共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 61 毫秒
1.
Ellen G. Cohn 《Journal of Criminal Justice Education》2013,24(4):493-525
To investigate changes in scholarly influence in criminology and criminal justice over 20 years, the most‐cited scholars in six major American journals were determined for 2001–05, and the results were compared with those obtained for 1996–2000, 1991–95, and 1986–90. The most‐cited scholars in 2001–05 were Robert J. Sampson in American criminology journals and Francis T. Cullen in American criminal justice journals. Highly cited scholars in American criminology journals focused on longitudinal/criminal career research and/or criminological theories, while those in American criminal justice journals focused on these topics or on criminal justice issues. Some highly cited authors were specialized, with one or two highly cited major works, while others were versatile, with many different works cited a few times each. Over time, older scholars such as Marvin E. Wolfgang were cited less often, while younger scholars such as Robert J. Sampson were increasingly cited. The waxing and waning of criminological influence careers are documented. 相似文献
2.
Amanda Graham Travis C. Pratt Heejin Lee Francis T. Cullen 《Journal of Criminal Justice Education》2019,30(3):348-375
Citation analysis is a valuable method for tracking the growth and transmission of scientific knowledge. In criminology and criminal justice, such analyses tend to be focused on “classic” works or on highly cited scholars over many years. As an alternative approach, we focus on work that has been cited rather quickly – what we term the “early onset” of impact. In doing so, we identified 221 of the most highly cited peer-reviewed articles, authored by 480 scholars, which were published in criminology and criminal justice journals between 2010 and 2015. Analyses reveal wide variation in substantive topics and methodological approaches, as well as a substantial gender gap with respect to authorship. Additional analyses provide insight into both journal and institutional/program prestige. We conclude with directions for future research and stress the importance of tracking over time articles that appear to be off to an early start with respect to scholarly impact. 相似文献
3.
This article assesses the quality of 299 faculty in 20 American doctoral programs in criminology and criminal justice by counting the number of citations of their work in six major American criminology and criminal justice journals published between 1991 and 1995. The University of Maryland, the University of Cincinnati, Rutgers University, and SUNY-Albany were the institutions with most citations. The individual faculty members most often cited were Francis T. Cullen (University of Cincinnati), Raymond Paternoster, Lawrence W. Sherman and Douglas A. Smith (all University of Maryland). The majority of the most-cited scholars in these six journals, however, were not members of criminology or criminal justice departments. 相似文献
4.
Teresa C. Kulig Travis C. Pratt Francis T. Cullen 《Journal of Criminal Justice Education》2017,28(1):74-111
Growing evidence exists that the findings of individual studies—including classic experiments—often fail to replicate. Such published results, however, are considered by scholars, and taught to students, as established scientific truth. In this context, citations to Zimbardo and colleagues’ classic Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) in criminology/criminal justice journals (1975–2014) were content analyzed to assess whether the study’s conclusions have been embraced or treated with skepticism. The data revealed that scholars were widely accepting of the SPE and, even when voicing concerns, supportive of its message. These results suggest the need to give replications higher priority and for scholars to adhere more closely to the scientific norm of organized skepticism. In the classroom, the continued, uncritical acceptance of the SPE—now more than 40 years old—can serve as an opportunity to teach students about the production and assessment of knowledge within criminology. 相似文献
5.
Recent years have seen an increased reliance on the Thomson Reuters Journal Impact Factor (JIF) as a method of evaluating the prestige of academic journals. While the JIF has existed for many years, the increased use of technology to track publications and citations has resulted in other methods of measuring prestige, including Google Scholar’s H-index and Elsevier’s Cite Score. It is unclear, however, whether these “objective” methods of evaluation are correlated with the journals’ reputations among scholars. This paper compares objective and subjective evaluations of journals in criminal justice and criminology among a sample of ASC and ACJS members. Our findings indicate that subjective evaluations of experts are more strongly correlated with Google’s H-Index and Elsevier’s Cite Score than with impact factors. We conclude that for criminal justice and criminology scholars, Thomson Reuters’ JIF may not be the best measure of quality. 相似文献
6.
Wesley G. Jennings Christopher J. Schreck Michael Sturtz Margaret Mahoney 《Journal of Criminal Justice Education》2013,24(3):404-416
A number of studies analyzing publication productivity of criminology and criminal justice scholars have emerged in recent years. More specifically, this body of literature applies varied cross‐sectional and longitudinal methodological approaches to demonstrate the publication productivity of scholars. Furthermore, these studies often diverge in their operationalization of the key construct of interest (publication productivity); however, one relative consistency is the list of “elite” criminology and criminal justice journals. This study seeks to explore the elite publication productivity among recent executive board members of the American Society of Criminology and the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences along with the board members of Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences’ regional affiliate associations. Comparisons are made between and within organizations/associations, and individual board member rankings are also presented. The results of this study indicate that publishing in the elite criminology and criminal justice journals is rare and there is variation across organizations/associations and variation among their respective members in the rate of publishing in these elite journals. Suggestions for future research examining publication productivity are also discussed. 相似文献
7.
8.
This study seeks to shed light on the informal process of knowledge production in criminology and criminal justice by examining acknowledgements in journal publications. Studying the structure of research collaboration among scholars may enhance our understanding of the discipline’s organization. We test hypotheses derived from prior research by analyzing acknowledgements in 786 articles from five journals in criminology and criminal justice over the last five years. As anticipated by the “invisible college” hypothesis, criminology and criminal justice scholarship contains a small group of individuals who receive a disproportionate share of acknowledgements. Additionally, we find that higher ranked and more productive scholars are awarded more acknowledgements than their lower ranked and less productive counterparts. Integrating acknowledgements as an unofficial assessment tool may improve the collective endeavor of contemporary science in our field. Overall, the influence of the “invisible colleagues,” measured by acknowledgements, demonstrates the value of collaboration in the process of knowledge production. 相似文献
9.
Wesley G. Jennings George E. Higgins David N. Khey 《Journal of Criminal Justice Education》2013,24(2):157-172
This study sought to explore the impact factors and associated rankings of criminology and criminal justice journals that have been ranked in the top 20 over the past 10 years (1998–2007). The results from this study suggested a considerable degree of similarity in the rankings of criminology and criminal justice journals compared to other known methods insofar as the rankings of the top journals such as CRIM and JRCD. However, further analyses revealed a noticeable amount of stability and variability in the journals that make the top 20 list over time and stability and variability in the rankings of specific journals themselves over time. Study limitations and suggestions for future research ranking criminology and criminal justice journals are also discussed. 相似文献
10.
Wesley G. Jennings 《Journal of Criminal Justice Education》2018,29(2):249-266
The current study provides an examination of the publication productivity of 46 previously identified top-ranked criminology and criminal justice scholars across a host of publication productivity metrics. More importantly, the trajectories of the citations accumulated by these scholars’ published works from 2007–2016 are estimated. Results reveal five distinct group-based trajectories, and there are several factors such as the author’s h-index, the author’s number of publications, and the age of the publication that were significantly associated with the citation-based, trajectory group membership. In addition, some of the most frequently cited papers were systematic reviews and meta-analysis and papers focusing on developmental life-course criminology or biosocial research. Study implications are discussed. 相似文献
11.
Brenda I. Rowe Wesley S. McCann Craig Hemmens 《Journal of Criminal Justice Education》2013,24(4):551-576
This study assesses the authorship of legal scholarship within 20 criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) journals from 2005 to 2015, examining trends over time and variation across journals in the prevalence of sole-authorship and the mean number of authors and identifying the most prolific authors of legal scholarship published in CCJ journals. The study thus sheds light on the extent of collaboration among CCJ legal scholars and identifies CCJ legal scholars who have remained largely invisible due to their focus on a marginalized subfield. 相似文献
12.
Raymond E. Barranco Wesley G. Jennings David C. May Makeela J. Wells 《Journal of Criminal Justice Education》2016,27(1):19-34
Recently, scholars have sought to learn more about scholarly activity within the fields of criminology and criminal justice (CCJ). Research in this area has examined which departments have the most productive faculty, which scholars are the most productive, and which journals are the most prestigious. However, no study of which we are aware has determined what journals criminologists are most likely to cite in their scholarly research. In this study, we rank the most influential journals by the number of times those journals were cited between 2009 and 2013 in Criminology, the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, and Justice Quarterly. Our analyses suggest that Criminology is clearly the most influential CCJ journal in terms of citations, while the American Sociological Review, the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, and the American Journal of Sociology remain influential in CCJ as well. 相似文献
13.
14.
Yonjoo Cho Sunyoung Park Sung Jun Jo Susan Suh 《British journal of educational technology : journal of the Council for Educational Technology》2013,44(5):677-694
The purpose of this study was to conduct a citation network analysis of Educational Technology Research and Development (ETR&D) to examine the trends and issues of the educational technology field's scholarly community that have evolved in the past two decades. The distinctive features of citation network analysis used in this study derive from a social network analysis approach to see relational and network patterns in the citation data. From this citation network analysis, we obtained the following results: (1) the ETR&D network revealed structural attributes that help us understand the features regarding how the field has developed and how scholarly works have interacted; (2) the most influential papers and scholars in the field were identified; (3) frequently co‐cited papers were recognized as having a strong relationship by a few researchers and (4) five cohesive subgroups (factions) generated key research themes in the field including: instructional design, learning environments, the role of technology, educational technology research and psychological foundations. Implications and limitations of the study were discussed for future research. 相似文献
15.
16.
Vanessa H. Woodward Megan E. Webb O. Hayden Griffin III Heith Copes 《Journal of Criminal Justice Education》2016,27(3):340-361
A recurring concern within criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) is how to best investigate criminological theory and criminal justice policy. To assess the current state of research, we conducted a content analysis of articles that appeared in seven CCJ journals over a two-year period (2013–2014). We then examined types and frequencies of data sources, analytic techniques, methodological approaches, and subject matters. Findings demonstrate that articles are predominantly employing quantitative methodologies and data where there is no participant contact. From these findings, we discuss the current state of research and how this could be used to guide graduate education, by recommending a variety of subject matters that graduate schools should emphasize in training new academics. 相似文献
17.
18.
This study explores the productivity of African American scholars in the field of criminology during the period of 1987 through 1998. Issues about the relative benefits of mentoring are explored. The impact of external and internal barriers with respect to authorship are also addressed. Journals included in the study were randomly selected from a list of criminology and criminal justice journals. Authorship order is also identified, that is, we look at primary, secondary and tertiary authorships by African American faculty as well. Findings provide empirical evidence that the contributions of African American faculty do not appear in many mainstream journals. The reasons behind the under representation are explored. 相似文献
19.
There has been a steady stream of research exploring the impact of scholars' research within criminology/criminal justice journals (CCJ), but only a small number of studies have examined the impact of female scholars in particular. Extending that line of work, the present study identifies the most productive sole and lead female authors published in eight top-ranked CCJ journals between 2000 and 2010. Findings reveal that individual ranks of the female scholars are relatively stable when adjusting for frequency and journal impact factor. However, there is more movement in the ranks when they are adjusted based on the year the PhD. degree was earned. Consistent with previous research including both males and females, a handful of female scholars, in particular Robin Engel, Beth Huebner, Jodi Lane, and Nicole Leeper Piquero appear to be responsible for a large portion of work in the selected eight elite CCJ journals. 相似文献
20.
Gloria Crisp Vincent D. Carales Anne-Marie Núñez 《Community College Journal of Research & Practice》2016,40(9):767-778
An understanding of where community college scholarship is published can be beneficial to practitioners seeking to identify and use scholarly evidence to support policies and programs that promote student success. Such an understanding will also benefit aspiring and new scholars seeking to identify community college scholarship. Unfortunately, there has been little effort to document journal characteristics of scholarship focused on community college students. The present study identified, reviewed, and described community college student scholarship published in P–20 education journals between 1990 and 2014. The study also examined trends over time in journals publishing articles focused on community college students. We found a sizable increase in scholarly work published in education journals since 1990—in particular within the past several years. Importantly, results also revealed an underrepresentation of empirical work focused on community college students published in P–20 education, top-tier, and open access journals. A discussion of implications for practice and recommendations for future research was also provided. 相似文献