (CRIM) Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in 16–20 11–15 06–10 01–05 96–00 91–95 86–90 Name 1 1 1 1 1 7 26 Robert J. Sampson 2 2 8.5 7 x x x Alex R. Piquero 3 11 7 4 27 9.5 x Raymond Paternoster (1) 4 4 2 3 12 23.5 x John H. Laub 5 8 6 5 11 20 x Daniel S. Nagin 6 48 x x 46 48.5 x Jeffrey A. Fagan 7 x x x x x x Laurence Steinberg 8 x x x x x x Tom R. Tyler 9 15.5 21.5 x x x x Shawn Bushway 10 34.5 x x x x x Christopher Uggen 11 5.5 5 24 x 45 x Francis T. Cullen 12 24.5 x x x x x Scott H. Decker 13 31 x x x x x Bruce Western 14 5.5 4 6 2 1 1 Travis Hirschi 15 15.5 18 24 8 11.5 7 John L. Hagan 16 3 11 8 5 3 2.5 David P. Farrington 17 x x x x x x Thomas A. Loughran 18 9 19 30 x x x D. Wayne Osgood (2) 19 x x x x x x Andrew V. Papachristos 20 x 49.5 x x x x Travis C. Pratt 21 10 8.5 2 20 x x Terrie E. Moffitt 23 13 10 11 3 2 9 Michael R. Gottfredson 23 x x x x x x Devah Pager 23 x x x x x x Gary Sweeten 26 20 24.5 16 28 x x Robert Agnew 26 38.5 12 9 14.5 x 42 Darrell J. Steffensmeier 26 18 31 34 46 x x Mark Warr 28 22 14 19.5 13 x 27 Steven F. Messner 29 32 x x x x x Ross L. Matsueda 30 24.5 45 41 24.5 20 14 Marvin D. Krohn 31.5 x x x x x x David S. Kirk 31.5 7 3 10 37.5 x x Stephen W. Raudenbush

Cites 216 184 129 110 108 89 82 81 79 76 75 70 69 68 66 64 63 60 59 58 57 56 56 56 53 53 53 50 48 47 46 46

(continued)

3.5  Most-Cited Scholars in all Four Journals

45

Table 3.4 (continued) Rank in 16–20 34.5 34.5

Rank in 11–15 x 41.5

Rank in 06–10 20 x

Rank in 01–05 30 x

Rank in 96–00 x x

Rank in 91–95 x x

34.5

x

x

x

x

x

34.5

x

28

34

x

x

38 38 38

20 x 23

21.5 35.5 x

14 x 32

x x 14.5

x 41.5 x

41.5

44.5

x

x

x

x

41.5

34.5

49.5

x

x

34.5

41.5 41.5 44

x 44.5 x

40 x x

30 x x

x x x

x x x

45 46.5

x x

x x

x x

x x

x x

46.5

x

x

x

x

x

49.5 49.5 49.5 49.5

x x x x

x x 37.5 x

x x 46 x

x x x x

x x x x

Rank in 86–90 Name x Robert Brame x Paul J. Brantingham x Elizabeth Cauffman x. Richard Rosenfeld x Avshalom Caspi x Ronald V. Clarke x Terence P. Thornberry x Patricia L. Brantingham x Theodore G. Chiricos x Janet L. Lauritsen x Eric A. Stewart x Peggy C. Giordano x Charis E. Kubrin x Stephen A. Cernkovich x Finn-Aage Esbensen x Jonathan Jackson x Edward P. Mulvey x Cassia C. Spohn x Sara Wakefield

Cites 45 45 45 45 43 43 43 42 42 42 42 41 40 39 39 38 38 38 38

(1) Editor, 2004–05 (2) Editor, 2012–17

Michael R. Gottfredson, and Marvin D. Krohn. Of the top 10 scholars in 2016–20, only one had also been ranked in the top 50 in the earliest time period of 1986–90: Robert J. Sampson.

3.5 Most-Cited Scholars in all Four Journals In order to produce a combined measure of influence based on all four journals, each cited scholar was given a score of 51 minus their rank on citations in each journal. Thus, the most-cited scholar in each journal was given a score of 50, and all scholars ranked 51 or more in a journal were scored 0. The scores on all four

46

3  Most-Cited Scholars in Four International Journals

journals were then added for each scholar, yielding a total score out of a theoretical maximum of 200. This measure gives equal weight to all four journals. If all citations had merely been added, scholars who were highly cited in journals with a relatively high number of citations (e.g., CRIM) would have predominated. Of the 50 most highly-cited scholars, 29 were highly-cited in BJC, 28 in CJC, 26 in ANZ, and 22 in CRIM. ANZ and BJC were most similar; out of 26 scholars who were highly-cited in ANZ, 17 (65%) were also highly-cited in BJC. CRIM and CJC were also similar; out of 22 scholars who were highly-cited in CRIM, 14 (64%) were also highly-cited in CJC.  CJC and BJC were also quite similar; out of 28 scholars who were highly-cited in CJC, 17 (61%) were also highly-cited in BJC. ANZ and CRIM were least similar; out of 26 scholars who were highly-cited in ANZ, only 9 (35%) were also highly-cited in CRIM. BJC and CRIM were also not very similar; out of 29 scholars who were highly-cited in BJC, only 12 (41%) were also highly-cited in CRIM. Table 3.5 shows the 50 most-cited scholars on this combined measure. The five most-cited scholars were highly-cited in all four journals, while the remainder of the top 10 were highly-cited in at least three journals. The most-cited scholar, Robert J. Sampson, scored 192.5, very close to the maximum possible score of 200. The highest-ranked female scholars were Kristina Murphy (20) and Patricia L. Brantingham (22). Table 3.6 shows the comparable rankings of these 50 scholars in the six earlier time periods. The majority (28) of those who were highly-cited in 2016–20 were also highly-cited in 2011–15 (56%). The most-cited scholar in 2016–20, Robert J.  Sampson, was also the most-cited in 2011–15 and 2006–10, while David P. Farrington (4) was most-cited in 2001–05, John Braithwaite (37) was most-cited in 1996–2000, and Travis Hirschi (46.5) was most-cited in 1991–95. The most-cited scholar in 1986–90, Marvin Wolfgang, did not appear among the 50 most-cited scholars in the most-recent time period. David P. Farrington was among the most-­ cited scholars (in the top four) in all time periods over 35 years. Ronald V. Clarke, Anthony N. Doob, John Braithwaite, and Travis Hirschi were also among the most-­ cited scholars in all seven time periods. Between 2011–15 and 2016–20, big advances were made by Tom R. Tyler (from 11 to 2), David Weisburd (from 15 to 7), Jonathan Jackson (from 23 to 8), and Shadd Maruna (from 21 to 10). The highest new entrants in the table were Ben Bradford (9), Shawn D.  Bushway (14), and Liqun Cao (16). Nine of the top 10 scholars in 2011–15 (all except Terrie E. Moffitt) were still among the most-cited 50 scholars in 2016–20. Of the top 10 scholars in 2016–20, only David P. Farrington and Francis T. Cullen had been ranked in the top 50 in 1986–90. It might be expected that, over time, younger scholars would advance in their rankings, while older scholars would decline. In order to test this, scholars were classified into those born before 1950 (oldest), those born between 1950 and 1969 (middle), and those born in 1970 or later (youngest), as much as could be determined from Internet information. Changes in rankings between 2006–10 and 2016–20 were studied, to investigate changes over a 10-year period, for 75 scholars: 50 in Table 3.6, and a further 25 scholars who were in the top 50 in 2006–10 but not

3.5  Most-Cited Scholars in all Four Journals

47

Table 3.5  Most-Cited Scholars in Four International Journals Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29.5 29.5 31 32.5 32.5 35 35 35 37 38 39.5 39.5 41 42

Name Robert J. Sampson Tom R. Tyler Alex R. Piquero David P. Farrington Francis T. Cullen John H. Laub David L. Weisburd Jonathan Jackson Ben Bradford Shadd Maruna Raymond Paternoster Stephen Farrall Lawrence W. Sherman Shawn D. Bushway Ronald V. Clarke Liqun Cao Daniel S. Nagin Julian V. Roberts Paul J. Brantingham Kristina Murphy Jeffrey A. Fagan Patricia L. Brantingham James L. Bonta David Garland Marcus Felson Don A. Andrews Stephen W. Raudenbush Don Weatherburn Anthony N. Doob John E. Eck Steven F. Messner Ian Loader John L. Hagan Chris Cunneen Laurence Steinberg Martin A. Andresen John Braithwaite Stuart Hall Ben Crewe Christopher Uggen Sandra Walklate Scott H. Decker

ANZ 46 50 48 47 42 x 41 45 43 29 x 37.5 34.5 x 39 32.5 x x x 40 x x 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 19 49 x 19 23 x x 44 x x 13.5 x x x x x

BJC 50 49 33 47 23 36.5 31.5 48 44 39 x 43 13 x 23 x 1.5 19.5 13 23 x 7.5 x 46 16 x 11 x x x x 45 x x x x 29.5 42 41 x 40 x

CJC 46.5 41 48.5 38 41 33.5 43 14 14 23 33.5 x 32 35 x 41 25.5 50 39 x 9 36.5 46.5 x 29.5 45 x x 48.5 29.5 x x 9 x x 44 x x x x x x

CRIM 50 43 49 35 40 47 x 1.5 x x 48 x x 42 13 x 46 16.5 x 45 9.5 x x x x 19.5 x x x 23 x 36 x 44 x x x x 41 x 39

SUM 4 J 192.5 183 178.5 167 146 117 115.5 108.5 101 91 81.5 80.5 79.5 77 75 73.5 73 69.5 68.5 63 54 53.5 52 51.5 51 50.5 49.5 49 48.5 48.5 46 45 45 44 44 44 43 42 41 41 40 39 (continued)

3  Most-Cited Scholars in Four International Journals

48 Table 3.5 (continued) Rank 43.5 43.5 45 46.5 46.5 48.5 48.5 50

Name Anthony E. Bottoms Bruce Western Samantha Jeffries Travis Hirschi Wim Bernasco Alison Liebling Scot Wortley Christine E.W. Bond

ANZ x x 37.5 x x x x 36

BJC 38 x x x 35 36.5 x x

CJC x x x x 2 x 36.5 x

CRIM x 38 x 37 x x x x

SUM 4 J 38 38 37.5 37 37 36.5 36.5 36

in 2016–20. During this 10-year period, 41 scholars improved or (in two cases) stayed the same, while 34 scholars decreased in their rankings. There was a clear relationship between age and changes in rankings. All of the nine youngest scholars improved, compared with 20 out of 37 middle (54%), and 12 out of 29 oldest (41%). These results are consistent with ideas about the waxing and waning of citation careers as researchers get older and eventually die.

3.6 Most-Cited Works of the Most-Cited Scholars Table 3.7 shows the most-cited works of the 10 most-cited scholars in 2016–20. These included both books and articles. John H.  Laub was the most specialized scholar, as he had the fewest works cited (37), and two highly-cited works. Alex R. Piquero and David P. Farrington were the most versatile scholars, as they had the most works cited (158 and 118, respectively) and no single highly-cited work. Robert J. Sampson and Tom R. Tyler were the top two scholars because they were both versatile (with 84 and 72 different works cited, respectively) and specialized (with two highly-cited works).

3.7 Conclusion The main strengths of this research lie in the extensive checking, informed by knowledge about the field of criminology and of criminologists, in an effort to minimize the many errors that appear in mechanical analyses of citations (e.g., through the use of SSCI). For example, much effort was devoted to distinguishing between different individuals with the same name, such as the Australian (sometime Canadian-based) Patrick O’Malley and the American Patrick M. O’Malley. Unlike SSCI, all self-citations were excluded. Another important strength of this research is the collection of comparable citation data from major international criminological journals over a 35-year period. This makes it possible to identify the increasing

3.7 Conclusion

49

Table 3.6  Most-Cited Scholars in Four International Journals – Prior Ranks Rank in 16–20 1 2 3 4

Rank in 11–15 1 11 4 2

Rank in 06–10 1 12 8 2

Rank in 01–05 2 x 36.5 1

Rank in 96–00 10 x x 3

Rank in 91–95 18 x x 2

Rank in 86–90 x x x 3

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

5 3 15 23 x 21 33

6.5 3 x x x x 15

16 12 x x x x 27

34 45 x x x x 21

x x x x x x 39.5

29 x x x x x x

12 13

x 13.5

45.5 25

x 5

x x

x 15

x x

14

x

x

x

x

x

x

15 16 17 18 19

34.5 x 6 10 x

21 x 5 9 x

11 x 29.5 23 x

25.5 x 41 22 x

16.5 x x x x

8 x x x x

20 21 22

x x x

x x x

x x x

x x x

x x x

x x x

23 24 25 26 27

29 12 8 34.5 7

43.5 4 39 36.5 27

25 8 31 36.5 45

15 2 x 13 x

x 14 x x x

45.5 x x 40 x

28 29.5 29.5 31 32.5 32.5 35

x 27 x 19 32 31 x

33 30 x 47.5 39 x 34.5

x 25 x x x 34.5 x

x 25.5 x 48 x 7 29

x 24 x x x 45 39.5

x 22.5 x 24 x 10 x

Name Robert J. Sampson Tom R. Tyler Alex R. Piquero David P. Farrington Francis T. Cullen John H. Laub David L. Weisburd Jonathan Jackson Ben Bradford Shadd Maruna Raymond Paternoster Stephen Farrall Lawrence W. Sherman Shawn D. Bushway Ronald V. Clarke Liqun Cao Daniel S. Nagin Julian V. Roberts Paul J. Brantingham Kristina Murphy Jeffrey A. Fagan Patricia L. Brantingham James L. Bonta David Garland Marcus Felson Don A. Andrews Stephen W. Raudenbush Don Weatherburn Anthony N. Doob John E. Eck Steven F. Messner Ian Loader John L. Hagan Chris Cunneen (continued)

3  Most-Cited Scholars in Four International Journals

50 Table 3.6 (continued) Rank in 16–20 35

Rank in 11–15 x

Rank in 06–10 x

Rank in 01–05 x

Rank in 96–00 x

Rank in 91–95 x

Rank in 86–90 x

35

x

x

x

x

x

x

37 38 39.5 39.5

18 x x x

13 x x x

7 x x x

1 x x x

5 x x x

11 x x x

41 42 43.5

x 36 41

x x 36.5

x x x

x x 49.5

x x 24

x x 18

43.5 45 46.5 46.5 48.5 48.5 50

x x 16.5 x x 45.5 x

x x 17 x x x x

x x 3 x x x x

x x 8 x x x x

x x 1 x x x x

x x 7 x x x x

Name Laurence Steinberg Martin A. Andresen John Braithwaite Stuart Hall Ben Crewe Christopher Uggen Sandra Walklate Scott H. Decker Anthony E. Bottoms Bruce Western Samantha Jeffries Travis Hirschi Wim Bernasco Alison Liebling Scot Wortley Christine E.W. Bond

scholarly influence of relatively younger scholars such as Robert J. Sampson and even younger scholars such as Alex R.  Piquero, and the decreasing influence of older scholars such as Travis Hirschi. This research is based on citations in only a small number of mainstream CCJ journals in the English-speaking world (although Canada is bilingual). This is both a strength and a weakness. The selected journals are all prestigious criminology journals, allowing a research focus on citations in these specific journals. If a more generic source of citation data, such as SSCI, had been used, citations from a wide variety of journals that are either less prestigious or have little or nothing to do with criminology would have been included. However, the research is limited to journals that were being published in 1986, when this analysis of citations began, and thus it is not possible to include more recent journals. For example, if the research was beginning today, the European Journal of Criminology would most likely have been included. The small number of journals examined also means that this research probably underestimates the influence of scholars whose research focusses on very narrow specialities, or who primarily publish in other disciplines, and who may not be highly cited in these more mainstream CCJ journals. While some criminologists may be very influential within their limited areas of specialization, they may not be widely cited in the more mainstream CCJ journals.

51

3.7 Conclusion Table 3.7  Most-Cited Works of the Most-Cited Scholars Rank Author 1 Robert J. Sampson 84 different works cited; 40% cited once

2

3

4

5

6

7

Tom R. Tyler 72 different works cited; 39% cited once

Alex R. Piquero 158 different works cited; 53% cited once

David P. Farrington 118 different works cited; 81% cited once

Francis T. Cullen 90 different works cited; 66% cited once

John H. Laub 37 different works cited; 49% cited once

David L. Weisburd 70 different works cited; 61% cited once

Number of Work Citations Sampson, R.J., Raudenbush, S.W., & Earls, F. (1997). 43 Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924. Sampson, R.J., & Laub, J.H. (1993), Crime in the making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Tyler, T.R. (1990/2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

41 39

Sunshine, J. & Tyler, T.R. (2003) The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law and Society Review, 37, 513–548. Paternoster, R. et al. (1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36, 859–866.

36

Piquero, A.R., Farrington, D.P., & Blumstein, A. (2007). Key issues in criminal career research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Piquero, A.R., Farrington, D.P., & Blumstein, A. (2007). Key issues in criminal career research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

9

Farrington, D.P. (1986). Age and crime. Crime and Justice, 7, 189–250. Pratt, T.C. & Cullen, F.T. (2005). Assessing macro level predictors and theories of crime: A meta analysis. Crime and Justice, 32, 373–450.

6

12

7

11

Pratt, T.C. & Cullen, F.T. (2000). The empirical status 10 of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38, 931–964. Sampson, R.J., & Laub, J.H. (1993), Crime in the 42 making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Laub, J.H., & Sampson, R.J. (2006). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Weisburd, D. et al. (2004). Trajectories of crime at places: A longitudinal study of street segments in the City of Seattle. Criminology, 42, 283–321.

41

12

(continued)

52

3  Most-Cited Scholars in Four International Journals

Table 3.7 (continued) Rank Author

8

9

10

Jonathan Jackson 48 different works cited; 44% cited once

Ben Bradford 52 different works cited; 42% cited once

Shadd Maruna 43 different works cited; 51% cited once

Work Weisburd, D., Groff, E.R., & Yang, S-M. (2012). The criminology of place. New York: Oxford University Press. Jackson, J. et al. (2012). Just authority? Trust in the police in England and Wales. London, U.K.: Routledge. Jackson, J. et al. (2012). Why do people comply with the law? Legitimacy and the influence of legal institutions. British Journal of Criminology, 52, 1051–1071. Jackson, J. et al. (2012). Why do people comply with the law? Legitimacy and the influence of legal institutions. British Journal of Criminology, 52, 1051–1071. Jackson, J. et al. (2012). Just authority? Trust in the police in England and Wales. London, U.K.: Routledge. Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Number of Citations 11

13

12

15

14

47

7 LeBel, T.P. et al. (2008). The “chicken and egg” of subjective and social factors in desistance from crime. European Journal of Criminology, 5, 131–159. 7 Maruna, S. et al. (2004). Pygmalion in the reintegration process: Desistance from crime through the looking glass. Psychology, Crime and Law, 10, 271–281.

The most-cited scholars will vary depending on the journals (or other sources) analyzed and the time period. CJC, BJC, and ANZ include criminal justice topics as well as (or even more than) criminology topics, whereas CRIM focuses on criminology and includes only a limited number of articles on criminal justice topics. Arguably, American criminology/criminal justice research would be better represented by analyzing both CRIM and Justice Quarterly, as indeed Cohn and Farrington (1994b) have done. However, the main aim of the present chapter was to analyze citations in the one major journal in each of the main English-speaking countries, and CRIM is undoubtedly the major criminological journal in the United States. In 2016–20, the most-cited scholars in these four journals were Robert J. Sampson in BJC and CRIM, Tom R. Tyler in ANZ, and Julian V. Roberts in CJC. In all four journals combined, the most-cited scholars were Robert J. Sampson, Tom R. Tyler, Alex R. Piquero, David P. Farrington, and Francis T. Cullen. The most-cited works

References in the Text

53

of the most-cited authors show that some scholars were specialized, because they had a large number of citations of one or two seminal works. Other scholars were versatile, because they had many different works cited only a few times each. Therefore, there are two different ways in which scholarly influence operates in criminology and criminal justice. Over time, the average number of cited scholars per article has tended to increase. This may reflect either the increasing volume of criminological literature over time or the increasing ease of accessing it. Thirty-five years ago, it was much more difficult for scholars to obtain and read source works, as they had to obtain printed copies of journal articles from their university library or request them through inter-­ library loan. Today, journals are available online in a full-text format, and can be accessed anywhere, as long as a scholar has internet access. It might be expected that, in light of the increasing accessibility of journal articles, scholars will now cite more articles than books, compared to 35 years ago. However, in these analyses, books were still among the most highly-cited works of the most highly-cited scholars. To a considerable extent, all four journals tended to be parochial, with many published articles written by authors from their own countries. BJC was the most international and least parochial of the four, with only 41% of published articles written by scholars from the United Kingdom. CJC and CRIM were the most parochial; approaching 90% of the published articles in each of these journals were written by scholars from the home country. Thus, major journals in criminology do not appear to truly reflect the increasing globalization of the world. Given the diminution of national boundaries, the ever-increasing integration of formerly distinct communities, and the growing internationalization of society, it is clear that criminology ideally needs to follow social trends and become more global, with increasing communication and collaboration among criminologists from different countries.

References in the Text Cohn, E.  G., & Farrington, D.  P. (1994a). Who are the most influential criminologists in the English-speaking world? British Journal of Criminology, 34, 204–225. Cohn, E.  G., & Farrington, D.  P. (1994b). Who are the most-cited scholars in major American criminology and criminal justice journals? Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 517–534. Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives. Harvard University Press. Roberts, J. V., & Reid, A. A. (2017). Aboriginal incarceration in Canada since 1978: Every picture tells the same story. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 59, 313–345. Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924. Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press.

Chapter 4

Most-Cited Scholars in Six American Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals

This chapter examines the most-cited scholars in 2016–20 in three major American criminology journals (Criminology – CRIM, Journal of Quantitative Criminology – JQC, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency – JRCD) and three major American criminal justice journals (Justice Quarterly – JQ, Journal of Criminal Justice – JCJ, Criminal Justice and Behavior – CJB). The most-cited works of the most-cited scholars are also listed. Comparisons are made with six earlier time periods (1986–90, 1991–95, 1996–00, 2001–05, 2006–10, 2011–15), so that changes in the influence and prestige of scholars during the past 35 years can be documented. As we discussed the most-cited scholars in CRIM in Chap. 3 (see Table 3.4), we begin here with JQC.

4.1 Journal of Quantitative Criminology (JQC) In JQC in 2016–20, 178 articles were published by a total of 482 authors, 72% of whom were based in the United States. The non-American authors were most commonly from the Netherlands (5%), Australia (5%) and the United Kingdom (5%). The numbers of articles and authors increased markedly from the previous time period (133 articles and 338 authors in 2011–15). These articles contained a total of 28,499 cited authors, of which 1209 were self-citations and 1434 were coauthor citations. The 27,290 eligible cited authors (an average of 153 per article) may be compared with 19,165 in 2011–15 (144 per article). These numbers have increased considerably since 1986–90, when there were only 14,708 cited scholars (47 per article). Table 4.1 shows the 50 most-cited scholars in JQC in 2016–20. The most-cited scholar, David L. Weisburd, was cited 308 times. He had 74 different works cited in 74 different articles (42% of all JQC articles). His most-cited work, The Criminology © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. G. Cohn et al., Most Influential Scholars in Criminology and Criminal Justice, 1986-2020, SpringerBriefs in Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23596-2_4

55

56

4  Most-Cited Scholars in Six American Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals

Table 4.1  Most-Cited Scholars in Journal of Quantitative Criminology (JQC) Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in 16–20 11–15 06–10 01–05 96–00 91–95 86–90 Name 1 8 16.5 x x x x David L. Weisburd (1) 2 2 1 2.5 3 6 x Robert J. Sampson 3 x x x x x x Elizabeth R. Groff 4 x x x x x x Sue-Ming Yang 5 26 23.5 x x x x Paul J. Brantingham 6 36.5 x x x x x Shane D. Johnson 7 1 3 13 x x x Alex R. Piquero (2) 8 42 x x x x x Anthony A. Braga 9 3 2 1 4.5 12.5 x Daniel S. Nagin 10 6 4 6 1 2 9.5 David P. Farrington 11 12 9 20.5 x x x Stephen W. Raudenbush 12 32 x x x x 36.5 Ronald V. Clarke 13 44.5 21.5 x x x x Patricia L. Brantingham 14 9 11 2.5 4.5 1 8 Travis Hirschi 15.5 5 20 22.5 x x x Francis T. Cullen 15.5 x x x x x x Andrew V. Papachristos 17 39 33 x x x x John E. Eck 18.5 x 18 x x x x Shawn D. Bushway 18.5 15.5 x x x x x Jerry H. Ratcliffe 20 18.5 25 33.5 27.5 35 x Lawrence W. Sherman 21 23.5 16.5 x x 44.5 11.5 Marcus Felson 22 x x x x x x Martin A. Andresen 23.5 x x x x x x Kate J. Bowers 23.5 18.5 x x x x x Scott H. Decker 25 x x x x x x Wim Bernasco 26 x x x x x x Tom R. Tyler 27 7 13 5 7.5 5 4 Michael R. Gottfredson 29 27.5 x x x x x Gary LaFree 29 10 5 10.5 12 18 x John H. Laub (3) 29 x x 37.5 x x x Ralph B. Taylor

Cites 308 232 134 114 110 102 100 99 96 93 92 89 88 85 80 80 78 77 77 76 75 74 67 67 64 63 62 61 61 61

(continued)

4.1  Journal of Quantitative Criminology (JQC)

57

Table 4.1 (continued) Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in 16–20 11–15 06–10 01–05 96–00 91–95 86–90 Name 31 47 27 x x x x Richard Rosenfeld 32 20 x x x x x Finn-Aage Esbensen 33 13.5 15 37.5 x x x D. Wayne Osgood 34 4 7 8 40 44.5 x Raymond Paternoster 36 x x x x x x John R. Hipp 36 13.5 40 x 20 x x Ken Pease 36 36.5 x x x x x Travis C. Pratt 38 21.5 6 7 2 3 2 Alfred Blumstein 40 36.5 19 27 x x x Robert J. Bursik 40 40 23.5 41.5 16 12.5 3 Lawrence E. Cohen 40 21.5 x x x x x Janet L. Lauritsen 42.5 x x x x x x David M. Hureau 42.5 x x x x x x Laurence Steinberg 45 x 12 4 7.5 21 49 Kenneth C. Land 45 29.5 26 x x 39 x Steven F. Messner 45 x x x x x x Tom A. B. Snijders 47.5 x 33 18 36 18 x Darrell J. Steffensmeier 47.5 x 28.5 x x x x Jeffrey T. Ulmer 49 x x x x x x Cynthia Lum 50 x x x 43 x x Jeffrey A. Fagan

Cites 59 58 55 53 52 52 52 51 50 50 50 49 49 48 48 48 47 47 46 45

(1) Editor, 2015–20 (2) Editor, 2009–14 (3) Editor, 1992–96

of Place (Weisburd et al., 2012), was cited 40 times. David L. Weisburd first entered the JQC table in 2006–10 (ranked 16.5) and then advanced to 8 in 2011–15. The second most-cited scholar, Robert J. Sampson, was cited 232 times, while Elizabeth R. Groff was cited 134 times and Sue-Ming Yang was cited 114 times. Groff and Yang (both coauthors of David L. Weisburd) were the highest-ranked female scholars in JQC, followed by Patricia L.  Brantingham (ranked 13) and Kate J. Bowers (23.5). Table 4.1 also shows the comparable rankings of these scholars in JQC in the six previous time periods. Alex R.  Piquero was the most-cited scholar in 2011–15, Robert J. Sampson in 2006–10, Daniel S. Nagin in 2001–05, David P. Farrington in 1996–00, and Travis Hirschi in 1991–95. (Marvin E. Wolfgang was most-cited in 1986–90.) A total of 32 of the most-cited scholars in 2016–20 (64%) were also

58

4  Most-Cited Scholars in Six American Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals

among the most-cited scholars in 2011–15. Between 2011–15 and 2016–20, big advances were made by Paul J.  Brantingham (from 26 to 5), Shane D.  Johnson (from 36.5 to 6) and Anthony A. Braga (from 42 to 8). The highest new entrants in 2016–20 were Elizabeth R. Groff (3), Sue-Ming Yang (4), and Andrew V. Papachristos (15.5). All of the 10 most-cited scholars in JQC in 2011–15 were still among the most-cited 50 scholars in 2016–20. Five scholars were ranked in the top 50 in all seven time periods over 35 years: David P. Farrington (ranked in the top 10 in all time periods), Travis Hirschi, Michael R.  Gottfredson, Alfred Blumstein, and Lawrence E. Cohen.

4.2 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency (JRCD) In JRCD in 2016–20, 131 articles were published by a total of 342 authors, 73% of whom were American. The non-American authors were most commonly from the Netherlands (10%), Canada (3%), and Australia (3%). These articles contained a total of 22,475 cited scholars, of which 980 were self-citations and 1108 were coauthor citations. The 21,495 eligible cited scholars (an average of 164 per article) may be compared with 15,815  in 2011–15 (118 per article). These numbers have increased considerably since 1986–90, when there were only 5422 cited scholars (67 per article). Table 4.2 shows the 49 most-cited scholars (those ranked up to 50) in JRCD in 2016–20. There are not exactly 50 because the next scholars on the list were tied with a rank greater than 50. The most-cited scholar, Robert J. Sampson, was cited 233 times. He had 63 different works cited in 78 different articles (a remarkable 60% of all JRCD articles). His most-cited work, “Neighborhoods and violent crime” (Sampson et  al., 1997), was cited 23 times. The second most-cited scholar, Alex R. Piquero, was cited 156 times, while Raymond Paternoster was cited 116 times. The highest-ranked female scholars were Terrie E. Moffitt (ranked 18.5), Christy A. Visher (30), and Patricia L. Brantingham (35). Table 4.2 also shows the comparable rankings of these scholars in JRCD in the six previous time periods. Robert J.  Sampson was the most-cited scholar from 1996–2000 onwards, while Travis Hirschi was most-cited in 1986–90 and 1991–95. The majority of the most-cited scholars in 2016–20 (30, or 61%) were also among the most-cited scholars in 2011–15. Between 2011–15 and 2016–20, big advances were made by Tom R. Tyler (from 47 to 8), Robert Agnew (from 35.5 to 11), and Wim Bernasco (from 40 to 14). The highest new entrants in 2016–20 were Shane D. Johnson (18.5), Shawn D. Bushway (20), and Greg Pogarsky (21). All of the 10 most-cited scholars in JRCD in 2011–15 were still among the 49 most-cited scholars in 2016–20. Five scholars were ranked in the top 50 in all seven time periods: Robert J. Sampson, Travis Hirschi, Michael R. Gottfredson, Alfred Blumstein, and Marvin D. Krohn.

4.2  Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency (JRCD)

59

Table 4.2  Most-Cited Scholars in Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency (JRCD) Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in 16–20 11–15 06–10 01–05 96–00 91–95 86–90 Name 1 1 1 1 1 6 20.5 Robert J. Sampson 2 3 7 30.5 x x x Alex R. Piquero 3 x 10 6 14 7 14 Raymond Paternoster 4 6 3 4 8 5 x David P. Farrington 5 5 6 12 12 x x John H. Laub 6 7.5 8 9 24.5 35 x Daniel S. Nagin 7 12 4.5 2 2 1 1 Travis Hirschi 8 47 x x x x x Tom R. Tyler 9 4 x x x x x David L. Weisburd 11 35.5 12 11 5.5 x x Robert Agnew 11 2 46 x x 35 x Ronald V. Clarke 11 7.5 13 19 x x x Stephen W. Raudenbush 13 17 4.5 9 49.5 35 x Francis T. Cullen 14 40 x x x x x Wim Bernasco 15 20 9 3 3 4 6 Michael R. Gottfredson 16 15.5 14 44 x x x D. Wayne Osgood 17 18 x x x x x Richard T. Wright 18.5 x x x x x x Shane D. Johnson 18.5 26 2 5 24.5 x x Terrie E. Moffitt 20 x x x x x x Shawn D. Bushway 21 x x x x x x Greg Pogarsky 22 32.5 x x 31 17.5 x Jeffrey A. Fagan (1) 24.5 44 15.5 23.5 24.5 15 18 Alfred Blumstein 24.5 x 18 36 x x x Robert Brame 24.5 10 23 x 17 11 38.5 Marcus Felson 24.5 37.5 x x x x x Laurence Steinberg 27 13 x 40.5 x x x Scott H. Decker 28 x x x x x x Ron L. Simons 29 x x x x x x Jonathan Jackson 30 x x x 21.5 42.5 x Christy A. Visher 31.5 x x x x x x Thomas A. Loughran 31.5 x x x x x x Gary Sweeten

Cites 233 156 116 104 95 92 88 86 80 79 79 79 68 66 65 64 62 53 53 52 49 48 46 46 46 46 45 44 43 42 41 41

(continued)

60

4  Most-Cited Scholars in Six American Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals

Table 4.2 (continued) Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in 16–20 11–15 06–10 01–05 96–00 91–95 86–90 Name 35 14 x x x x x Patricia L. Brantingham 35 11 x x x x x Paul J. Brantingham 35 9 x x x x x John E. Eck 35 22 27 23.5 10 20.5 11.5 Marvin D. Krohn 35 x x x x x x Michael D. Reisig 38 x x x x x x Elizabeth Cauffman 39.5 41.5 x x x x x Bruce A. Jacobs 39.5 21 x x x x x Jerry H. Ratcliffe 43 x x x x x x Robert Apel 43 x x x x x x Anthony A. Braga 43 x 38 48.5 10 15 3 John L. Hagan 43 x x x 46 x x Ross L. Matsueda 43 x x x x x x Christopher Uggen 47 28.5 11 13 28.5 39 x Rolf Loeber 47 24 23 x x x x Travis C. Pratt 47 x x x x x x Eric A. Stewart 49 x x x x x x Ben Bradford

Cites 39 39 39 39 39 38 37 37 36 36 36 36 36 35 35 35 34

(1) Editor, 1993–96

4.3 Justice Quarterly (JQ) In JQ in 2016–20, 243 articles were published by a total of 646 authors, 90% of whom were American. The non-American authors were most commonly from the United Kingdom (3%) and Canada (2%). These articles contained a total of 38,888 cited scholars, of which 1859 were self-citations and 1918 were coauthor citations. The 37,029 eligible cited scholars (an average of 152 per article) may be compared with 26,142 in 2011–15 (135 per article). These numbers have increased considerably since 1986–90, when there were only 9393 cited scholars (68 per article). Table 4.3 shows the 48 most-cited scholars (all those ranked up to 50) in JQ in 2016–20. The most-cited scholar was again Robert J. Sampson, with 238 cites. He had 66 different works cited in 95 different articles (39% of all JQ articles). His most-cited work was again “Neighborhoods and violent crime” (Sampson et  al., 1997), which was cited 26 times. The second most-cited scholar was again Alex R. Piquero, who was cited 228 times, while Cassia C. Spohn was cited 206 times. The highest-ranked female scholars were Cassia C.  Spohn (ranked 3), Christy A. Visher (23), and Nancy Rodriguez (34).

4.3  Justice Quarterly (JQ)

61

Table 4.3  Most-Cited Scholars in Justice Quarterly (JQ) Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in 16–20 11–15 06–10 01–05 96–00 91–95 86–90 Name 1 1 1 1 2 12.5 x Robert J. Sampson 2 3.5 3 9 x x x Alex R. Piquero 3 8 18.5 x 25.5 x x Cassia C. Spohn (1) 4 x x x x x x Jeffrey T. Ulmer 5 2 2 3 3 3 1 Francis T. Cullen (2) 6 13 6.5 6 4 45 28 Raymond Paternoster 7 9 32.5 47.5 x x x David L. Weisburd 8 20.5 x x x x x Brian D. Johnson 9 6 22 x x x x Tom R. Tyler 10 7 10.5 10.5 29.5 19.5 28 David P. Farrington 11 11 10.5 18 34.5 45 x Darrell J. Steffensmeier 12 5 x 13 x x x Daniel S. Nagin 13 3.5 6.5 4 23 x x John H. Laub 14.5 x x x x x x Daniel P. Mears 14.5 x x x x x x John Wooldredge 16 12 4 12 x x x Stephen W. Raudenbush 17 23.5 15 28 x 27.5 x Jeffrey A. Fagan 18.5 22 25 39 24 x x Scott H. Decker 18.5 34.5 28.5 x x x x John H. Kramer 20 29 x x x x x Anthony A. Braga 21 18.5 12 10.5 17 1 18 Lawrence W. Sherman 22 18.5 x x x x x Shawn D. Bushway 23 14 27 x 27 38 48.5 Christy A. Visher 25 20.5 16.5 30 5 x x Robert Agnew 25 x x x x x x William D. Bales 25 43 x x x x x Richard T. Wright 27 x x x x x x Eric A. Stewart 28.5 x x x x x x Ronald V. Clarke 28.5 43 x 39 x x x D. Wayne Osgood 30 15.5 6.5 2 8.5 4.5 3 Travis Hirschi 31 40 x x x 14 x Marcus Felson 32 x x x x x x Wesley G. Jennings

Cites 238 228 206 155 152 148 134 130 127 120 110 107 97 96 96 92 89 87 87 85 77 74 72 71 71 71 70 69 69 68 63 60

(continued)

62

4  Most-Cited Scholars in Six American Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals

Table 4.3 (continued) Rank in 16–20 34 34 34 37 37 37

Rank in 11–15 26 x x 25 43 x

Rank in 06–10 32.5 x x x x x

Rank in 01–05 44 x x x x x

Rank in 96–00 x x x 40 x x

Rank in 91–95 x x x 11 x x

Rank in 86–90 x x x 41 x x

40.5

x

38

x

x

x

x

40.5 40.5 40.5

x 30.5 10

x 25 50

x x x

x x x

x x x

x x x

43 46 46 46 46 46

32.5 x x 47 30.5 x

28.5 x x x x x

34 13 x x x x

40 x x x x x

x 28 x x x x

x x x x x x

Name Robert Brame Nancy Rodriguez William Terrill Joan Petersilia Michael D. Reisig Benjamin M. Steiner Celesta A. Albonetti Charis E. Kubrin Travis C. Pratt Richard Rosenfeld Terrie E. Moffitt Geoffrey P. Alpert Rod K. Brunson Stephen Demuth John E. Eck Jerry H. Ratcliffe

Cites 57 57 57 55 55 55 54 54 54 54 53 52 52 52 52 52

(1) Editor, 2011–16 (2) Editor, 1987–89

Table 4.3 also shows the comparable rankings of these scholars in JQ in the six previous time periods. Robert J. Sampson was the most-cited scholar from 2001–05 awards, while John L. Hagan was most-cited in 1996–2000, Lawrence W. Sherman in 1991–95, and Francis T. Cullen in 1986–90. Over two-thirds of the most-cited scholars in 2016–20 (33 out of 48, or 69%) were also among the most-cited scholars in 2011–15. Between 2011–15 and 2016–20, big advances were made by Brian D.  Johnson (from 20.5 to 8), John H.  Kramer (from 34.5 to 18.5), and Richard T.  Wright (from 43 to 25). The highest new entrants in 2016–20 were Jeffrey T. Ulmer (4), Daniel P. Mears and John Wooldredge (both 14.5). All of the most-­ cited 10 scholars in JQ in 2011–15 were still among the 48 most-cited scholars in 2016–20. Five scholars were ranked in the top 50 in all seven time periods: Francis T.  Cullen (in the top five over the whole 35-year period), Raymond Paternoster, David P. Farrington, Lawrence W. Sherman, and Travis Hirschi.

4.4 Journal of Criminal Justice (JCJ) In JCJ in 2016–20, 296 articles were published by a total of 1016 authors, 60% of whom were American. The non-American authors were most commonly from the United Kingdom (10%) and Canada (8%). These articles contained a total of 59,868

4.5  Criminal Justice and Behavior (CJB)

63

cited scholars, of which 3165 were self-citations and 3729 were coauthor citations. The 56,703 eligible cited scholars (an average of 192 per article) may be compared with 45,194 in 2011–15 (163 per article). These numbers have increased considerably since 1986–90, when there were only 7234 cited scholars (40 per article). Table 4.4 shows the 52 most-cited scholars (all those ranked up to 50) in JCJ in 2016–20. The most-cited scholar was Alex R. Piquero, with 488 cites. He had 217 different works cited in 144 different articles (49% of all JCJ articles). His most-­ cited work was “New frontiers in criminal careers research, 2000–2011” (DeLisi & Piquero, 2011), which was cited 12 times. The second most-cited scholar was Matthew DeLisi, who was cited 350 times, while David P. Farrington was cited 296 times. The highest-ranked female scholars were Terrie E. Moffitt (ranked 6), Magda Stouthamer-Loeber (27) and Cassia C. Spohn (44). Table 4.4 also shows the comparable rankings of these scholars in JCJ in the six previous time periods. Matthew DeLisi was most-cited in 2011–15, while Francis T. Cullen was most-cited from 1996–2000 to 2006–10. (John L. Hagan was most-­ cited in 1991–95, and Robert M. Regoli in 1986–90.) Over two-thirds of the most-­ cited scholars in 2016–20 (36 out of 52, or 69%) were also among the most-cited scholars in 2011–15. Between 2011–15 and 2016–20, big advances were made by Robert D.  Hare (from 18.5 to 8), Tom R.  Tyler (from 27.5 to 17), and James C. Barnes (from 31.5 to 20). The highest new entrants in 2016–20 were Laurence Steinberg (22), Ron L. Simons (23), and Brian B. Boutwell (28). All of the 10 most-­ cited scholars in 2011–15 were still among the 52 most-cited scholars in 2016–20. Three scholars were ranked in the top 50 in all seven time periods: Francis T. Cullen, Michael R. Gottfredson, and Alfred Blumstein.

4.5 Criminal Justice and Behavior (CJB) In CJB in 2016–20, 436 articles were published by a total of 1490 authors, 65% of whom were American. The non-American authors were most commonly from Canada (11%) and Australia (5%). These articles contained a total of 75,583 cited scholars, of which 3510 were self-citations and 4338 were coauthor citations. The 72,073 eligible cited scholars (an average of 165 per article) may be compared with 55,082 in 2011–15 (150 per article). These numbers have increased considerably since 1986–90, when there were only 6267 cited scholars (46 per article). Table 4.5 shows the 50 most-cited scholars in CJB in 2016–20. The most-cited scholar was Don A. Andrews, with 458 cites. He had 53 different works cited in 155 different articles (36% of all CJB articles). His most-cited work was The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (Bonta & Andrews, 2017, sixth edition), which was cited 109 times in its various editions. The second most-cited scholar was James L. Bonta, who was cited 388 times, while Alex R. Piquero was cited 296 times. The highest female scholars were Jennifer L. Skeem (ranked 7), Terrie E. Moffitt (9), and Faye S. Taxman (16.5).

64

4  Most-Cited Scholars in Six American Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals

Table 4.4  Most-Cited Scholars in Journal of Criminal Justice (JCJ) Rank in 16–20 1 2

Rank in 11–15 2 1

Rank in 06–10 2 x

Rank in 01–05 15 x

Rank in 96–00 x x

Rank in 91–95 x x

3

7.5

5

3

4

34

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

3 7.5 4 14 18.5 5 6

x 3 15.5 27 x 1 x

x 2 6 18 x 1 x

x 27.5 x x x 1 x

x 23 x x x 2 x

11 12 13 14 15 16

12 10 13 16 9 17

6 38 14 47 13 9

5 x x x 8 9.5

2 x x x x 3

3.5 x x x x 9

17 18

27.5 24

17 x

x x

x x

x x

19 20 21 22

22 31.5 11 x

x x 4 x

x x 28 x

x x 13.5 x

x x x x

23 24

x 47

x x

x x

x x

x x

25

15

8

4

x

x

26 27

18.5 36

11 x

14 x

x x

x x

28 29 30.5 30.5 32

x x 20 x 26

x x x x 39.5

x x x x x

x x x x x

x x x x 23

Rank in 86–90 Name x Alex R. Piquero x Matthew DeLisi (1) x David P. Farrington x Kevin M. Beaver x Robert J. Sampson x Terrie E. Moffitt x Rolf Loeber x Robert D. Hare 17.5 Francis T. Cullen x Michael G. Vaughn x Travis Hirschi x John P. Wright x Travis C. Pratt x Avshalom Caspi x Daniel S. Nagin 31 Michael R. Gottfredson x Tom R. Tyler x Wesley G. Jennings x Adrian Raine x James C. Barnes x Robert Agnew x Laurence Steinberg x Ron L. Simons x David L. Weisburd x Raymond Paternoster x John H. Laub x Magda Stouthamer-­ Loeber x Brian B. Boutwell x Eric Beauregard x Donald R. Lynam x Craig S. Neumann x Terence P. Thornberry

Cites 488 350 296 260 259 255 201 195 190 182 164 162 156 146 139 138 133 131 129 125 103 101 96 95 94 92 89

88 84 83 83 82

(continued)

4.5  Criminal Justice and Behavior (CJB)

65

Table 4.4 (continued) Rank in 16–20 33 34

Rank in 11–15 x 34

Rank in 06–10 x 33.5

Rank in 01–05 x 32

Rank in 96–00 x x

Rank in 91–95 x x

35

37

x

x

x

x

36 37.5 37.5 39 40

40 47 x x 25

22 x x x x

45 x x x x

38.5 x x 41 x

x x x x x

41.5

x

x

x

x

x

41.5 44

41 x

23.5 x

45 x

x x

x x

44 44 46.5

42 x x

x 30.5 x

x x x

x 46.5 x

x x x

46.5 50 50 50

x 27.5 x 31.5

x 28 x 12

x 20 x 9.5

x 7.5 x x

x 14.5 x x

50 50

x x

x x

x x

x x

x x

Rank in 86–90 Name x Scott E. Wolfe x Stephen W. Raudenbush x Christopher L. Gibson 31 Scott H. Decker x Carter Hay x Ryan C. Meldrum x Jeffrey A. Fagan x Richard E. Tremblay x Christopher J. Patrick x Michael D. Reisig x Leslie W. Kennedy x Jean Proulx x Cassia C. Spohn x Elizabeth Cauffman x Edward P. Mulvey 4.5 Alfred Blumstein x Marcus Felson x Harold G. Grasmick x Joseph P. Newman x Eric A. Stewart

Cites 81 80 77 76 75 75 74 73 72 72 71 71 71 70 70 68 68 68 68 68

(1) Editor, 2010–22

Table 4.5 also shows the comparable rankings of these scholars in CJB in the six previous time periods. Don A. Andrews was also most-cited in 2011–15, 2001–05, and 1996–2000, while Robert D.  Hare was most-cited in 2006–10. (William L. Marshall was most-cited in 1991–95, and Edwin I. Megargee in 1986–90.) Over two-thirds of the most-cited scholars in 2016–20 (34 out of 50, or 68%) were also among the most-cited scholars in 2011–15. Between 2011–15 and 2016–20, big advances were made by Tom R. Tyler (from 49.5 to 4), Jennifer L. Skeem (from 24 to 7), and Kevin S. Douglas (from 33 to 15). The highest new entrants in 2016–20 were Laurence Steinberg (10), Faye S.  Taxman (16.5), and Elizabeth Cauffman (18.5). All of the 10 most-cited scholars in 2011–15 were still among the 50 most-­ cited scholars in 2016–20. Only two scholars were ranked in the top 50 in all time periods: Francis T. Cullen and Paul Gendreau.

66

4  Most-Cited Scholars in Six American Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals

Table 4.5  Most-Cited Scholars in Criminal Justice and Behavior (CJB) Rank in 16–20 1 2 3 4 5 6

Rank in 11–15 1 2 5 49.5 7 3

Rank in 06–10 2 3 14.5 x 7 11

Rank in 01–05 1 2 x x 13.5 26.5

Rank in 96–00 1 2 x x 11.5 18

Rank in 91–95 2 8 x x 27.5 47

Rank in 86–90 x x x x 16.5 x

7 8

24 16

x x

x 39

x 19.5

x 15

x x

9 10

6 x

5 x

37.5 x

9.5 x

x x

x x

11 12 13 14 15 16.5

4 13 12 10 33 9

4 8 9 12 45 27.5

13.5 5 9 18 22 x

x 5 7 30.5 x x

x 15 38 x x x

x x 3 x x x

16.5 18.5

x x

x x

x x

x x

x x

x x

18.5 20 21.5 21.5

14.5 14.5 8 17

35.5 6 1 x

x 4 3 x

x 4 3 x

x 19 15 x

x x x x

13

29.5

x

x

x

x

x

24.5 24.5 26 27 28 29.5 29.5 31 32 33 34

29.5 x 25 28 45.5 x 40 x x 27 x

14.5 x 43.5 29 x x 13 x x 40 x

8 x x 19 x x x 12 x x 32

8 x x 13 x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x

Name Don A. Andrews James L. Bonta Alex R. Piquero Tom R. Tyler Francis T. Cullen David P. Farrington Jennifer L. Skeem J. Stephen Wormith Terrie E. Moffitt Laurence Steinberg R. Karl Hanson Grant T. Harris Paul Gendreau Rolf Loeber Kevin S. Douglas Robert J. Sampson Faye S. Taxman Elizabeth Cauffman Edward J. Latessa Marnie E. Rice Robert D. Hare Christopher T. Lowenkamp Patricia Van Voorhis Stephen D. Hart Christy A. Visher Daniel S. Nagin Robert D. Hoge Mark E. Olver (1) Jeffrey A. Fagan Paul J. Frick Edward P. Mulvey Nancy L. Hogan Travis C. Pratt Stephen C. P. Wong

Cites 458 388 296 279 216 208 198 178 176 158 152 151 150 146 142 141 141 137 137 132 130 130 119 118 118 114 109 108 101 101 99 98 96 95

(continued)

4.6  Most-Cited Scholars in Six American Journals

67

Table 4.5 (continued) Rank in 16–20 35 37 37 37 39 40.5 40.5

Rank in 11–15 22 18 35 x x x x

Rank in 06–10 x 17 23.5 x x x x

Rank in 01–05 x x x x x x x

Rank in 96–00 x x x x x x x

Rank in 91–95 x x x x x x x

Rank in 86–90 x x x x x x x

42 43.5 43.5

36.5 19 x

x x x

x x x

x x x

x x x

x x x

45 46 47.5 47.5 49.5 49.5

42 x x 11 21 x

x 31 x 23.5 x x

x x x x x x

x x x x x x

x x x x x x

x x x x x x

Name Matthew DeLisi Avshalom Caspi John F. Edens Seena Fazel Leslie. Helmus Bengt O. Muthén Emily J. Salisbury (2) Mark W. Lipsey John H. Laub Raymond Paternoster Michael D. Reisig Adrian Raine Robert Brame Glenn D. Walters Kevin M. Beaver Wesley G. Jennings

Cites 94 90 90 90 88 87 87 85 84 84 83 82 81 81 80 80

(1) Editor, 2022 (2) Editor, 2013–17

4.6 Most-Cited Scholars in Six American Journals A combined measure of influence in all six journals in 2016–20 was calculated by adding the scores in each journal. As before, each scholar was given a score of 51 minus their rank in each journal, so the maximum possible score was 300. Table 4.6 shows the 50 most-cited scholars on this measure. Alex R. Piquero was the most-cited, with a total score of 289, very close to the theoretical maximum. He was followed by Robert J. Sampson, David P. Farrington, and Francis T. Cullen. All of the top eight scholars were highly-cited in all six journals. Six of the top 10 scholars were more highly-cited in the three criminology journals: Robert J. Sampson, Daniel S. Nagin, Raymond Paternoster, John H. Laub, Travis Hirschi, and David L.  Weisburd. The other four were more highly-cited in the three criminal justice journals: Alex R. Piquero, David P. Farrington, Francis T. Cullen, and Tom R. Tyler. The highest-ranked female scholars were Terrie E.  Moffitt (ranked 11), Christy A. Visher (27), and Elizabeth Cauffman (31). Table 4.7 shows the comparable rankings of these scholars in the six previous time periods. Alex R.  Piquero was also most-cited in 2011–15, while Robert J. Sampson was most-cited in 2006–10, David P. Farrington in 2001–05, and Travis Hirschi in 1996–2000 and 1991–95. (Marvin E.  Wolfgang was most-cited in 1986–90.) Of the most-cited scholars in 2016–20, 70% (35 out of 50) were also

68

4  Most-Cited Scholars in Six American Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals

Table 4.6  Most-Cited Scholars in Six American Journals Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25.5 25.5 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34.5 34.5 36

Name Alex R. Piquero Robert J. Sampson David P. Farrington Francis T. Cullen Tom R. Tyler Daniel S. Nagin Raymond Paternoster John H. Laub Travis Hirschi David L. Weisburd Terrie E. Moffitt Stephen W. Raudenbush Laurence Steinberg Jeffrey A. Fagan Scott H. Decker Shawn D. Bushway Michael R. Gottfredson Robert Agnew Travis C. Pratt Ronald V. Clarke D. Wayne Osgood Rolf Loeber Anthony A. Braga Paul J. Brantingham Marcus Felson Shane D. Johnson Christy A. Visher Robert D. Hare Darrell J. Steffensmeier Andrew V. Papachristos Elizabeth Cauffman Matthew DeLisi Avshalom Caspi Patricia L. Brantingham Robert Brame Wim Bernasco

CRIM 49 50 35 40 43 46 48

JQC 44 49 41 35.5 25 42 17

JRCD 49 50 47 38 43 45 48

JQ 49 50 41 46 42 39 45

JCJ 50 46 48 42 34 36 26

CJB 48 34.5 45 46 47 25 7.5

SUM 3 CRM 142 149 123 113.5 111 133 113

SUM 3 CJ 147 130.5 134 134 123 100 78.5

SUM 6 289 279.5 257 247.5 234 233 191.5

47 37 x 30 19.5

22 37 50 x 40

46 44 42 32.5 40

38 21 44 8 35

25 40 27 45 17

7.5 x x 42 x

115 118 92 62.5 99.5

70.5 61 71 95 52

185.5 179 163 157.5 151.5

44 45 39 42 28

8.5 1 27.5 32.5 24

26.5 29 24 31 36

x 34 32.5 29 x

29 12 15 x 35

41 21.5 x x x

79 75 90.5 105.5 88

70 67.5 47.5 29 35

149 142.5 138 134.5 123

25 31 13 33 x x 16.5 x x x x 25

x 15 39 18 x 43 46 30 45 x x 3.5

40 4 40 35 4 8 16 26.5 32.5 21 x x

26 10.5 22.5 22.5 x 31 x 20 x 28 x 40

30 38 x x 44 x x 1 x x 43 x

x 18 x x 37 x x x x 26.5 29.5 x

65 50 92 86 4 51 78.5 56.5 77.5 21 0 28.5

56 66.5 22.5 22.5 81 31 0 21 0 54.5 72.5 40

121 116.5 114.5 108.5 85 82 78.5 77.5 77.5 75.5 72.5 68.5

32

35.5 x

x

x

x

67.5

0

67.5

16.5 x 13 9.5

x x x 38

13 x x 16

x x x x

4.5 49 37 x

32.5 16 14 x

29.5 0 13 63.5

37 65 51 0

66.5 65 64 63.5

16.5 x

x 26

26.5 37

17 x

x x

3.5 x

43 63

20.5 0

63.5 63 (continued)

4.6  Most-Cited Scholars in Six American Journals

69

Table 4.6 (continued) Rank Name 37 Lawrence W. Sherman 38 Richard T. Wright 39 Cassia C. Spohn 40 John E. Eck 41.5 Thomas A. Loughran 41.5 Wesley G. Jennings 43 Ron L. Simons 44 Jeffrey T. Ulmer 45 Don A. Andrews 47 Christopher Uggen 47 James L. Bonta 47 Jerry H. Ratcliffe 49 Kevin M. Beaver 50 Elizabeth R. Groff

CRIM JQC JRCD JQ x 31 x 30

SUM 3 JCJ CJB CRM x x 31

SUM 3 CJ 30

SUM 6 61

x 1.5 x 34

x x 34 x

34 x 16 19.5

26 48 5 x

x 7 x x

x x x x

34 1.5 50 53.5

26 55 5 0

60 56.5 55 53.5

x x x x 41 x x x x

x x 3.5 x x x 32.5 x 48

x 23 x x 8 x 11.5 x x

19 x 47 x x x 5 x x

33 28 x x x x x 47 x

1.5 x x 50 x 49 x 1.5 x

0 23 3.5 0 49 0 44 0 48

53.5 28 47 50 0 49 5 48.5 0

53.5 51 50.5 50 49 49 49 48.5 48

CRM = Criminology journals; CJ = Criminal Justice journals

among the most-cited scholars in 2011–15. Between 2011–15 and 2016–20, big advances were made by Tom R. Tyler (from 30.5 to 5), Jeffrey A. Fagan (from 43.5 to 14), and Shawn D.  Bushway (from 32.5 to 16). The highest new entrants in 2016–20 were Laurence Steinberg (13), Anthony A.  Braga (23), and Shane D. Johnson (25.5). All of the top 18 scholars in 2011–15 were still among the top 50 scholars in 2016–20. Seven scholars were ranked in the top 50  in all seven time periods: Robert J.  Sampson, David P.  Farrington, Francis T.  Cullen, Raymond Paternoster, Travis Hirschi (always in the top nine), Michael R. Gottfredson, and Lawrence W. Sherman. As mentioned in Chap. 3, it might be expected that, over time, younger scholars would advance in their rankings, while older scholars would decline. As before, scholars were classified into those born before 1950 (oldest), those born between 1950 and 1969 (middle), and those born in 1970 or later (youngest), as much as could be determined from Internet information. Changes in rankings between 2006–10 and 2016–20 were studied, to investigate changes over a 10-year period. Table  4.7 shows that 36 scholars improved in their rankings, while the other 14 declined. However, 22 scholars who were in the top 50 in 2006–10 were not in the top 50 in 2016–20, and so they declined as well. Therefore, 36 who improved were compared with 36 who declined. Once again, all of the 10 youngest scholars improved. However, surprisingly, proportionally more of the oldest scholars improved (13 out of 28, or 46%) than of the middle scholars (13 out of 34, or 38%). Therefore, it was not true that the oldest scholars were declining more than the middle scholars, in these six journals over this 10-year period.

70

4  Most-Cited Scholars in Six American Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals

Table 4.7  Most-Cited Scholars in Six American Journals – Prior Ranks Rank in 2016–20 1 2

Rank in 2011–15 1 2

Rank in 2006–10 2 1

Rank in 2001–05 12 2

Rank in 1996– 2000 x 4

Rank in 1991–95 x 3

3

3

4

1

3

6

4 5 6 7

4 30.5 5 12

3 36 11 9

4 x 7 5

13 x 21 19

14 x 27 23

8 9 10

6 7 11

7 5 35

9 3 x

11 1 x

36 1 x

11 12

8 10

6 10

8 13

23 x

x x

13

x

x

x

x

x

14 15 16

43.5 14 32.5

x 41.5 37

x x x

x x x

37 x x

17

9

8

6

2

2

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

13 17 32.5 15 16 x 29

16 25 x 24 13 x x

14 x x 37 11 x x

8 x x x 28 x x

x x x x 30 x x

25.5 25.5 27 28 29

20 x x 28 41

28 x x 47 12

x x x 44 18

38 x 14 45 34

20 x 21 x x

30

x

x

x

x

x

Rank in 1986–90 Name x Alex R. Piquero 42 Robert J. Sampson 14 David P. Farrington 13 Francis T. Cullen x Tom R. Tyler x Daniel S. Nagin 39 Raymond Paternoster x John H. Laub 4 Travis Hirschi x David L. Weisburd x Terrie E. Moffitt x Stephen W. Raudenbush x Laurence Steinberg x Jeffrey A. Fagan x Scott H. Decker x Shawn D. Bushway 5 Michael R. Gottfredson x Robert Agnew x Travis C. Pratt x Ronald V. Clarke x D. Wayne Osgood x Rolf Loeber x Anthony A. Braga x Paul J. Brantingham 45.5 Marcus Felson x Shane D. Johnson 45.5 Christy A. Visher x Robert D. Hare x Darrell J. Steffensmeier x Andrew V. Papachristos (continued)

4.7  Most-Cited Works of the Most-Cited Scholars

71

Table 4.7 (continued) Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in 1996– 2016–20 2011–15 2006–10 2001–05 2000 31 x x x x 32 33 34.5

27 24 42

x 22 x

x 28 x

x x x

34.5 36 37

x x 18

19 x 20

29 x 24

x x 18

38 39 40 41.5

x x 21 x

x 32 x x

x x x x

x x x x

41.5

x

x

x

x

43 44 45 47

x 49.5 35 x

x x 49 x

x x 39 x

x x 42 x

47 47 49 50

43.5 34 25 x

50 x x x

43.5 x x x

x x x x

Rank in Rank in 1991–95 1986–90 Name x x Elizabeth Cauffman x x Matthew DeLisi x x Avshalom Caspi x x Patricia L. Brantingham x x Robert Brame x x Wim Bernasco 15 25 Lawrence W. Sherman x x Richard T. Wright x x Cassia C. Spohn x x John E. Eck x x Thomas A. Loughran x x Wesley G. Jennings x x Ron L. Simons x x Jeffrey T. Ulmer 38 x Don A. Andrews x x Christopher Uggen x x James L. Bonta x x Jerry H. Ratcliffe x x Kevin M. Beaver x x Elizabeth R. Groff

4.7 Most-Cited Works of the Most-Cited Scholars Table 4.8 shows the most-cited works of the 10 most-cited scholars in the six criminology and criminal justice journals. For example, Alex R. Piquero had 330 different works cited. His most-cited work, “Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients” (Paternoster et al., 1998), was cited 51 times in these journals. The 20 most-cited works included eight books and 12 articles or chapters. Alex R. Piquero and David P. Farrington were the most versatile scholars, as they had the most different works cited (330 and 299, respectively), and had no very highly-cited work. Travis Hirschi and John H. Laub were the most specialized scholars, as they had the fewest different works cited (33 and 43, respectively), and at least two highly-cited works. Once again, Robert J. Sampson showed both versatility and specialization, as he had many different works cited (121) and at least two high-cited works.

72

4  Most-Cited Scholars in Six American Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals

Table 4.8  Most-Cited Works of the Most-Cited Scholars Rank Author 1 Alex R. Piquero 330 different works cited; 110 (33%) cited once

2

3

4

5

6

Work Paternoster, R. et al. (1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36, 859–866.

Number of Citations 51

24 Mulvey, E. P. et al. (2004). Theory and research on desistance from antisocial activity among serious adolescent offenders. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 2, 213–236. Robert J. Sampson Sampson, R.J., Raudenbush, S.W., & Earls, F. (1997). 122 121 different works Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924. cited; 32 (26%) cited once Sampson, R.J., & Laub, J.H. (1993), Crime in the 99 making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 31 David P. Farrington Farrington, D.P. (1986). Age and crime. Crime and 299 different works Justice, 7, 189–250. cited; 132 (44%) cited once 23 Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., & Blumstein, A. (2003). The criminal career paradigm: Background, recent developments, and the way forward. International Annals of Criminology, 41, 243–69. Pratt, T.C. & Cullen, F.T. (2000). The empirical status 62 Francis T. Cullen 167 different works of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38, 931–964. cited; 55 (33%) cited once 30 Nagin, D.S., Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2009). Imprisonment and reoffending. Crime and Justice, 38, 115–200. Tyler, T.R. (2006). Why people obey the law. 86 Tom R. Tyler 97 different works Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. cited; 28 (29%) cited once 66 Sunshine, J. & Tyler, T.R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law and Society Review, 37, 513–548. 42 Nagin, D. S. (2005). Group-based modeling of Daniel S. Nagin 107 different works development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. cited; 32 (30%) cited once 31 Nagin, D.S., Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2009). Imprisonment and reoffending. Crime and Justice, 38, 115–200. (continued)

4.8 Conclusion

73

Table 4.8 (continued) Rank Author 7 Raymond Paternoster 101 different works cited; 27 (27%) cited once

8

9

10

John H. Laub 43 different works cited; 9 (21%) cited once

Work Paternoster, R. et al. (1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36, 859–866.

Number of Citations 53

Paternoster, R., & Bushway, S. (2009). Desistance and 26 the feared self: Toward an identity theory of criminal desistance. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 99, 1103–1156. Sampson, R.J., & Laub, J.H. (1993), Crime in the 99 making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Laub, J.H., & Sampson, R.J. (2006). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general Travis Hirschi 33 different works theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University cited; 9 (27%) cited Press. once Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. David L. Weisburd Weisburd, D., Groff, E.R., & Yang, S-M. (2012). The 124 different works criminology of place. New York: Oxford University Press. cited; 45 (36%) cited once Weisburd, D. L. (2015). The law of crime concentration and the criminology of place. Criminology, 53, 133–157.

94

228

112 69

47

4.8 Conclusion This chapter assessed the most-cited scholars and their works in six American criminology and criminal justice journals between 2016 and 2020, as well as tracking changes in five-year periods covering 35  years. Overall, the most-cited scholars were Alex R. Piquero, Robert J. Sampson, David P. Farrington, Francis T. Cullen, and Tom R. Tyler. The first four of these had also been the most-cited four scholars in 2011–15 and 2006–10. Interestingly, all five scholars were highly-cited in both criminology and criminal justice journals. The most-cited works of the 10 most-­ cited scholars were quite diverse, including longitudinal and criminal career studies (e.g., Sampson & Laub, 1993), methodological and statistical studies (e.g., Paternoster et  al., 1998), theoretical studies (e.g., Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990), environmental studies (e.g., Weisburd et  al., 2012), and policy research (e.g., Tyler, 2006).

74

4  Most-Cited Scholars in Six American Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals

This analysis of citations over 35 years shows the emerging influence of a new generation of younger scholars such as Alex R. Piquero (born in 1970). In contrast, the influence of older and deceased scholars, such as Marvin E.  Wolfgang (1924–1998), who was most-cited in 1986–90, has generally decreased. Nevertheless, our analyses show that the rankings of several older scholars (born before 1950) are still improving. If these analyses could be continued for many more years, they would document complete trajectories of criminological citation careers, and greatly advance knowledge about the waxing and waning of scholarly influence in criminology and criminal justice. It is clear that there is also an intergenerational transmission of scholarly influence. Alfred Blumstein (born 1930) is clearly one of the “giants” of American criminology, but his ranking in these six journals declined from 3 in 1986–90 to 19 in 2011–15, and he did not make the top 50 in 2016–20. Nevertheless, his influence lives on. Robert J.  Sampson (ranked 2  in Table  4.6) was a student taught by Blumstein, as was Daniel S. Nagin (ranked 6), while David P. Farrington (ranked 3) collaborated with and was greatly influenced by Blumstein, beginning in the 1980s. The main limitation of our research is that it is based on citations in only a small number of central American criminology and criminal justice journals that were being published in 1986. As a result, it may underestimate the influence of scholars who publish mainly in other journals. For comparability with previous studies, we have reported the total number of citations, but the number of different articles in which a scholar is cited may be a better measure of scholarly influence. Nevertheless, there is no comparable study of citations in criminology and criminal justice journals over a 35-year time period. Our research shows both constancy (the same scholars being highly-cited over 35 years) and change (the emergence of a new generation of influential scholars). It is a truly unique longitudinal study.

References in the Text Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). Routledge. DeLisi, M., & Piquero, A. R. (2011). New frontiers in criminal careers research, 2000–2011: A state-of-the-art review. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 289–301. Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press. Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. R. (1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36, 859–866. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Harvard University Press. Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924. Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press. Weisburd, D., Groff, E. R., & Yang, S.-M. (2012). The criminology of place. Oxford University Press.

Chapter 5

Most-Cited Scholars in 20 Journals

As discussed in Chap. 1, one concern that has been raised about our method of citation analysis is that it is only based on a small number of prestigious mainstream CCJ journals. In response to this, we increased the number of journals from nine to 20. The process of selecting these journals is described in Chap. 2. This chapter examines the most-cited scholars in 2020 in these 20 journals: five American criminology journals, five American criminal justice journals, five international criminology journals, and five international criminal justice journals. Exactly the same methods were used in all analyses, so that valid comparisons over time could be made. Comparisons are made with the results from six earlier years (1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015) so that changes in the influence and prestige of scholars during the past 30 years could be documented. The most-cited works of the most-­ cited scholars are also listed.

5.1 Citations in 20 Journals Table 5.1 summarizes key statistics for the 20 journals, including the number of articles published in 2020, the number of authors of these articles, the percentage of these authors who were located in the United States, and the total number of eligible cited scholars in the journal (excluding self-citations and institutional authors). In the five American criminology journals, there were a total of 398 articles, with 1316 authors (62% of whom were American) and a total of 61,948 cited scholars (average 156 per article). The five American criminal justice journals contained a total of 219 articles written by 634 authors (85% of whom were American) and a total of 35,554 cited scholars (average 162 per article). In the five international criminology journals, there were 212 articles, with 505 authors (only 20% American) and a total of 22,608 cited authors (average 107 per article). Finally, in the five international © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. G. Cohn et al., Most Influential Scholars in Criminology and Criminal Justice, 1986-2020, SpringerBriefs in Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23596-2_5

75

76

5  Most-Cited Scholars in 20 Journals

Table 5.1  Articles, Authors, and Citations in 2020 Title American criminology journals Criminology (CRIM) Journal of Quantitative Criminology (JQC) Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency (JRCD) Journal of Interpersonal Violence (JIV) Violence and Victims (VAV) Total American criminal justice journals Justice Quarterly (JQ) Journal of Criminal Justice (JCJ) Crime and Delinquency (CAD) Criminal Justice Review (CJR) Federal Probation (FP) Total International criminology journals Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology (ANZ) British Journal of Criminology (BJC) Canadian Journal of Criminology and criminal Justice (CJC) Crime, Law, and Social Change (CLSC) Criminologie (CRGE) Total International criminal justice journals Crime and Justice (CAJ) Criminal Justice and Behavior (CJB) International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice (IJCA) International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology (IJOT) Social Justice (SJ) Total Total American journals Total international journals Total criminology journals Total criminal justice journals Total for all 20 journals

Eligible Articles Authors %US citations 26 36 20

66 104 46

87.9 4843 62.5 6974 91.3 3775

268 48 398

951 149 1316

56.5 39,574 75.8 6782 61.9 61,948

53 52 71 24 19 219

153 168 211 51 51 634

30

88

3.4 3111

80 16

193 45

15.5 8198 28.9 2489

58 28 212

117 62 505

18.0 5697 4.8 3113 19.8 22,608

12 85 20

17 342 48

23.5 1974 62.6 12,824 47.9 2744

83

229

38.9 11,085

19 219 617 431 610 438 1048

24 660 1950 1165 1821 1294 3115

70.8 66.1 69.3 46.0 50.2 75.2 60.6

97.4 60.1 88.2 98.0 100.0 84.7

9221 10,520 11,194 2980 1639 35,554

758 29,385 97,502 51,993 84,556 64,939 149,495

criminal justice journals, there were 219 articles written by 660 authors (66% American) and a total of 29,385 cited scholars (average 134 per article). In 2020, this research examined 1048 articles in these 20 journals (an average of 52 articles per journal) with 3115 authors (61% American, 156 per journal) and 149,495 citations (an average of 7475 cited scholars per journal, or 143 per article).

5.3  Most-Cited Scholars in Groups of Five Journals

77

The number of articles, authors, and cited scholars in these 20 journals has increased dramatically over the years. When this research was first conducted for the year 1990, there were 503 articles (an average of 25 per journal), 857 authors (66% American, 43 per journal), and 23,697 cited scholars (1185 per journal, or 47 per article). Over 30 years, the number of articles has increased by 108%, the number of authors by 263%, and the number of cited scholars by 531%. The average number of cited scholars per article has tripled.

5.2 Most-Cited Scholars in Each Journal Table 5.2 shows the five most-cited scholars in each of the 20 journals in 2020. In CRIM, for example, the most-cited scholar was Alex R. Piquero, with 40 citations, followed by Robert J.  Sampson (31), Raymond Paternoster (25), Bruce Western (24), and Shawn D. Bushway (22). Robert J. Sampson was among the most-cited scholars in eight journals and was the most-cited scholar in three. Alex R. Piquero was among the most-cited scholars in seven journals and was the most-cited scholar in three. The next most-cited scholars in Table  5.2 were Francis T.  Cullen and Raymond Paternoster, who were each among the most-cited scholars in four journals. The most-cited scholars in each journal tend to reflect the specific interests of authors in that journal; for example, the most-cited scholars in SJ were rarely cited in CRIM, and vice versa.

5.3 Most-Cited Scholars in Groups of Five Journals In order to compare the citations of scholars in each journal, the most-cited scholars in each journal were ranked and given a score of 51 minus their rank, as before. Generally, this meant that those scholars who were ranked from 1 to 50 were given a score from 50 to 1 (respectively), and all those ranked 51 or above were scored 0. This procedure was originally developed as a way of equally weighting all the journals in combined scores. Table 5.3 shows the 10 most-cited scholars in each group of five journals in 2020, and their comparative rankings (up to 30) in the six previous analyses. The total score in 2020 (out of a theoretical maximum of 250) is shown in the right-hand column. Robert J. Sampson was the most-cited scholar in American criminology journals from 2000 onwards, compared with Travis Hirschi in 1995 and Marvin E. Wolfgang in 1990. Travis Hirschi died in 2017, while Marvin E. Wolfgang died in 1998. Francis T. Cullen was the most-cited scholar in American criminal justice journals in 2020, 2010, and 2000, compared with Alex R. Piquero in 2015, Robert J. Sampson in 2005, Lawrence W. Sherman in 1995, and Joan Petersilia in 1990. Joan Petersilia died in 2019. Robert J. Sampson was again the most-cited scholar in international criminology journals, in 2020 and 2015, compared with David Garland

78

5  Most-Cited Scholars in 20 Journals

Table 5.2  Most-Cited Scholars in Each Journal American criminology journals CRIM: A.R. Piquero (40); R.J. Sampson (31); R. Paternoster (25); B. Western (24); S.D. Bushway (22) JQC: D.L. Weisburd (59); G. LaFree (37); R.J. Sampson (35); P.L. Brantingham (30); P.J. Brantingham (29); J.G. Horgan (29) JRCD: R. Paternoster (44); A.R. Piquero (33); R.J. Sampson (29); T.A. Loughran (22); S. Bushway (18); T. Hirschi (18) JIV: M.A. Straus (118); S.L. Hamby (109); D. Finkelhor (104); H.A. Turner (82); V.L. Banyard (79) VAV: J.J. Freyd (24); D. Finkelhor (23); B.S. Fisher (16); R. Campbell (15); M. Dank (15) American criminal justice journals JQ: R.J. Sampson (60); D. Mears (56); R. Paternoster (47); M. Lehti (36); D.S. Nagin (35); W. Bales (35) JCJ: A.R. Piquero (95); M. DeLisi (67); D.P. Farrington (45); M.G. Vaughn (40); B. Beauregard (34); J. Proulx (34) CAD: A.R. Piquero (66); R.J. Sampson (65); F.T. Cullen (55); R. Agnew (43); T.E. Moffitt (43) CJR: E.G. Lambert (39); N.L. Hogan (30); C.C. Spohn (26); R. Paternoster (25); M.L. Griffin (17) FP: C.T. Lowenkamp (28); E.J. Latessa (26); D.A. Andrews (19); F.T. Cullen (18); K.A. Blasé (15); J.L. Bonta (15); C.L. Jonson (15) International criminology journals ANZ: D.P. Farrington (18); T.R. Tyler (13); D. Weatherburn (13); S. Farrall (12); C. Cunneen (11); A.R. Piquero (11) BJC: R.J. Sampson (36); S. Hall (31); B. Crewe (27); J.V. Roberts (26); D. Garland (23) CJC: R.J. Sampson (31); A.R. Piquero (20); J.H. Laub (19); L. Cao (18); F.T. Cullen (18) CLSC: C. Morselli (16); T.R. Tyler (16); M.J. Lynch (14); P.H. Reuter (14); M. Levi (11); M. Moriconi (11); J.P. Near (11); M. Tak (11) CRGE: S. Maruna (36); F. McNeill (20); T.P. LeBel (16); S. Farrall (15); B. Leclerc (15) International criminal justice journals CAJ: P.H. Reuter (34); F. Varese (28); C. Morselli (22); E.R. Kleemans (19); F. Calderoni (18) CJB: J.L. Bonta (89); D.A. Andrews (85). A.R. Piquero (56); J.S. Wormith (44); J. Skeem (40) IJCA: T.R. Tyler (80); J. Jackson (34); J. Tankebe (29); B. Bradford (23); R.J. Sampson (18) IJOT: T. Ward (66); R.K. Hanson (43); D.A. Andrews (39); J.L. Bonta (34); F.T. Cullen (33); M.C. Seto (33) SJ: A. Bell (8); K.B. Davis (6); C.S. Shdaimah (5); G. Dumke (5); R.D. Bullard (4); S. Connolly (4); A. Crosby (4); D. Hay (4); E.P. Thompson (4) Note: For abbreviations of journals, see Table 5.1. The 5 most-cited scholars are shown in general, but there can be more than 5 in cases of ties

in 2010, David P. Farrington in 2005, and John Braithwaite in 2000, 1995, and 1990. Robert J. Sampson was also the most-cited scholar in international criminal justice journals in 2020, 2015, and 2005, compared with R. Karl Hanson in 2010, Robert D. Hare in 2000, Steven F. Messner in 1995, and Travis Hirschi in 1990.

5.3  Most-Cited Scholars in Groups of Five Journals

79

Table 5.3  Most-Cited Scholars in Groups of Five Journals Rank in Rank in Rank in Scholar 2020 2015 2010 Five American criminology journals Robert 1 1 1 J. Sampson Alex R. Piquero 2 3 10 Francis 3 7 22 T. Cullen David 4 4 5 P. Farrington Raymond 5 29 23.5 Paternoster David Finkelhor 6 14 x Shawn 7 x 21 D. Bushway Sherry 8 15 15 L. Hamby Jacqueline 9 16 14 C. Campbell Bonnie S. Fisher 10 x x Five American criminal justice journals Francis 1 2 1 T. Cullen Robert 2 3 2 J. Sampson Daniel S. Nagin 3 5 14 Raymond 4 13 5.5 Paternoster Alex R. Piquero 5 1 3.5 Cassia C. Spohn 6 x 5.5 Daniel P. Mears 7 x x Travis C. Pratt 8 14.5 x Shawn 9.5 x x D. Bushway David 9.5 4 11.5 P. Farrington Five international criminology journals Robert 1 1 3 J. Sampson Tom R. Tyler 2 2 2 David 3 6.5 23.5 P. Farrington Alex R. Piquero 4 3 8 Shadd Maruna 5 11 x John H. Laub 6 14 6

Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Score in 2005 2000 1995 1990 2020 1

1

5

10.5

168

21.5 x

x x

x x

x x

141 130.5

5

2

4

6.5

126

13.5

22.5

x

x

98

13.5 x

20 x

22 x

16.5 x

97 91.5

x

x

x

x

90

8

x

x

x

89

x

x

x

x

88

2

1

12.5

14

221

1

4

x

x

180

x 14.5

x x

x x

x x

162.5 154.5

6 7.5 x x x

x x x x x

x x x x x

x x x x x

137.5 125.5 123 119 118.5

x

9

x

7

118.5

x

23.5

x

x

173

x 1

x x

x 15

x 20.5

171.5 160.5

x x x

x x x

x x x

x x x

145.5 134 130 (continued)

5  Most-Cited Scholars in 20 Journals

80 Table 5.3 (continued) Rank in Rank in Rank in Scholar 2020 2015 2010 Stephen Farrall 7 x x Francis 8 18.5 x T. Cullen David 9 x x L. Weisburd Jonathan 10 x x Jackson Five international criminal justice journals Robert 1 1 6 J. Sampson Francis 2 5 9 T. Cullen David 3 2 11.5 P. Farrington Alex R. Piquero 4 4 8 Don A. Andrews 5.5 6.5 11.5 James L. Bonta 5.5 8 7 J. Stephen 7 13 x Wormith Tony Ward 8 18 21.5 Tom R. Tyler 9 10 x R. Karl Hanson 10 3 1

Rank in 2005 x x

Rank in 2000 x 20

Rank in 1995 x x

Rank in 1990 x 2

Score in 2020 122.5 106

x

x

x

x

100

x

x

x

x

93

1

x

5

x

123

18.5

22

22.5

26.5

117

x

x

10

7.5

115

x 3 2 x

x 12 28.5 x

x x x x

x x x x

103 97 97 82.5

x x 12

x x x

x x x

x x x

81.5 79.5 78.5

Note: Ranks up to 30 in prior years are shown

In American criminology journals, eight of the top 10 scholars in 2020 had also been in the top 30  in 2015, and eight had been in the top 30  in 2010. Raymond Paternoster advanced greatly, from 29 in 2015 to 5 in 2020, while the highest new entrant was Bonnie S. Fisher (ranked 10). The highest-ranked scholars in 2015 who were not in the top 10 in 2020 were David L. Weisburd (ranked 2 in 2015), John H. Laub (5), and John E. Eck (6). Robert J. Sampson and David P. Farrington were in the top 10 in all seven rankings covering 30 years. In American criminal justice journals, seven of the top 10 scholars in 2020 had also been in the top 30 in 2015, and seven had been in the top 30 in 2010. The greatest advance from 2015 to 2020 was again by Raymond Paternoster (from 13 to 4), despite the fact that he died in 2017. The highest new entrants were Daniel P. Mears (7) and Shawn D. Bushway (9.5). The highest-ranked scholars in 2015 who were not in the top 10 in 2020 were Travis Hirschi (6) and Michael R. Gottfredson (7). Francis T. Cullen was in the top 14 in all seven rankings covering 30 years. In international criminology journals, seven of the top ten scholars in 2020 had also been in the top 30 in 2015, and five had been in the top 30 in 2010. The greatest advance from 2015 to 2020 was made by Francis T. Cullen (from 18.5 to 8), while the highest new entrants were Stephen Farrall (7), David L.  Weisburd (9), and Jonathan Jackson (10). The highest-ranked scholars in 2015 who were not in the top

5.4  Most-Cited Scholars in Groups of 10 Journals

81

10 in 2020 were Terence P. Thornberry (4 in 2015) and Michel Foucault (5), who died in 1984. No scholar was in the top 30  in all seven rankings, but David P. Farrington was in the top 30 in six rankings. In international criminal justice journals, all of the top 10 scholars in 2020 had also been in the top 30 in 2015 and 2010. The greatest advance from 2015 to 2020 was by Tony Ward from New Zealand (from 18 to 8) – as opposed to the UK Tony Ward. Francis T. Cullen was in the top 30 in all seven rankings covering 30 years. The top five scholars in American criminology journals, along with Shawn D.  Bushway, were also among the top 10 scholars in American criminal justice journals. The top four scholars in international criminology journals, along with Francis T.  Cullen, were also among the top 10 scholars in international criminal justice journals. Four scholars were in the top 10 in all four categories of journals: Robert J. Sampson, Alex R. Piquero, Francis T. Cullen, and David P. Farrington.

5.4 Most-Cited Scholars in Groups of 10 Journals Table 5.4 shows the 10 most-cited scholars in each group of 10 journals in 2020, and their comparative rankings (up to 30) in the six previous analyses. The total score in 2020 (out of 500) is shown in the right-hand column. Robert J. Sampson was the most-cited scholar in criminology journals in 2020, as he had been in 2015, 2010, and 2000, compared with David P. Farrington in 2005, Travis Hirschi in 1995 and Marvin E. Wolfgang in 1990. Francis T. Cullen was the most-cited scholar in criminal justice journals in 2020, as he had been in 2010 and 2000, compared with Alex R. Piquero in 2015, Robert J. Sampson in 2005, Lawrence W. Sherman in 1995, and Travis Hirschi in 1990. Francis T. Cullen was also the most-cited scholar in American journals in 2020, compared with Alex R. Piquero in 2015, Robert J. Sampson from 2000 to 2010, Travis Hirschi in 1995, and Marvin E.  Wolfgang in 1990. Robert J. Sampson was the most-cited scholar in international journals in 2020, as he had been in 2015 and 2010, compared with David P. Farrington in 2005, John Braithwaite in 2000, Lawrence W. Sherman in 1995, and Francis T. Cullen in 1990. In criminology journals, seven of the top 10 scholars in 2020 had also been in the top 30  in 2015 and 2010. The greatest advance from 2015 to 2020 was by Tom R. Tyler (from 19 to 4), while the highest new entrants were Shawn D. Bushway (7) and Stephen Farrall (8). The highest-ranked scholars in 2015 who were not in the top 10  in 2020 were Travis Hirschi (6) and Rolf Loeber (7), who died in 2017. Robert J. Sampson and David P. Farrington (always in the top four) were in the top 30 in all seven rankings covering 30 years. In criminal justice journals, nine of the top 10 scholars in 2020 had also been in the top 30 in 2015 and 2010. The greatest advance from 2015 to 2020 was made by Raymond Paternoster (from 18 to 7). The highest-ranked scholars in 2015 who were not in the top 10 in 2020 were John H. Laub (5 in 2015) and Travis Hirschi (7). Francis T. Cullen and David P. Farrington were in the top 30 in all seven rankings covering 30 years.

5  Most-Cited Scholars in 20 Journals

82

Table 5.4  Most-Cited Scholars in Groups of Ten Journals Rank in Rank in Scholar 2020 2015 Ten criminology journals Robert 1 1 J. Sampson David 2.5 3 P. Farrington Alex R. Piquero 2.5 2 Tom R. Tyler 4 19 Francis 5 5 T. Cullen John H. Laub 6 4 Shawn 7 x D. Bushway Stephen Farrall 8 x David 9 9.5 L. Weisburd Raymond 10 x Paternoster Ten criminal justice journals Francis 1 2 T. Cullen Robert 2 3 J. Sampson Alex R. Piquero 3 1 David 4 4 P. Farrington Tom R. Tyler 5 10 Daniel S. Nagin 6 6 Raymond 7 18 paternoster Don 8 8 A. Andrews James L. Bonta 9 9 Cassia 10 x C. Spohn Ten American journals Francis 1 3 T. Cullen Robert 2 2 J. Sampson Alex R. Piquero 3 1 Raymond 4 13 Paternoster

Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Score in 2010 2005 2000 1995 1990 2020 1

2

1

8.5

24.5

341

4

1

2

3

3

286.5

6 11.5 x

x x x

x x x

x x x

x x 7

286.5 250 236.5

2 x

4 x

8 x

28 x

x x

202 174

x 19

x x

x x

x x

x x

153.5 150

14

17.5

19

x

x

142

1

2

1

4

11

338

2

1

4

10

x

303

3 6

13.5 13.5

x 5

x 27

x 4

240.5 233.5

x 14 17

x x 29.5

x x x

x x x

x x x

166.5 162.5 154.5

10

5

15

12

x

145

9 7.5

4 16.5

x x

x x

x x

143 142

2

5

8.5

29

26.5

351.5

1

1

1

6

18

348

3 10

10 8

x 22

x x

x x

278.5 252.5 (continued)

5.4  Most-Cited Scholars in Groups of 10 Journals

83

Table 5.4 (continued) Rank in Rank in Scholar 2020 2015 David 5 4 P. Farrington Daniel S. Nagin 6 6 Shawn 7 x D. Bushway Travis C. Pratt 8 x Tom R. Tyler 9 24 John H. Laub 10 7 Ten international journals Robert 1 1 J. Sampson David 2 3 P. Farrington Tom R. Tyler 3 4 Alex R. Piquero 4 2 Francis 5 5 T. Cullen Shadd Maruna 6 10 John H. Laub 7 6 Jonathan 8 x Jackson David 9 x L. Weisburd Stephen Farrall 10 x

Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Rank in Score in 2010 2005 2000 1995 1990 2020 4 4 3 8 5 244.5 6 x

9 x

18.5 x

x x

x x

234.5 210

x x 7

x x 2

x x 8.5

x x 30

x x x

194 165.5 164

1

2

15

x

x

296

6

1

19

6

6.5

275.5

8 3 18

x x x

x x 10

x x x

x x 1

251 248.5 223

x 22.5 x

x 8 x

x x x

x x x

x x x

185.5 149.5 142

19

x

x

x

x

136

x

x

x

x

x

122.5

Note: Ranks up to 30 in prior years are shown

In American journals, eight of the top 10 scholars in 2020 had also been in the top 30 in 2015, and seven had been in the top 30 in 2010. The greatest advance from 2015 to 2020 was by Tom R. Tyler (from 24 to 9), while the highest new entrants were Shawn D. Bushway (7) and Travis C. Pratt (8). The highest-ranked scholars in 2015 who were not in the top 10 in 2020 were Travis Hirschi (5 in 2015) and Stephen W. Raudenbush (8). Francis T. Cullen, Robert J. Sampson, and David P. Farrington (always in the top eight) were in the top 30 in all seven rankings covering 30 years. In international journals, seven of the top 10 scholars in 2020 had also been in the top 30 in 2015 and 2010. The highest new entrants in 2020 were Jonathan Jackson (8) and Stephen Farrall (10). The highest-ranked scholars in 2015 who were not in the top 10 in 2020 were Terrie E. Moffitt (7 in 2015) and Don A. Andrews (8), who died in 2010. David P. Farrington was in the top 30 in all seven rankings covering 30 years. The top five scholars in criminology journals were also among the top 10 scholars in criminal justice journals. The top three scholars in American journals, along with David P. Farrington, Tom R. Tyler, and John H. Laub, were also among the top 10 scholars in international journals. Five scholars were in the top 10  in all four

84

5  Most-Cited Scholars in 20 Journals

categories of journals: Robert J. Sampson, David P. Farrington, Alex R. Piquero, Tom R. Tyler, and Francis T. Cullen. Raymond Paternoster and John H. Laub were in the top 10 in three categories.

5.5 Most-Cited Scholars in all 20 Journals Table 5.5 shows the 40 most-cited scholars in all journals in 2020, and their comparative rankings (up to 40) in all the previous years. The most-cited scholar in 2020 was Robert J. Sampson, who was also the most-cited scholar from 2000 onwards. Lawrence W. Sherman was the most-cited scholar in 1995, and Marvin E. Wolfgang in 1990. Seven of the top 10 scholars were more highly-cited in criminology journals than in criminal justice journals: Robert J. Sampson, Alex R. Piquero, David P.  Farrington, Tom R.  Tyler, John H.  Laub, Shawn D.  Bushway, and David L. Weisburd. The other three scholars were more highly-cited in criminal justice journals: Francis T. Cullen, Raymond Paternoster, and Daniel S. Nagin. Over half (23) of the 40 most-cited scholars in 2020 were also among the 40 most-cited scholars in 2015. Between 2015 and 2020, big advances were made by Raymond Paternoster (from 17 to 7), Shadd Maruna (from 27 to 11), and Robert Agnew (from 26 to 13). The highest new entrants in 2020 were Shawn D. Bushway (8), Jonathan Jackson (16), and Stephen Farrall (17). All of the 10 most-cited scholars in 2015 were still among the top 40 scholars in 2020. The highest-ranked female scholars were Cassia C. Spohn (14), Terrie E. Moffitt (35.5), and Faye S. Taxman (38). Five scholars were ranked in the top 40 in all years: Robert J. Sampson, Francis T. Cullen, David P. Farrington (always in the top four), Travis Hirschi, and Michael R. Gottfredson. Once again, we tested whether younger scholars tended to improve in their rankings while older scholars tended to decrease. As before, scholars were classified as oldest (born before 1950), middle (born 1950–1969), or youngest (born 1970 or later), based mainly on information available on the internet. We studied changes in rankings between 2010 and 2020, for 62 scholars: 40 in Table 5.5, and a further 22 scholars who were in the top 40 in 2010 but not in 2020. During this 10-year period, 31 scholars improved or (in three cases) stayed the same, while 31 decreased in their rankings. There was a clear relationship between age and changes in rankings. Five out of six youngest scholars (83%) improved, compared with 17 out of 30 middle (57%) and 9 out of 26 oldest (35%). These results are consistent with ideas about the waxing and waning of citation careers as researchers get older and eventually die. Table 5.6 compares the rankings obtained from 20 journals in one year with those obtained from nine journals in five years and shows that there was a considerable agreement regarding the most-cited scholars. The top five scholars were the same on both lists. Thirteen of the 20 most-cited scholars in 20 journals in 2020 (including all the top 10) were among the 20 most-cited scholars in nine journals in 2016–20. However, it was noticeable that three of the non-American scholars in the

5.5  Most-Cited Scholars in all 20 Journals

85

Table 5.5  Most-Cited Scholars in all 20 Journals Rank in 2020 1

Rank in 2015 1

Rank in 2010 1

Rank in 2005 1

Rank in 2000 1

Rank in 1995 5

Rank in 1990 38

2

4

3

4

3

18

7

3 4

2 3

2 4

16 3

x 2

x 4

x 3

5 6 7

10 5 17

27 6 11

x 2 13

x 13.5 23.5

x x x

x x x

8

x

x

x

x

x

x

9 10

7 18

5 15

8 x

x x

x x

x x

11 12 13 14 15 16

27 21 26 x 6 x

x x x 16 12 x

x x x x 6 x

x x 11 x 4 x

x x x x 2 x

x x x x 2 x

17 18 19

x 40.5 x

x x x

x x x

x x x

x x x

x x x

20 21 22 23 24

12.5 14 33 x x

22 18 x x x

9 5 x x x

35.5 31 x x x

20 x x x x

x x x x x

25

x

x

x

x

x

x

26

x

x

x

x

x

x

27 28 29

9 x 22

17 x x

29.5 x 10

17 x 6

x x 1

35 x 29.5

Name Robert J. Sampson Francis T. Cullen Alex R. Piquero David P. Farrington Tom R. Tyler John H. Laub Raymond Paternoster Shawn D. Bushway Daniel S. Nagin David L. Weisburd Shadd Maruna Travis C. Pratt Robert Agnew Cassia C. Spohn Travis Hirschi Jonathan Jackson Stephen Farrall Scott H. Decker Anthony A. Braga Don A. Andrews James L. Bonta Matthew DeLisi Daniel P. Mears John D. Wooldredge Christopher Uggen Laurence Steinberg Rolf Loeber Jeffrey A. Fagan Lawrence W. Sherman

CRM CJ score score TOTAL 341 303 644 236.5 338

574.5

286.5 240.5 527 286.5 233.5 520 250 202 142

166.5 416.5 111.5 313.5 154.5 296.5

174

118.5 292.5

106.5 162.5 269 150 88 238 134 75 105.5 24 85 106.5

81.5 120.5 89.5 142 80 49

215.5 195.5 195 166 165 155.5

153.5 0 62 90.5 39.5 109

153.5 152.5 148.5

0 0 0 0 0

145 143 141 139.5 138.5

145 143 141 139.5 138.5

97.5

37.5

135

67

64

131

22.5 38.5 88

107 88.5 38.5

129.5 127 126.5

(continued)

5  Most-Cited Scholars in 20 Journals

86 Table 5.5 (continued) Rank in 2020 30

Rank in 2015 12.5

Rank in 2010 20

Rank in 2005 11

Rank in 2000 27.5

Rank in 1995 3

Rank in 1990 5

31 32 33

x 38 19

21 x 10

x x x

x x x

x x x

x x x

34

x

x

x

x

x

x

35.5

x

x

x

x

x

x

35.5 37 38 39.5 39.5

8 x x x x

7 x x x x

7 18 x x x

5 x x x x

x 30 x x x

x 17 x x x

Name Michael R. Gottfredson Jeffery T. Ulmer Tony Ward Darrell J. Steffensmeier Theodore G. Chiricos Paul J. Brantingham Terrie E. Moffitt David Finkelhor Faye S. Taxman Peter H. Reuter Carlos Morselli

CRM CJ score score TOTAL 33 91.5 124.5 68 37.5 51

52 81.5 67

120 119 118

47

66.5

113.5

109

0

109

0 97 0 47.5 49.5

109 7.5 98.5 50 48

109 104.5 98.5 97.5 97.5

Note: Ranks up to 40 in prior years are shown. CRM = criminology, CJ = criminal justice Table 5.6  Comparison of 20 Journals in 2020 and 9 Journals in 2016–2020 20 journals in 2020 Rank Scholar 1 Robert J. Sampson 2 Francis T. Cullen 3 Alex R. Piquero 4 David P. Farrington 5 Tom R. Tyler 6 John H. Laub 7 Raymond Paternoster 8 Shawn D. Bushway 9 Daniel S. Nagin 10 David L. Weisburd 11 Shadd Maruna 12 Travis C. Pratt 13 Robert Agnew 14 Cassia C. Spohn 15 Travis Hirschi 16 Jonathan Jackson 17 Stephen Farrall 18 Scott H. Decker 19 Anthony A. Braga 20 Don A. Andrews

9 journals in 2016–2020 Rank Scholar 1 Robert J. Sampson 2 Alex R. Piquero 3 David P. Farrington 4 Tom R. Tyler 5 Francis T. Cullen 6 David L. Weisburd 7 Daniel S. Nagin 8 John H. Laub 9 Raymond Paternoster 10 Stephen W. Raudenbush 11 Travis Hirschi 12 Ronald V. Clarke 13 Shawn D. Bushway 14 Terrie E. Moffitt 15 Jeffrey A. Fagan 16 Laurence Steinberg 17 Lawrence W. Sherman 18 Scott H. Decker 19.5 Jonathan Jackson 19.5 Paul J. Brantingham

5.7  Prevalence, Frequency, Specialization, and Versatility

87

20-journal list (Shadd Maruna, Stephen Farrall, and Don A. Andrews) were missing from the top 20 in the nine-journal list, possibly because that list gave a little less weight to international journals (3 out of 9, as opposed to 10 out of 20). Only one non-American scholar in the nine-journal list was missing from the 20-journal list (Paul J.  Brantingham), although two others (Terrie E.  Moffitt and Lawrence W. Sherman) were jointly based in the UK and the USA during this time period.

5.6 Most-Cited Works of the Most-Cited Scholars Table 5.7 shows the most-cited works of the 10 most-cited scholars in all 20 journals in 2020. Only five of the 21 works were books, compared with 14 out of 21 in 1990 (Cohn et al., 1998), showing the declining influence of books over time, compared with journal articles. Most of the top 10 scholars were most-cited for their work in developmental and life-course criminology, but Francis T. Cullen’s works were on theory, Tom R. Tyler’s were on legitimacy, and David L. Weisburd’s were on environmental influences on crime.

5.7 Prevalence, Frequency, Specialization, and Versatility Table 5.8 shows the total number of citations of the 10 most-cited scholars in 2020, together with the number of different articles in which they were cited (prevalence) and the average number of citations per article (frequency). Because of the scoring system which gave equal weight to each journal, some scholars with high scores had fewer citations than other scholars with lower scores, presumably because the former were highly-cited in journals that contained relatively fewer citations. A high frequency of citations per article, which indicates being cited many times in relatively few articles, may be a poorer measure of scholarly influence than a high prevalence of citations. For example, John H. Laub was cited 223 times, but in only 38 different articles, giving him a frequency of 5.87 citations per article. In contrast, David L.  Weisburd was cited fewer times (191) but in more than twice as many articles (87), giving him a frequency of 2.20 citations per article. Counting the total number of citations may overestimate the influence of scholars with a high frequency of citations per article. In contrast, the prevalence measure could indicate that a scholar has influenced many other different scholars. However, the total number of citations is the most widely-used measure in citation analyses. The total number of citations can also be disaggregated into the number of different works cited and the average number of citations per work. Some scholars (defined as versatile) may be highly-cited primarily because they have a large number of different works cited, while others (defined as specialized) may be highlycited because a smaller number of works are each cited relatively many times. Table  5.8 shows three measures of specialization or versatility: the number of

5  Most-Cited Scholars in 20 Journals

88 Table 5.7  Most-Cited Works of the Most-Cited Scholars Rank Author 1 Robert J. Sampson 88 different works cited 37 (42%) cited once 2

3

4

5

6

7

Work Sampson, R.J., Raudenbush, S.W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924. Laub, J.H., & Sampson, R.J. (2006). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Pratt, T.C. & Cullen, F.T. (2000). The empirical status of Francis Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A T. Cullen meta-analysis. Criminology, 38, 931–964. 137 different works cited Pratt, T.C. & Cullen, F.T. (2005). Assessing macro level 68 (50%) cited predictors and theories of crime: A meta analysis. Crime once and Justice, 32, 373–450. Paternoster, R. et al. (1998). Using the correct statistical Alex test for the equality of regression coefficients. R. Piquero Criminology, 36, 859–866. 234 different works cited Farrington, D.P., Ttofi, M. M., & Piquero, A. R. (2016). 120 (51%) Risk, promotive, and protective factors in youth offending: cited once Results from the Cambridge study in delinquent development. Journal of Criminal Justice, 45, 63–70. Sweeten, G., Piquero, A.R., & Steinberg, L. (2013). Age and the explanation of crime, revisited. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 921–938. Farrington, D.P. (1986). Age and crime. Crime and Justice, David 7, 189–250. P. Farrington 194 different Piquero, A.R., Farrington, D.P., & Blumstein, A. (2003). works cited The criminal career paradigm. Crime and Justice, 30, 132 (68%) 359–506. cited once Sunshine, J. & Tyler, T.R. (2003) The role of procedural Tom R. Tyler justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for 76 different policing. Law and Society Review, 37, 513–548. works cited 35 (46%) cited Tyler, T.R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton, once NJ: Princeton University Press. John H. Laub Laub, J.H., & Sampson, R.J. (2006). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Cambridge, 38 different MA: Harvard University Press. works cited 20 (53%) cited Laub, J.H., & Sampson, R. J. (2001). Understanding once desistance from crime. Crime and Justice, 28,1–69. Raymond Paternoster, R., & Bushway, S.D. (2009). Desistance and Paternoster the “feared self”: Toward an identity theory of criminal 79 different desistance. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 99, works cited 1103–1156. 31 (39%) cited Paternoster, R. et al. (1998). Using the correct statistical once test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 364, 859–66.

Number of Citations 43

40

21

15

18

9

9

10 8

36

35 40

15 25

20

(continued)

89

5.7  Prevalence, Frequency, Specialization, and Versatility Table 5.7 (continued) Rank Author 8 Shawn D. Bushway 52 different works cited 18 (35%) cited once

9

10

Work Paternoster, R., & Bushway, S.D. (2009). Desistance and the “feared self”: Toward an identity theory of criminal desistance. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 99, 1103–1156. Bushway, S.D., & Apel, R. (2012). A signaling perspective on employment-based reentry programming: Training completion as a desistance signal. Criminology and Public Policy, 11, 21–50. Nagin, D.S. (2005). Group-based modeling of Daniel development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. S. Nagin 72 different Laub, J.H., Nagin, D.S., & Sampson, R.J. (1998). works cited Trajectories of change in criminal offending: Good 33 (46%) cited marriages and the desistance process. American once Sociological Review, 63, 225–238. Weisburd, D., Groff, E.R., & Yang, S-M. (2012). The David criminology of place. New York: Oxford University Press. L. Weisburd 87 different Weisburd, D. (2015). The law of crime concentration and works cited the criminology of place. Criminology, 532, 133–157. 47 (54%) cited once

Number of Citations 25

12

16 11

18 11

Table 5.8  Prevalence, Frequency, Specialization, and Versatility

Rank Scholar 1 Robert J. Sampson 2 Francis T. Cullen 3 Alex R. Piquero 4 David P. Farrington 5 Tom R. Tyler 6 John H. Laub 7 Raymond Paternoster 8 Shawn D. Bushway 9 Daniel S. Nagin 10 David L. Weisburd

Cites in % Top top 2 works 2 (c) 17.70 83

Total cites 469

No. different articles (a) 88

Cites/ article 5.33

No. different works (b) 211

Cites/ work 2.22

370

137

2.70

199

1.86

9.73

36

503

234

2.15

196

2.57

5.37

27

311

194

1.60

149

2.09

5.79

18

281 223 249

76 38 79

3.70 5.87 3.15

79 125 115

3.56 1.78 2.17

25.27 24.66 18.07

71 55 45

177

52

3.40

98

1.81

20.90

37

185

72

2.57

91

2.03

14.59

27

191

87

2.20

69

2.77

15.18

29

(a) This refers to the number of different articles in the 20 journals in which the scholar was cited (b) This refers to the number of different works by the scholar that were cited in the 20 journals (c) This refers to the percentage of total citations accounted for by the scholar’s 2 most-cited works

90

5  Most-Cited Scholars in 20 Journals

different works cited, the average number of citations per work, and the percentage of total citations that were accounted for by the two most-cited works. Scholars with a large number of different works cited, a small number of citations per work, and a relatively low contribution of their two most-cited works to their total were the most versatile. On these criteria, Francis T.  Cullen, Alex R. Piquero, and David P. Farrington were the most versatile scholars in Table 5.8. In contrast, scholars with fewer different works cited, a larger number of citations per work, and a relatively large contribution of their two most-cited works were the most specialized. On these criteria, Tom R. Tyler was the most specialized scholar in Table 5.8. Several scholars showed signs of both versatility and specialization. In particular, John H. Laub’s two most-cited works accounted for a quarter of his citations, but he had a relatively large number of different works cited and a relatively small number of citations per work.

5.8 Conclusion This study employs a longitudinal design in which citations are studied in the same set of 20 journals at five-year intervals. Exactly the same methods and journals are used in each year. The nature of a longitudinal design results in several limitations. Because we are comparing results across years, we are unable to add new journals to the study but are limited to long-established journals that were being published at the time we began the research. Additionally, we cannot take advantage of new sources of citation data that have been developed, but we must use the same data collection method that was developed at the start of this research. However, the longitudinal design of this study is also a major strength. Studying the same set of journals at five year intervals allows us to examine citation trends over time and to document how the influence of scholars waxes and wanes. Expanding the number of CCJ journals from nine to 20 identified many of the same most-cited scholars found in other research that involved fewer journals. However, the rankings of some international scholars and some scholars working in less mainstream CCJ areas were improved when the number of journals was increased. The use of additional journals had both advantages and disadvantages. The obvious advantages of increased coverage were to some extent counteracted by the disadvantages of including progressively less mainstream CCJ journals. Continuing to expand the analysis to even more journals would require the inclusion of more peripheral or specialized journals, thus further diluting the importance of mainstream CCJ topics. It would, however, increase the visibility of scholars who publish in more specialized fields. The present results, like all citation analyses, depend to a considerable extent on the choice of journals that are analyzed. The analysis of citations in 20 journals was restricted to data from only one year because this research was carried out with limited resources and no external funding. The use of only one year of citations in each journal inevitably caused more variability in the results over time than would occur in analyses based on five years of citations. However, while the most-cited scholar in one journal could possibly be

5.8 Conclusion

91

affected by one article that extensively cited a single author, the main focus of this chapter is on identifying the most-cited scholars in groups of 5, 10, or 20 journals. Studying groups of journals, which are less vulnerable to such distortion, reduces the variability of the results and increases both the validity and reliability of the findings. Against the variability argument, there was considerable agreement between the results of this research and results obtained in earlier studies using the same set of journals, as well as with results obtained using more years of data from smaller numbers of journals. In order to make comparisons over time, this study focused primarily on the total number of citations as a method of determining scholarly influence, but also reported prevalence (the number of different articles in which a scholar was cited) for the most-cited scholars. As mentioned, prevalence may be a better measure of the influence of one scholar on others than raw citation counts. In addition, this research has shown the increasing citations of younger scholars and the decreasing citations of older scholars. This research has identified some scholars (e.g., Tom R. Tyler), as specialized, because their influence was based primarily on one or two highly cited works, often including books. Other scholars (e.g., Francis T. Cullen, David P. Farrington, Alex R. Piquero) were versatile, because they had many different works, mostly articles, that were cited only a few times each. Thus, it appears that there are two different ways in which scholarly influence operates in criminology and criminal justice. One way a scholar influences his or her colleagues is to write a scholarly book that proposes a new theory, such as Crime in the Making (Sampson & Laub, 1993); inevitably, the book is cited by later authors who discuss the theory. The second is to write a large number of different works on a variety of topics so that, while no individual work is a highly-cited seminal publication, the many articles that are “at risk” of being cited lead to a large number of total citations for the author. This research also illustrates the possible importance of working with influential co-authors. For example, the most-cited scholar in the 20 journals in 2020 was Robert J. Sampson; his second most-cited work was co-authored by John Laub, who was ranked sixth. In several tables in which Sampson was highly cited, Laub was also one of the most-cited scholars. This suggests that a scholar’s influence may be related to the influence of his or her co-authors; publishing jointly with a scholar who publishes high quality research and who publishes frequently may increase a scholar’s prestige in the field. While the study of 20 journals has both advantages and disadvantages in comparison with other analyses, these results add to the growing body of knowledge showing changes in the most-cited and most influential scholars in criminology and criminal justice over time. Future research into citation analysis should continue this longitudinal series of studies and perhaps should focus more on changes in the most-cited works over time, as a way to eventually predict important research topics and provide greater assistance to policy makers. We conclude that these analyses can reveal changes over time in scholarly influence and in theoretical concerns and policy issues.

92

5  Most-Cited Scholars in 20 Journals

References in the Text Cohn, E.  G., Farrington, D.  P., & Wright, R.  A. (1998). Evaluating criminology and criminal justice. Greenwood Press. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Harvard University Press.

Chapter 6

Conclusions

6.1 The Main Contribution of this Book This book has identified the most-cited scholars in major criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) journals over a 35-year period, as well as the most-cited works of the most-cited scholars. Our analyses have tracked the most-cited scholars in four international CCJ journals, six American journals, and 20 American and international journals. These analyses show how scholarly influence changes over time, as one generation ages and gives way to the next generation of scholars. They also reveal major trends over time, including the massively increasing number of cited scholars and the increasing numbers of citations to articles rather than books. Citation analysis is a valid measure of scholarly influence because it is highly correlated with other measures such as peer rankings, the receipt of academic prizes, and election to prestigious posts in scholarly societies. For example, of the most-­ cited 15 scholars in 20 journals in 2020, Robert J.  Sampson, Francis T.  Cullen, David P. Farrington, John H. Laub, Daniel S. Nagin, Shadd Maruna, Robert Agnew, and Travis Hirschi have been President of the American Society of Criminology, and Robert J.  Sampson, Francis T.  Cullen, David P.  Farrington, John H.  Laub, Daniel S. Nagin, David L. Weisburd, and Travis Hirschi have received the Stockholm Prize in Criminology. Since we began our research in 1988, the use of citation analysis has enormously increased, largely because of the availability of internet sources such as the Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Scopus. The journal impact factor, based on citations of articles one to two years after publication, has become enormously important and seems to be widely accepted as the main measure of the prestige of scholarly journals. And yet, as shown by the most-cited works of the most-cited scholars, this one to two year time window is much too short to capture most of the citations of CCJ works. As we have demonstrated, a highly-cited CCJ article, such as “Adolescence-­ limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior” (Moffitt, 1993), may not © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. G. Cohn et al., Most Influential Scholars in Criminology and Criminal Justice, 1986-2020, SpringerBriefs in Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23596-2_6

93

94

6 Conclusions

become highly-cited until at least 5–10  years after its publication (Cohn & Farrington, 2012). Citation analyses that are based on internet sources and carried out mechanically are inevitably unsatisfactory and full of errors, as we discussed in Chap. 1. Among the main problems are the inclusion of self-citations, the failure to correct errors in the original lists of references, the incorrect amalgamation of different persons with the same name and initials, and changes in coverage over time. Other problems include the fact that Google Scholar provides limited information on the standards set for inclusion of material. The methods that we have used were carefully designed to overcome these problems. First, we have expended huge amounts of time to correct mistakes in reference lists, to distinguish different people with the same name and initials, to amalgamate the same people with different names, and to discover the scholars hidden by “et al.” in reference lists. We were only able to do this because we have analyzed a limited number of the most prestigious journals in criminology and criminal justice and because of our personal knowledge of many scholars. Second, we eliminated all self-citations. It is important to do this in order to specifically focus on measuring the influence of one scholar on other scholars. Third, we analyzed the same journals over an extended period of time, using exactly the same scoring methods that give equal weight to each journal, so that we could carry out longitudinal analyses of changes in the most-cited scholars over a 35-year time period. We believe that our citation analyses, although relatively limited in scope, produce more valid results than any citation analyses based on any internet source. And we believe that our citation analyses provide valid information about changes over time in scholarly influence in criminology and criminal justice.

6.2 Policy Implications One of the main contributions of this book is the detailed tables that identify not only the most-cited scholars but also their most-cited works, as well as the information about trends over time. An examination of the most-cited scholars and works indicates those topics that criminological researchers consider to be of most importance in different time periods. The most-cited works may also reflect current policy concerns, and an awareness of the topics that criminologists consider to be important and influential should guide policy makers and legislators in the development of new public policies. In 20 journals, the most-cited works of five of the six most-cited scholars in 1990 focused on criminal career research (Cohn, Farrington, & Wright, 1998). This research should inform criminal justice decision-making because it can provide useful information about the likely future course of criminal careers. The other most-­ cited scholar in 1990 was Travis Hirschi, and his most-cited work was the theoretical book Causes of Delinquency (Hirschi, 1969). According to Laub (2004, p.18), “successful theories… provide influential guides to public policy”. The main policy

6.2  Policy Implications

95

implication of this theory is that efforts should be made to increase individuals’ bonding to society. The seventh most-cited scholar was Francis T. Cullen, and his most-cited work was Reaffirming Rehabilitation (Cullen & Gilbert, 1982), which has clear implications for effective correctional treatment. The eighth most-cited scholar was Ronald V. Clarke, and his most-cited work was The Reasoning Criminal (Cornish & Clarke, 1986). This book propounded a rational choice theory of offending that has important implications for situational crime prevention. The most-cited works of the most-cited scholars in 1995 also had clear policy implications (Cohn & Farrington, 1999). Policing Domestic Violence (Sherman, 1992) was the most-cited work of the most-cited scholar, and this book reported research that encouraged police to arrest male domestic violence offenders. The most-cited work of the next two scholars was A General Theory of Crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990), which proposed that offending depended on low self-control. A clear implication of this theory is that policy makers should develop early intervention programs to improve juveniles’ self control at a young age, perhaps focusing on parent training (Piquero, Jennings, & Farrington, 2010). The next most-cited work, Understanding and Controlling Crime (Farrington, Ttofi, & Piquero, et al., 1986) set out methods of advancing knowledge about the development of criminal careers and how this knowledge might be used to reduce offending. Similar policy implications can be drawn from the most-cited works of the most-­ cited scholars in 2000. The most-cited work of the most-cited scholar was Crime in the Making (Sampson & Laub, 1993), which reported on the development of offending and proposed that the most important theoretical construct was informal social control. The main implication of this theory is that bonding to the family, the school and the community should be increased, through programs such as those providing job training and structured routine activities in adulthood. It also suggests that desistance can be encouraged by fostering bonding to adult institutions such as employment and marriage. Another suggestion is that informal social control in communities could be improved by increasing community cohesiveness or “collective efficacy” (Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997). This theory also suggests that it is important to minimize labelling or stigmatization of offenders by reducing the use of incarceration. Some of the other most-cited scholars in 2000 were the same as in earlier years: David P.  Farrington for the development of offending, Francis T.  Cullen for the effectiveness of correctional treatment, Travis Hirschi for the general theory of crime, and Lawrence W. Sherman for policing domestic violence. However, a new entry was Crime, Shame, and Reintegration by John Braithwaite (1989), with the policy implication of restorative justice programs for offenders. Another new entry in 2000 was Terrie E. Moffitt’s (1993) theory, which implies that different types of programs are needed for adolescence-limited and life-course-­ persistent offenders. For adolescence-limited offenders, it is especially important to limit contact with delinquent peers. Research on co-offending (Reiss & Farrington, 1991) suggests that it is essential to identify and target “recruiters”, or offenders who repeatedly commit crimes with younger, less experienced offenders, and who seem to be dragging increasing numbers of young people into crime. Programs that

96

6 Conclusions

put antisocial peers together may have harmful effects (Dishion, McCord, & Poulin, 1999). Moffitt also suggests that, in order to target the “maturity gap” of adolescence-­ limited offenders, it is important to provide opportunities for them to achieve status and material goods by legitimate means. The most-cited works of the most-cited scholars in 2005 show both continuity and change in their theoretical concerns and policy implications. The most-cited work of the most-cited scholar was still Crime in the Making (Sampson & Laub, 1993). The criminal career paradigm and developmental research were still important, as was rational choice theory, the effectiveness of correctional treatment, and the theories of Moffitt (1993) and of Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990). A newly identified work with clear policy implications for reducing crime was Preventing Crime by Lawrence W. Sherman and his colleagues (1997). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, by Don A. Andrews and James L. Bonta (2003), was also identified as important, possibly because of its emphasis on the policy issues of risk assessment and correctional effectiveness. Continuity and change is also evident in the most-cited works of the most-cited scholars in 2010. The most-cited scholar was still Robert J. Sampson, but his most-­ cited work was now “Neighborhoods and violent crime” (Sampson et  al., 1997) with its policy implication of “collective efficacy” and increasing community cohesiveness. Perhaps because of the increasing importance of the Internet, the most-­ cited works were for the first time more likely to be articles rather than books. Another change was the increasing number of most-cited works that were primarily methodological rather than substantive: those of Alex R.  Piquero (Paternoster, Brame, Mazerolle, & Piquero, 1998), Stephen W.  Raudenbush (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002), and Daniel S. Nagin (Nagin, 2005). R. Karl Hanson was propelled into the top 10 because of his meta-analyses of sexual offender recidivism (Hanson & Bussiere, 1998; Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005). Another important topic with clear policy implications is racial bias in sentencing, which propelled Darrell J. Steffensmeier into the 10 most-cited scholars in 2010. However, the major topics of previous years --- longitudinal and criminal career research and criminological theories --- were still very much in evidence. Consistency remained in 2015, with seven of the nine most-cited scholars in 20 journals being among the most-cited scholars in the majority of the previous years studied (1990 to 2010). Most of the most-cited scholars were highly cited for their work in life-course and developmental criminology. Robert J. Sampson remained the most-cited scholar, with “Neighborhoods and violent crime” (Sampson et al., 1997) continuing to be his most-cited work. The majority of the most-cited works were again articles, rather than books. Rolf Loeber and Tom R. Tyler both appeared in the 10 most-cited scholars for the first time; Loeber because of his work on delinquency (Wikstrom & Loeber, 2000; Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986) and Tyler for his work on legitimacy (Tyler, 1990; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). In the most recent (2020) research described in this book, once again the vast majority of the most-cited works were articles, clearly showing the increasing influence of journal articles over time, compared to books. There was clear continuity from past waves, with the majority of the 10 most-cited scholars being known for

6.3  The Way Forward

97

their work on developmental and life-course criminology, although Francis T.  Cullen’s most-cited works were theoretical in nature. However, both Tom R. Tyler’s works on legitimacy (which were once again his most highly-cited works) and David L.  Weisburd’s research on the criminology of place have clear policy implications as well. The studies of four international journals and six American criminology and criminal justice journals showed significant similarities to the results found when examining 20 journals. The combined results provide clear guidance for policy makers regarding the topics that criminologists in the past, and today, consider to be important.

6.3 The Way Forward We hope that this book has demonstrated how much information the analysis of citations and publications has yielded about a wide variety of topics. The most pressing need in the future is for funding to carry out citation and publication analyses of larger numbers of journals and books in criminology and criminal justice. With funding, it would be possible to expand these analyses to later periods of time, and to trace citation careers of scholars and works over very long time periods. The aim should be to trace complete citation and publication trajectories of scholars, and citation trajectories of works, and to investigate to what extent the later trajectories can be predicted from the first few years. It is also important to investigate how long a scholar’s influence persists after his or her death. We believe that it is useful to apply criminal career concepts such as onset, duration, termination, frequency, versatility, specialization, and escalation to the study of citation and publication careers. As we have shown, some scholars are highly-cited because of one or two seminal works, whereas others are highly-cited because of their large number of publications. With funding, it would be possible to carry out more extensive analyses of the most-cited works of the most-cited scholars, to document changes over time in the most influential scholars and works in more detail, and also to identify highly-cited works by less highly-cited scholars. Ideally, vitae of the most influential scholars should be collected, so that all their publications, and citations of all their works, could be studied. It would also be important to relate the changing influence of scholars and works to changes in theoretical, empirical, methodological, and political concerns, and to the changing priorities of funding agencies. A crucial question is why certain scholars and topics (rather than others) become pre-eminent in certain time periods. Further advances in the methodology of citation analysis are needed. In particular, the prevalence of citations (the number of different articles or books in which a work is cited) seems a more valid measure of influence than the more usual measure of the total number of citations. In the interests of comparability over time, we had to keep measuring the total number of citations. It would be desirable to develop a

98

6 Conclusions

classification system for types of citations: whether they are favorable or unfavorable, to what extent they are perfunctory, how central to the argument they are, and so on. Measures of the number of words devoted to discussing a work, or the number of pages on which a work is cited, would also be useful. In addition, the prestige of citing and cited journals could be taken into account in inclusion criteria for citation analysis and in weighting citations. Also, the number and ordering of authors should be considered in citation analyses, giving more weight to first authors. It is important to study the waxing and waning of scholarly influence over time. However, this requires using exactly the same methods and sources over time. This was a problem for us, as we could not include recently established influential journals such as Criminology and Public Policy, Journal of Experimental Criminology, or European Journal of Criminology in our citation analyses without reducing the comparability of our results over time. In order to overcome problems of undesirable citation behavior (e.g. citing friends and departmental colleagues deliberately to boost their citations, rather than because of their salience for the argument), research on citation behavior is needed. With funding, it would be possible to survey authors of books and journal articles to ask them why they cited certain scholars rather than others. It is important to investigate the extent to which authors obey the law of least effort and only read articles that are immediately available on the Internet, as opposed to books that have to be purchased or obtained from libraries. It is known that sales of scholarly books (other than textbooks) have declined greatly as the use of the Internet has increased (although this decline may be reversed as more e-books are published). The effects of the specific interests of journal editors on the topics of articles published should be investigated. The types of works that are cited in a journal depend on the types of articles that are published in a journal. In turn, the selection of articles for publication depends on the editor, the editorial board, and referees. Editors can influence what is published by declining to review certain types of articles or by the choice of “easy” or “hard” referees. When an editor changes, there can be a marked change in the types of articles that are published, and a corresponding marked change in the most-cited scholars and most-cited works. It would be desirable for all journals to provide statistics on the number of articles submitted and accepted within different substantive categories, in order to investigate possible biases of editors and editorial boards. A survey could include questions designed to investigate to what extent citation behavior is designed to curry favor with journal editors, likely reviewers, key staff members of funding agencies, and other individuals with power (e.g. heads of departments and presidents of scholarly societies). Systematic studies of similarities and dissimilarities between journals in topics covered and citations should be carried out. Research should investigate what types of articles in one journal tend to be cited in another journal (see Cohn & Farrington, 1990). In addition to eliminating self-citations, coauthor citations could be excluded from analyses, and even citations of scholars in the same department or the same university. Overall, we believe that citation analysis is a very useful method of investigating changes in scholarly influence over time. However, funding is needed to transform

References in the Text

99

it from its Cinderella status to an accepted discipline, to overcome future threats to its validity, and to establish it as a valuable method of documenting changes in influential scholars and topics in criminology and criminal justice over time.

6.4 Final Conclusions Over a 35-year period, from 1986–2020, the most influential topics in major criminological journals, based on the most-cited works of the most-cited scholars, were primarily concerned either with developmental/life-course or longitudinal/criminal career research or with major theories. Other influential topics included correctional effectiveness, crime prevention, offender rehabilitation, procedural justice and legitimacy, and environmental criminology. All of these topics should be carefully considered by policy makers and practitioners. Our research also shows the declining influence of one generation of older and deceased scholars, such as Marvin E. Wolfgang, Michael J. Hindelang, and Travis Hirschi, as they are replaced by the next influential generation of younger scholars such as Robert J. Sampson and Terrie E. Moffitt. And this process is continuing, as even younger scholars such as Alex R.  Piquero become increasingly influential. These kinds of changes are only to be expected in general, but more research on scholarly influence is needed to explain, predict, and specify them in more detail, using unbiased, objective, transparent, replicable, and quantitative methods such as citation and publication analysis.

References in the Text Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. L. (2003). The psychology of criminal conduct (3rd ed.). Anderson. Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame, and reintegration. Cambridge University Press. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (1990). Differences between British and American criminology: An analysis of citations. British Journal of Criminology, 30, 467–482. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (1999). Changes in the most-cited scholars in twenty criminology and criminal justice journals between 1995 and 1995. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 345–359. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2012). Scholarly influence in criminology and criminal justice. Nova Science Publishers. Cohn, E.  G., Farrington, D.  P., & Wright, R.  A. (1998). Evaluating criminology and criminal justice. Greenwood Press. Cornish, D., & Clarke, R. V. G. (Eds.). (1986). The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending. Springer. Cullen, F. T., & Gilbert, K. E. (1982). Reaffirming rehabilitation. Anderson. Dishion, T. J., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999). When interventions harm: Peer groups and problem behavior. American Psychologist, 54, 755–764. Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press. Hanson, R. K., & Bussière, M. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 646–652.

100

6 Conclusions

Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. E. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 1154–1163. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. University of California Press. Laub, J. H. (2004). The life course of criminology in the United States: The American Society of Criminology 2003 presidential address. Criminology, 42, 1–26. Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1986). Family factors as correlates and predictors of juvenile conduct problems and delinquency. Crime and Justice, 7, 29–149. Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674–701. Nagin, D. S. (2005). Group-based modeling of development. Harvard University Press. Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. R. (1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36, 859–866. Piquero, A. R., Jennings, W. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2010). On the malleability of self-control; Theoretical and policy implications regard a general theory of crime. Justice Quarterly, 27, 803–834. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models. Sage. (Multiple editions). Reiss, A. J., & Farrington, D. P. (1991). Advancing knowledge about co-offending: Results from a prospective longitudinal survey of London males. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82, 360–395. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Harvard University Press. Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924. Sherman, L. W. (1992). Policing domestic violence: Experiments and dilemmas. Free Press. Sherman, L.  W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law and Society Review, 37, 513–548. Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. Yale University Press. Wikstrom, P.-O. H., & Loeber, R. (2000). Do disadvantaged neighborhoods cause well-adjusted children to become adolescent delinquents? Criminology, 38, 1109–1142.

References

Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. L. (1994). The psychology of criminal conduct (1st ed.). Anderson. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. L. (1998). The psychology of criminal conduct (2nd ed.). Anderson. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. L. (2003). The psychology of criminal conduct (3rd ed.). Anderson. Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J. L., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369–404. Barr, R., & Pease, K. (1990). Crime placement, displacement, and deflection. Crime and Justice, 12, 277–318. Bauer, K. & Bakkalbasi, N. (2005). An examination of citation counts in a new scholarly communication environment. D-Lib Magazine [On-line serial], 11(9). Available from http://dlib.org/ dlib/september05/bauer/09bauer.html Beel, J., & Gipp, B. (2009). Google Scholar’s ranking algorithm: The impact of citation counts (An empirical study). In A. Flory & M. Collard (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2009 third international conference on research challenges in information sciences (pp. 439–446). Retrieved on August 25, 2002, from: https://isg.beel.org/pubs/Google%20Scholar%27s%20Ranking%20 Algorithm%20-­%20The%20Impact%20of%20Citation%20Counts%20%2D%2D%20preprint.pdf Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Roth, J. A., & Visher, C. (Eds.). (1986). Criminal careers and “career criminals” (Vol. 1). National Academy Press. Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., & Farrington, D. P. (1988). Criminal career research: Its value for criminology. Criminology, 26, 1–35. Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.). Routledge. Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame, and reintegration. Cambridge University Press. Brezgov, S. (2019, May 27). Google Scholar is filled with junk science. Scholarly OA. Retrieved on August 25, 2022, from: https://scholarlyoa.com/google-­scholar-­is-­filled-­with-­junk-­science/ Bushway, S. D., & Apel, R. (2012). A signaling perspective on employment-based reentry programming: Training completion as a desistance signal. Criminology and Public Policy, 11, 21–50. Chapman, A.  J. (1989). Assessing research: Citation-count shortcomings. The Psychologist, 2, 336–344. Clarivate. (2019). Web of Science Core Collection: Author Search Beta. Retrieved on August 25, 2022, from: http://images.mail.discover.clarivate.com/Web/ClarivateAnalytics/%7B9 3be44b6-­6 532-­4 194-­8 816-­7 f9d9e3f09a7%7D_WoS_CC_PROFILES_QRG.pdf?utm_ campaign=EM_Profiles_Researchers_SAR_Global_2019&utm_medium=email&utm_ source=Eloqua © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. G. Cohn et al., Most Influential Scholars in Criminology and Criminal Justice, 1986-2020, SpringerBriefs in Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23596-2

101

102

References

Clarivate. (2022). Web of Science Group Master Journal List: Help Center. Retrieved on August 25, 2022, from: https://mjl.clarivate.com/help-­center Cohen, S. (1985). Visions of social control: Crime, punishment, and classification. Polity. Cohen, L.  E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608. Cohn, E. G. (2009). Citation and content analysis. In J. M. Miller (Ed.), 21st century criminology: A reference handbook (pp. 391–397). Sage. Cohn, E. G. (2011a). Changes in scholarly influence in major international criminology journals, 1986–2005. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 53, 157–188. Cohn, E. G. (2011b). Changes in scholarly influence in major American criminology and criminal justice journals between 1986 and 2005. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 22, 493–525. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (1990). Differences between British and American criminology: An analysis of citations. British Journal of Criminology, 30, 467–482. Cohn, E.  G., & Farrington, D.  P. (1994a). Who are the most influential criminologists in the English-speaking world? British Journal of Criminology, 34, 204–225. Cohn, E.  G., & Farrington, D.  P. (1994b). Who are the most-cited scholars in major American criminology and criminal justice journals? Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 517–534. Cohn, E.  G., & Farrington, D.  P. (1995). The validity of citations as a measure of influence in criminology. British Journal of Criminology, 35, 143–145. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (1996). Crime and Justice and the criminology and criminal justice literature. Crime and Justice, 20, 265–300. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (1998a). Changes in the most-cited scholars in major international journals between 1986–90 and 1991–95. British Journal of Criminology, 38, 156–170. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (1998b). Changes in the most-cited scholars in major American criminology and criminal justice journals between 1986–1990 and 1991–1995. Journal of Criminal Justice, 26, 99–116. Cohn, E.  G., & Farrington, D.  P. (1998c). Assessing the quality of American doctoral program faculty in criminology and criminal justice, 1991–1995. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 9, 187–210. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (1999). Changes in the most-cited scholars in twenty criminology and criminal justice journals between 1995 and 1995. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 345–359. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2005). Citation research in criminology and criminal justice. In R. A. Wright & J. M. Miller (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminology (pp. 176–177). Routledge. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2007a). Changes in scholarly influence in major international journals between 1986 and 2000. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 40, 335–360. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2007b). Changes in scholarly influence in major American criminology and criminal justice journals between 1986 and 2000. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 18, 6–34. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2008). Scholarly influence in criminology and criminal justice journals in 1990–2000. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 11–21. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2012a). Scholarly influence in criminology and criminal justice journals in 1990–2005. Criminal Justice Review, 37, 360–383. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2012b). Scholarly influence in criminology and criminal justice. Nova Science Publishers. Cohn, E.  G., & Iratzoqui, A. (2016). The most-cited scholars in five international criminology journals, British, American, and European criminology journals, 2006–2010. British Journal of Criminology, 56, 602–623. Cohn, E.  G., Farrington, D.  P., & Wright, R.  A. (1998). Evaluating criminology and criminal justice. Greenwood Press.

References

103

Cohn, E. G., Farrington, D. P., & Sorenson, J. R. (2000). Journal publications of Ph.D. graduates from American criminology and criminal justice programs, 1988–1997. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 11, 35–49. Cohn, E.  G., Farrington, D.  P., & Iratzoqui, A. (2014). Most-cited scholars in criminology and criminal justice, 2006–2010. Springer. Cohn, E. G., Iratzoqui, A., Farrington, D. P., Piquero, A. R., & Powell, Z. A. (2018). Most-cited articles and authors in Crime and Justice, 1979–2015. Crime and Justice, 47, 475–508. Cohn, E. G., Farrington, D. P., & Iratzoqui, A. (2020). Changes in scholarly influence in major American criminology and criminal justice journals between 1986 and 2015. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 31, 580–608. Cohn, E. G., Farrington, D. P., & Iratzoqui, A. (2021). Changes in the most-cited scholars in 20 criminology and criminal justice journals between 1990 and 2015 and comparisons with the Asian Journal of Criminology. Asian Journal of Criminology, 16, 279–292. Cole, S. (1975). The growth of scientific knowledge: Theories of deviance as a case study. In L. A. Coser (Ed.), The idea of social structure: Papers in honor of R.K. Merton (pp. 175–200). Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Cole, J., & Cole, S. (1971). Measuring the quality of sociological research: Problems in the use of the Science Citation Index. American Sociologist, 6, 23–29. Cornish, D., & Clarke, R. V. G. (Eds.). (1986). The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending. Springer. Cullen, F. T. (2012). Foreword. In E. G. Cohn & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Scholarly influence in criminology and criminal justice (pp. vii–ix). Nova Science Publishers. Cullen, F. T., & Gilbert, K. E. (1982). Reaffirming rehabilitation. Anderson. Cullen, F. T., Link, B. G., Wolfe, N. T., & Frank, J. (1985). The social dimensions of correctional officer stress. Justice Quarterly, 2, 503–533. Davis, J., & Sorenson, J.  R. (2010). Doctoral programs in criminal justice and criminology: A meta-analysis of program ranking. Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, 7, 6–23. DeLisi, M., & Piquero, A. R. (2011). New frontiers in criminal careers research, 2000–2011: A state-of-the-art review. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 289–301. Dess, H.  M. (2006). Database reviews and reports: Scopus. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, Winter. DeZee, M.  R. (1980). The productivity of criminology and criminal justice faculty. Joint Commission on Criminology and Criminal Justice Education and Standards. Dishion, T. J., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999). When interventions harm: Peer groups and problem behavior. American Psychologist, 54, 755–764. Douglas, R.  J. (1992). How to write a highly cited article without even trying. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 405–408. Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D. S., & Ageton, S. S. (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use. Sage. Ericson, R., & Haggerty, K. (1997). Policing the risk society. Oxford University Press. Fabianic, D. A. (1980). Perceived scholarship and readership of criminal justice journals. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 8, 15–20. Fabianic, D.  A. (1981). Institutional affiliation of authors in selected criminal justice journals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 9, 247–252. Fabianic, D. A. (2001). Frequently published scholars and educational backgrounds. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29, 119–125. Fabianic, D.  A. (2002). Publication productivity of criminal justice faculty in criminal justice journals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 549–558. Fabianic, D.  A. (2012). Publication profiles at point of promotion of criminal justice faculty. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 23, 65–80. Farrington, D. P. (1986). Age and crime. Crime and Justice, 7, 189–250. Farrington, D.  P. (1995). The development of offending and antisocial behavior from childhood: Key findings from the Cambridge study in delinquent development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36, 929–964.

104

References

Farrington, D.  P., Ohlin, L.  E., & Wilson, J.  Q. (1986). Understanding and controlling crime: Toward a new research strategy. Springer. Farrington, D., Ttofi, M. M., & Piquero, A. R. (2016). Risk, promotive, and protective factors in youth offending: Results from the Cambridge study in delinquent development. Journal of Criminal Justice, 45, 63–70. Farrington, D. P., Cohn, E. G., & Iratzoqui, A. (2019). Who are the most-cited scholars in Asian criminology compared with Australia, New Zealand, North America, and Europe? Asian Journal of Criminology, 14, 61–76. Frost, N. A., Phillips, N. D., & Clear, T. R. (2007). Productivity of criminal justice scholars across the career. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 18, 428–443. Garfield, E. (1979). Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics, 1, 359–375. Garland, D. (1990). Punishment and modern society. Clarendon Press. Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control. Oxford University Press. Gordon, R. A., & Vicari, P. J. (1992). Eminence in social psychology: A comparison of textbook citation, Social Sciences Citation Index, and research productivity ratings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 26–38. Gottfredson, M.  R., & Hirschi, T. (1986). The true value of lambda would appear to be zero. Criminology, 24, 213–234. Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press. Hanson, R. K., & Bussière, M. T. (1998). Predicting relapse: A meta-analysis of sexual offender recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 646–652. Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. E. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 1154–1163. Hindelang, M. J., Hirschi, T., & Weis, J. G. (1981). Measuring delinquency. Sage. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. University of California Press. Iratzoqui, A., Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2019). Thirty years of scholarly influence in international journals and its relation to the most-cited scholars in Asian criminology. Asian Journal of Criminology, 14, 179–200. Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Hough, M., Myhill, A., Quinton, P., & Tyler, T.  R. (2012a). Why do people comply with the law? Legitimacy and the influence of legal institutions. British Journal of Criminology, 52, 1051–1071. Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Stanko, E., & Hohl, K. (2012b). Just authority? Trust in the police in England and Wales. Routledge. Jennings, W. G., Gibson, C. L., Ward, J. T., & Beaver, K. M. (2008a). “Which group are you in?”: A preliminary investigation of group-based publication trajectories of criminology and criminal justice scholars. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 19, 227–250. Jennings, W. G., Schreck, C. J., Sturtz, M., & Mahoney, M. (2008b). Exploring the scholarly output of academic organization leadership in criminology and criminal justice: A research note on publication productivity. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 19, 404–416. Khey, D. N., Jennings, W. G., Higgins, G. E., Schoepfer, A., & Langton, L. (2011). Re-ranking the top female academic ‘stars’ in criminology and criminal justice using an alternate method: A research note. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 22, 118–129. Kleck, G., & Barnes, J. C. (2011). Article productivity among the faculty of criminology and criminal justice doctoral programs, 2005–2009. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 22, 43–66. Kleck, G., & Mims, B. (2017). Article productivity among the faculty of criminology and criminal justice doctoral programs, 2010–2014. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 28, 467–487. Kleck, G., Wang, S. K., & Tark, J. (2007). Article productivity among the faculty of criminology and criminal justice doctoral programs, 2000–2005. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 18, 385–405. Laub, J. H. (2004). The life course of criminology in the United States: The American Society of Criminology 2003 presidential address. Criminology, 42, 1–26.

References

105

Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2001). Understanding desistance from crime. Crime and Justice, 28, 1–69. Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives. Harvard University Press. Laub, J. H., Nagin, D. S., & Sampson, R. J. (1998). Trajectories of change in criminal offending: Good marriages and the desistance process. American Sociological Review, 63, 225–238. LeBel, T. P., Burnett, R., Maruna, S., & Bushway, S. (2008). The “chicken and egg” of subjective and social factors in desistance from crime. European Journal of Criminology, 5, 131–159. Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1986). Family factors as correlates and predictors of juvenile conduct problems and delinquency. Crime and Justice, 7, 29–149. Long, H., Boggess, L. N., & Jennings, W. G. (2011). Re-assessing publication productivity among academic ‘stars’ in criminology and criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 22, 102–117. Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. American Psychological Association. Maruna, S., LeBel, T., Mitchell, N., & Naples, M. (2004). Pygmalion in the reintegration process: Desistance from crime through the looking glass. Psychology, Crime and Law, 10, 271–281. Meadows, A. J. (1974). Communication in science. Butterworths. Meho, L. I., & Yang, K. (2007). Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58, 2105–2125. Moed, H. F., Bar-Ilan, J., & Halevi, G. (2016). A new methodology for comparing Google Scholar and Scopus. Journal of Infometrics, 10, 533–551. Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674–701. Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106, 213–228. Mulvey, E. P., Steinberg, L., Fagan, J., Cauffman, E., Piquero, A. R., Chassin, L., Knight, G. P., Brame, R., Schubert, C. A., Hecker, T., & Losoya, S. H. (2004). Theory and research on desistance from antisocial activity among serious adolescent offenders. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 2, 213–236. Myers, C.  R. (1970). Journal citations and scientific eminence in contemporary psychology. American Psychologist, 25, 1041–1048. Nagin, D. S. (2005). Group-based modeling of development. Harvard University Press. Nagin, D.  S., & Farrington, D.  P. (1992). The stability of criminal potential from childhood to adulthood. Criminology, 30, 235–260. Nagin, D. S., Farrington, D. P., & Moffitt, T. E. (1995). Life-course trajectories of different types of offenders. Criminology, 33, 111–139. Nagin, D. S., Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2009). Imprisonment and reoffending. Crime and Justice, 38, 115–200. Oliver, W.  M., Swindell, S., Marks, J., & Balusek, K. (2009). Book ‘em Dano: The scholarly productivity of institutions and their faculty in criminal justice books. Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, 6, 59–78. Orrick, E. A., & Weir, H. (2011). The most prolific sole and lead authors in elite criminology and criminal justice journals, 2000–2009. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 22, 24–42. Parker, L. C., & Goldfelder, E. (1979). Productivity ratings of graduate programs in criminal justice based on publication in ten critical journals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 7, 125–133. Paternoster, R., & Bushway, S. (2009). Desistance and the feared self: Toward an identity theory of criminal desistance. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 99, 1103–1156. Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. R. (1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36, 859–866. Peritz, B. C. (1983). Are methodological papers more cited than theoretical or empirical ones? The case of sociology. Scientometrics, 5, 211–218.

106

References

Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., & Blumstein, A. (2003). The criminal career paradigm. Crime and Justice, 30, 359–506. Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., & Blumstein, A. (2007). Key issues in criminal career research. Cambridge University Press. Piquero, A. R., Jennings, W. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2010). On the malleability of self-control; Theoretical and policy implications regard a general theory of crime. Justice Quarterly, 27, 803–834. Poole, E. D., & Regoli, R. M. (1981). Periodical prestige in criminology and criminal justice: A comment. Criminology, 19, 470–478. Pratt, T.  C., & Cullen, F.  T. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38, 931–964. Pratt, T.  C., & Cullen, F.  T. (2005). Assessing macro-level predictors and theories of crime: A meta-analysis. Crime and Justice, 32, 373–450. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models. Sage. (Multiple editions). Regoli, R. M., Poole, E. D., & Miracle, A. W. (1982). Assessing the prestige of journals in criminal justice: A research note. Journal of Criminal Justice, 10, 57–67. Reiss, A. J., & Farrington, D. P. (1991). Advancing knowledge about co-offending: Results from a prospective longitudinal survey of London males. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82, 360–395. Rice, S. K., Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2005). Where are they now? Trajectories of publication ‘stars’ from American criminology and criminal justice programs. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 16, 244–264. Rice, S. K., Terry, K. J., Miller, H. V., & Ackerman, A. R. (2007). Research trajectories of female scholars in criminology and criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 18, 360–384. Roberts, J. V., & Reid, A. A. (2017). Aboriginal incarceration in Canada since 1978: Every picture tells the same story. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 59, 313–345. Rushton, J. P., & Endler, N. S. (1979). More to-do about citation counts in British psychology. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 32, 107–109. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Harvard University Press. Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924. Scopus. (2020). Scopus content coverage guide. Retrieved on August 25, 2022, from: https://www. elsevier.com/data/assets/pdf_file/0007/69451/Scopus_ContentCoverage_Guide_WEB.pdf Serenko, A., & Dumay, J. (2015). Citation classics published in knowledge management journals. Part II: Studying research trends and discovering the Google Scholar Effect. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19, 1335–1355. Sherman, L. W. (1992). Policing domestic violence: Experiments and dilemmas. Free Press. Sherman, L.  W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Shichor, D., O’Brien, R.  M., & Decker, D.  L. (1981). Prestige of journals in criminology and criminal justice. Criminology, 19, 461–469. Shutt, J. E., & Barnes, J. C. (2008). Reexamining criminal justice ‘star power’ in a larger sky: A belated response to Rice et al. on sociological influence in criminology and criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 19, 213–226. Sorensen, J. R. (2009). An assessment of the relative impact of criminal justice and criminology journals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 505–511. Sorenson, J. R. (1994). Scholarly productivity in criminal justice: Institutional affiliation of authors in the top ten criminal justice journals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 535–547. Sorenson, J. R., & Pilgrim, R. (2002). The institutional affiliations of authors in leading criminology and criminal justice journals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 11–18.

References

107

Sorenson, J.  R., Patterson, A.  L., & Widmayer, A. (1992). Publication productivity of faculty members in criminology and criminal justice doctoral programs. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 3, 1–33. Sorenson, J. R., Patterson, A. L., & Widmayer, A. (1993). Measuring faculty productivity in a multidisciplinary field: A response to Professor Marenin. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 4, 193–196. Stack, S. (1987). Measuring the relative impacts of criminology and criminal justice journals: A research note. Justice Quarterly, 4, 475–484. Stack, S. (2001). The effect of field of terminal degree on scholarly productivity: An analysis of criminal justice faculty. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 12, 19–34. Steiner, B., & Schwartz, J. (2006). The scholarly productivity of institutions and their faculty in leading criminology and criminal justice journals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 393–400. Steiner, B., & Schwartz, J. (2007). Assessing the quality of doctoral programs in criminology in the United States. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 18, 53–86. Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law and Society Review, 37, 513–548. Sweeten, G., Piquero, A. R., & Steinberg, L. (2013). Age and the explanation of crime, revisited. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 921–938. Taggart, W. A., & Holmes, M. D. (1991). Institutional productivity in criminal justice and criminology: An examination of author affiliation in selected journals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 19, 549–561. Thomas, C. W., & Bronick, M. J. (1984). The quality of doctoral programs in deviance, criminology, and criminal justice: An empirical assessment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 12, 21–37. Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. Yale University Press. Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press. Vaughn, M. S., Del Carmen, R. V., Perfecto, M., & Charand, K. X. (2004). Journals in criminal justice and criminology: An updated and expanded guide for authors. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 15, 61–192. Weisburd, D. L. (2015). The law of crime concentration and the criminology of place. Criminology, 53, 133–157. Weisburd, D., Bushway, S., Lum, C., & Yang, S.-M. (2004). Trajectories of crime at places: A longitudinal study of street segments in the City of Seattle. Criminology, 42, 283–321. Weisburd, D., Groff, E. R., & Yang, S.-M. (2012). The criminology of place. Oxford University Press. West, D. J., & Farrington, D. P. (1977). The delinquent way of life. Heinemann. Wikstrom, P.-O. H., & Loeber, R. (2000). Do disadvantaged neighborhoods cause well-adjusted children to become adolescent delinquents? Criminology, 38, 1109–1142. Wilson, J. Q., & Herrnstein, R. J. (1985). Crime and human nature. Simon and Schuster. Wolfgang, M. E., Figlio, R. M., & Sellin, T. (1972). Delinquency in a birth cohort. University of Chicago Press. Wolfgang, M. E., Figlio, R. M., & Thornberry, T. P. (1978). Evaluating criminology. Elsevier. Wright, R. A., & Cohn, E. G. (1996). The most-cited scholars in criminal justice textbooks, 1989 to 1993. Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 459–467.

Index

A American journals, v, 4, 8–11, 24–26, 67–71, 76, 81–83, 93 C Citation analysis, v, 1–16, 23, 25, 29, 30, 75, 87, 90, 91, 93, 94, 97, 98 Citation data, 2, 3, 21–23, 27–31, 48, 50, 90 Criminal career concepts, 13, 14, 97 Criminal justice, v, 1–16, 21, 23–27, 35, 40–43, 52, 53, 55–84, 86, 88, 91, 93, 94, 97, 99 Criminal justice policy, 13 Criminology, v, 1–16, 21, 23–27, 29, 30, 32, 35–45, 48, 50–53, 55–84, 86–89, 91, 93, 94, 96–99 G Google Scholar, v, 3, 22, 23, 29, 30, 93, 94

L Longitudinal research, 9, 10, 13, 21, 22 M Methodology, 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, 16, 21–32, 97 Most-cited scholars, v, 1, 2, 4–16, 26, 30, 35–52, 55–73, 75–91, 93–99 Most-cited works, v, 6–11, 13–15, 35, 36, 38, 41, 48, 51–52, 55, 58, 60, 63, 71–73, 75, 87–91, 93–99 P Prevalence of citations, 13, 87, 97 Productivity analysis, 3

I International journals, v, 2, 4–8, 12, 16, 23–27, 35–53, 76, 81, 83, 84, 87, 93, 97

S Scholarly influence, v, 2–5, 8, 9, 15, 32, 50, 53, 74, 87, 91, 93, 94, 98, 99 Scholarly prestige, 15 Scopus, v, 3, 22, 29–31, 93 Specialization in citations, 15, 30, 87, 89, 90, 97

J Journals, 1, 21, 45, 55, 75, 93

W Web of Science (WoS), v, 3, 21, 30, 31, 93

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. G. Cohn et al., Most Influential Scholars in Criminology and Criminal Justice, 1986-2020, SpringerBriefs in Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23596-2

109