Changes in scholarly influence in major international criminology journals, 1986-2005.

• Author: Cohn, Ellen G.

Introduction

The primary aim of this article is to investigate scholarly influence by determining who were the most-cited scholars in the major criminology journals of the major English-speaking countries. One journal from each country was examined. The journals that were analysed were the Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice (CJC), Criminology (CRIM), British Journal of Criminology (BJC), and Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology (ANZ). All four journals use a peer-review process to select articles for publication. CRIM was chosen as the major American journal because it is the official journal of the American Society of Criminology and is sent to all members. The other three journals are widely regarded as the leading criminology journals in their countries. Although Canada is officially bilingual, the majority of articles published in CJC are in English.

The research focused on the five-year period 2001-2005, but comparisons were made with previous analyses of the same four journals in 1986-1990 (Cohn and Farrington 1994a), 1991-1995 (Cohn and Farrington 1998), and 1996-2000 (Cohn and Farrington 2007). Identifying the most-cited authors helps to identify the most influential scholars and topics during a particular time period and thus helps to document the historical development of criminology and criminal justice.

When results from all four journals were combined, the most-cited scholars in 1986-1990 were Marvin E. Wolfgang, Alfred Blumstein, David P. Farrington, James Q. Wilson, and Stanley Cohen. Their most-cited works were Delinquency in a Birth Cohort (Wolfgang, Figlio, and Sellin 1972), Criminal Careers and "'Career Criminals" (Blumstein, Cohen, Roth, and Visher 1986), The Delinquent Way of Life (West and Farrington 1977), Crime and Human Nature (Wilson and Herrnstein 1985), and Visions of Social Control (Cohen 1985).

When results from all four journals were combined, the most-cited scholars in 1991-1995 were Travis Hirschi, David P. Farrington, Michael R. Gottfredson, Alfred Blumstein, and John Braithwaite. Their most-cited works were A General Theory of Crime (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990), "Criminal Career Research" (Blumstein, Cohen, and Farrington 1988), Criminal Careers and "Career Criminals" (Blumstein et al. 1986), and Crime, Shame, and Reintegration (Braithwaite 1989).

When results from all four journals were combined, the most cited scholars in 1996-2000 were John Braithwaite, David Garland, David P. Farrington, Richard V. Ericson, and Ken Pease. Their most-cited works were Crime, Shame, and Reintegration (Braithwaite 1989), Punishment and Modern Society (Garland 1990), "The Onset and Persistence of Offending" (Nagin and Farrington 1992), Policing the Risk Society (Ericson and Haggerty 1997), "Crime Placement, Displacement, and Deflection" (Barr and Pease 1991), and "Once Bitten, Twice Bitten" (Farrell and Pease 1993).

Measuring scholarly influence

Identifying the most-cited scholars and works is one method of measuring prestige and influence in criminology and criminal justice (see, e.g., Cohn, Farrington, and Wright 1998 for a detailed review of prior research in citation analysis). There are other methods, such as ratings by peers, the receipt of prizes, and election to major offices in scholarly societies, but all methods tend to identify the same individuals (see, e.g., Diamond 1986; Gordon and Vicari 1992; Hamermesh, Johnson, and Weisbrod 1982; Myers 1970; Rushton and Endler 1979). Publication productivity has also been studied (e.g., Cohn, Farrington, and Sorensen 2000; Rice, Cohn, and Farrington 2005; Steiner and Schwartz 2006).

In previous works by the author (Cohn and Farrington 1990, 1994a, 1994b, 1995; Cohn et al. 1998), the advantages and problems of citation analysis as a method of measuring prestige and influence were reviewed in great detail. For example, it was found that most citations were positive or neutral; very few were negative or critical. It was concluded that large numbers of citations provided an imperfect but nevertheless reasonably valid measure of intellectual influence. Cohn and Farrington (1994a, 1994b) originally chose to measure citations (excluding self-citations) in a small number of prestigious criminology and criminal justice journals, rather than, for example, counting citations in the large number of journals covered by the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). The reasons for this were discussed in detail in their earlier research (see, e.g., Cohn et al. 1998).

Cohn and Farrington (1996) argued that concepts developed in criminal career research could be used to enrich citation analysis. In particular, they distinguished between the prevalence and frequency of citations. One issue that arises with the use of the total number of citations as a measure of influence is that a large number of citations may be obtained either if a scholar is cited in many different articles (a high prevalence) or cited many times in a few articles (a high frequency). A high prevalence may occur either if a scholar has published many different works or only one or two seminal pieces. However, logically, scholars with a high frequency must have published many different works, so that they have a large body of work available to be cited, as no single work by a scholar will be cited more than once in the reference list. Cohn and Farrington suggested that a high prevalence of citations may be a better measure of the scholar's influence on a large number of other scholars than a high frequency, which may reflect a significant influence on only a few other scholars.

A distinction may also be drawn between a scholar's level of specialization and his or her versatility. Some highly cited authors have one or two highly cited works, often books, and often presenting a major theory; these authors are considered to be specialized. Others are considered to be versatile because they have many different works cited, with no single work standing out as having an extremely large number of citations. Versatile authors tend to have written many articles rather than a single seminal book, although some specialized authors may also have many different works cited. Logically, a high frequency of citation has to be associated with versatility because to be highly cited in only a few articles, a scholar must have published many different works, while a high prevalence may be associated with specialization, if a scholar has one or two works that are cited in many different articles. However, a high prevalence may also be associated with versatility, if a number of different works by a scholar are cited in many different articles. This would also indicate that the scholar's works were influencing a large number of other researchers.

Counting citations

For the present analyses, all individual authors cited in all articles in CJC, CRIM, BJC, and ANZ in 2001-2005 were counted. Articles included research notes, comments, and rejoinders, but excluded book reviews, book review articles, editorials, letters, and obituaries. Every cited author was counted (not just first authors), except that institutional authors (e.g., National Institute of Justice; Home Office) were excluded. Citation counts were not inversely weighted according to the number of authors, as is usual in counting publications (e.g., Rice et al. 2005; Steiner and Schwartz 2006). Since all authors presumably contributed to each work, all arguably should be credited with having scholarly influence. It was not practical to restrict the count only to published books and papers; unpublished reports and conference papers were included if they were cited. All self-citations were excluded. Cohn and Farrington (1996) identified the problem of co-author citation. For example, if Jacqueline Cohen cited an article by Alfred Blumstein and Jacqueline Cohen, Blumstein would be counted as cited in the present analysis, but Cohen would not because of the exclusion of self-citations. However, it is arguable to what degree co-author citation measures the influence of one scholar on another, since it may essentially reflect self-citation. Co-author citations were noted but not excluded from the present analyses.

For each journal, the reference pages were either downloaded from online copies of journals or entered into a computer from printed copies using an optical scanner and edited to correct scanner-created typographical errors. When a reference had multiple authors, duplicate listings were made of the reference, with each co-author listed first. Extensive checking was carried out to ensure that no references were omitted, to minimize the possibility of typographical errors, and to detect mistakes in reference lists. When the references for all five years of a journal had been entered into the computer file, they were sorted into alphabetical order and this alphabetical list was examined to determine the number of times that each name occurred. Citations to scholars with multiple names, where these were known (e.g., Kimberly Kempf/Leonard), were amalgamated.

Where references did not include first names or middle initials, a considerable amount of time was spent checking them against the original publications to distinguish between, for example, the various J. Cohens (Jacqueline, Joseph, Jalob, etc.), the various D. Smiths (Douglas A., David D., David E., David J., etc.), not to mention different persons with the same name, such as David Brown, Richard Sparks, Richard Wright, and Patrick O'Malley. Where references specified et al. rather than listing all authors, the original works or online sources were checked, whenever possible, to obtain the names of all co-authors. In addition, a great deal of time was spent checking and correcting a depressingly large number and variety of errors found in the original reference lists. A detailed knowledge of criminology authors was essential to maximize the accuracy of the...