A study was carried out to test Garfield's claim that citation counting can be used to predict Nobel prizewinners. Using a sample of 83 eminent chemists, it was found that receipt of the Nobel Prize is indeed correlated with citation counts, but that it is more strongly correlated with the number of papers coauthored in which the senior author's name is not the first in the list of authors.This result was tested out on the 1976 Nobel prizewinner, W. N. Lipscomb. It was found that a ranking by numbers of papers not first-authored predicted that Lipscomb would receive the Prize, whilst a ranking by citation counts would not have done so.

Research has indicated that life‐course persistent offenders typically vary their offending style, following a criminal career progression from co‐ to solo‐offending. Few studies have investigated the offenders who contemporaneously mix their style of offending. A sample of 1,047 male adolescent offenders from the Pathways to Desistance study was investigated over a 7‐year period. Participants were identified as solo, co or contemporaneous mixed style (CMS) offenders for each wave of data and one‐way between groups analysis of variance was conducted to examine variations between the different offending styles in terms of offending frequencies, exposure to violence, peer antisocial behaviour and influence, resistance to peer influence, impulse control and psychopathy. CMS offenders were found to consistently report significantly higher rates of offending and present significantly higher negative risk factors and lower protective risk factors than solo‐ and co‐offenders for the duration of the study. A multinomial logistic regression was used to investigate predictors of offending style with CMS as the reference category. Higher levels of exposure to violence and peer antisocial behaviour and lower levels of impulse control predicted membership of the CMS group for the first part of the study when compared with co‐offenders; and higher levels of exposure to violence and peer antisocial behaviour continued to predict CMS offending when compared to solo‐offenders until the end of the study.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore how young people who offend with others define delinquent and criminal groups and consider the social risk factors associated with gang membership and criminal exploitation. Design/methodology/approach The sample consisted of 15 young people who were purposively sampled from a group of 14- to 17-year-old males who had been identified as at risk of gang involvement and referred to a community-based programme. Using a social identity framework, a thematic analysis was undertaken to investigate how the participants viewed their role in offending as part of a group. Findings The participants identified peer groups, street gangs and the involvement of adult criminals as distinct categories of offending groups. Unlike prior models for gang involvement, some members of the sample were involved in multiple groups to perform different categories of crime. Importantly, participants displayed an awareness of exploitation and described successful exit strategies from criminal groups. Research limitations/implications Understanding how young people who are involved in delinquent behaviour and offending define gang and group offending. Practical implications The implications for gang and group offending prevention and intervention programmes are discussed. Originality/value The literature on child criminal exploitation and UK drug markets is in its infancy. This paper offers further evidence for the processes of joining and leaving delinquent and criminal groups.

Purpose: To present a comparative summary of literature of the risk and preventative factors related to school bullying (SB) and cyber-bullying (CB), while identifying research gaps.Background: Literature on bullying appears to disagree whether CB should be considered as a different form of bullying or as a subtype of SB. Researchers, in an attempt to understand bullying, examined in depth numerous risk and preventive factors.Methods: Based solely on previous research papers, fourteen risk and preventative factors related to SB and likewise to CB, were selected on the basis that are most commonly indicated as strong factors in preceding works; each factor was searched for in relation to SB and CB separately, allowing a comparison of how each factor relates to SB and likewise to CB.Conclusions: Findings present a comparative picture of the factors related to SB and CB and provide a direction in the area of factors for fellow researchers wishing to develop antibullying strategies in the future. As expected the present study found that some factors are similarly related to SB as to CB, and others differentiate. Details of findings, limitations and implications are further discussed.

This paper explores the social dynamics of adolescent co-offending and decision-making processes among co-offenders; and to investigate co-offending roles in relation to the nature of a specific crime. The sample consisted of 15 young people who were purposively sampled from a group of 14- to 17-year-old males who had been identified as at risk of criminal group involvement and referred to a community-based programme. Using a social identity framework, a thematic analysis was undertaken to investigate how the participants viewed their role in co-offending as part of a criminal group. Participants identified their roles in criminal groups as instigators, followers and group members. Planned crimes were either targeted or capitalised as part of other delinquent activities. Impulsive offending was opportunistic, impetuous or reactive. Furthermore, a new theoretical model to explain the social dynamics of co-offending was developed and the implications for co-offending prevention and intervention programmes are discussed.