Article Productivity Among the Faculty of Criminology and Criminal Justice Doctoral Programs, 2000–2005

Most-Cited Scholars in Criminology and Criminal Justice, 1986-2010

“…This perspective has been developed 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 number of publications, has been used in CCJ to evaluate CCJ departments (Cohn & Farrington, 1998c ;Cohn, Farrington, & Sorenson, 2000 ;Davis & Sorenson, 2010 ;DeZee, 1980 ;Fabianic, 1981Fabianic, , 2001Fabianic, , 2002Kleck & Barnes, 2011 ;Kleck, Wang, & Tark, 2007 ;Oliver, Swindell, Marks, & Balusek, 2009 ;Parker & Goldfeder, 1979 ;Sorenson, 1994 ;Sorenson et al, 1992 ;Sorenson & Pilgrim, 2002 ;Steiner & Schwartz, 2006Taggart & Holmes, 1991 ). It has also been used either in place of or in addition to citation analysis to study the scholarly infl uence of individual scholars in CCJ Fabianic, 2012 ;Frost, Phillips, & Clear, 2007 ;Jennings, Gibson, Ward, & Beaver, 2008 ;Jennings, Schreck, Sturtz, & Mahoney, 2008 ;Khey, Jennings, Higgins, Schoepfer, & Langton, 2011 ;Long, Boggess, & Jennings, 2011 ;Oliver et al, 2009 ;Orrick & Weir, 2011 ;Rice, Cohn, & Farrington, 2005 ;Rice, Terry, Miller, & Ackerman, 2007 ;Shutt & Barnes, 2008 ;Stack, 2001 ;Steiner & Schwartz, 2006.…”

Ranking Nordic Criminologists by Impact and Prestige

“…The SDC-approach prioritizes innovation by giving full credit to first authors and only half credit to second authors and so forth, similar to how Walters (2015) ascribed double value to first-author papers. Kleck and Barnes (2011) also shared the credit for publications between authors but their system gave less credit to first authorship compared to the SDC-approach. For two-authored papers, they used a .60-.40 division, and for three-author papers, a division of .40-.35-.25.…”

“…The trend in scientific publishing towards more authors on articles exacerbates this problem and implies a need for weighing contributions to provide a better representation of individual impact and prestige (Walters, 2015). There is no simple way to determine credit, especially when the number of authors increases beyond two, and different disciplines have their own culturally borne traditions (Higgins et al, 2019;Kleck & Barnes, 2011). Orrick and Weir (2011) focused exclusively on sole authored articles and first authorships, as these represent scholarly "innovation," and Walters (2015) double-counted first authorships.…”

Need for triangulated methodologies in criminal justice and criminological research: exploring legal techniques as an additional method

“…Both journals are published quarterly and boast of having the highest quality scholarship the two academic disciplines have to offer (see Kleck, Wang, & Tark, 2007). In our research, we randomly selected half of the journals (n = 24 issues) for the time frame of 2005-2010 to engage in a content analysis to categorize the types of methods used in the articles published in both journals.…”