Citation Analysis in Criminology and Criminal Justice

Cohn, Ellen G.; Farrington, David P.; Iratzoqui, Amaia

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-01222-3_1

Cited by 11 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While today the journal does include first names or initials, the continued use of footnotes rather than a reference list still makes it difficult to easily access the information needed for citation analysis. Cohn et al (1998) doubled the number of CCJ journals covered to 20, by adding ten more CCJ journals. Because of the number of citations and the amount of work involved, the 20 journals were only analyzed for 1 year-1990.…”

Section: Increasing the Number Of Journalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The most-cited works of five of the six most-cited scholars in 1990 focused on criminal career research (Cohn et al, 1998). This research should inform criminal justice decision making because it can provide useful information about the likely future course of criminal careers.…”

Section: Policy Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The research focused on one year (2005), but comparisons were made with previous analyses of the same 20 journals in 1990 (Cohn, Farrington, & Wright, 1998), 1995(Cohn & Farrington, 1999, and 2000 (Cohn & Farrington, 2008). Citations in five American criminology journals, five American criminal justice journals, five international criminology journals, and five international criminal justice journals were studied.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has been known for many years that citation counts are strongly correlated with other measures of scholarly prestige, such as peer ratings of professional eminence, peer ratings of departmental prestige, the receipt of the scholarly prizes including Nobel prizes, election to the presidency of professional associations and elite bodies such as the National Academy of Sciences, numbers of publications, and even earnings (Cohn et al, 1998). The use of citation analysis to measure the prestige and influence of individual scholars has become an accepted technique, and there have been a large number of studies employing citation analysis that were designed to establish the most influential scholars and works in CCJ (see e.g., Cohn et al, 1998;Wolfgang, Figlio, & Thornberry, 1978).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The use of citation analysis to measure the prestige and influence of individual scholars has become an accepted technique, and there have been a large number of studies employing citation analysis that were designed to establish the most influential scholars and works in CCJ (see e.g., Cohn et al, 1998;Wolfgang, Figlio, & Thornberry, 1978).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Scholarly Influence in Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals in 1990–2005

Cohn

Farrington

2012

Criminal Justice Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Increasing the Number Of Journalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Policy Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Scholarly Influence in Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals in 1990–2005

Cohn

Farrington

2012

Criminal Justice Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The “Mendel syndrome” in science: durability of scientific literature and its effects on bibliometric analysis of individual scientists

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The obsolescence and “durability” of scientific literature have been important elements of debate during many years, especially regarding the proper calculation of bibliometric indicators. The effects of “delayed recognition” on impact indicators have importance and are of interest not only to bibliometricians but also among research managers and scientists themselves. It has been suggested that the “Mendel syndrome” is a potential drawback when assessing individual researchers through impact measures. If publications from particular researchers need more time than “normal” to be properly acknowledged by their colleagues, the impact of these researchers may be underestimated with common citation windows. In this paper, we answer the question whether the bibliometric indicators for scientists can be significantly affected by the Mendel syndrome. Applying a methodology developed previously for the classification of papers according to their durability (Costas et al., J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 61(8):1564–1581, 2010a; J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 61(2):329–339, 2010b), the scientific production of 1,064 researchers working at the Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC) in three different research areas has been analyzed. Cases of potential “Mendel syndrome” are rarely found among researchers and these cases do not significantly outperform the impact of researchers with a standard pattern of reception in their citations. The analysis of durability could be included as a parameter for the consideration of the citation windows used in the bibliometric analysis of individuals.

show abstract