The scholarly productivity of institutions and their faculty in leading criminology and criminal justice journals

This study extended the work of Sorensen and Pilgrim (2002) by examining the institutional affiliations of authors in leading criminology and criminal justice journals in the subsequent five-year period after their study. Additionally, this study replicated Fabianic's (2002) study, by assessing the average publications of the faculty at the most productive criminal justice graduate programs. The current study examined the years 2000-2004 and made comparisons to the previous studies, which assessed 1995-1999. Findings revealed the University of Cincinnati and the University of Maryland were the most productive institutions and had the most productive faculty.     

Changes in the Most-Cited Scholars in 20 Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals Between 1990 and 2015 and Comparisons with the Asian Journal of Criminology

The main aim of this article is to assess the most-cited scholars in 20 criminology and criminal justice journals in 2015 and to compare them with the most-cited scholars in these journals in 1990–2010 and with the most-cited scholars in the Asian Journal of Criminology (AJC) in 2015. Five American criminology journals, five American criminal justice journals, five international criminology journals, and five international criminal justice journals have been studied since 1990. The most-cited scholars tended to be those who carried out research on developmental and life-course criminology. Most of these highly cited scholars were also highly cited in previous years, showing the persistence of scholarly influence. Generally, the most-cited scholars in criminology and criminal justice journals overlapped considerably, as did the most-cited scholars in American and international journals. Also, the most-cited scholars in AJC in 2015 overlapped considerably with the most-cited scholars in these other categories of journals. We conclude that there is considerable agreement in American, Asian, and international criminology and criminal justice on the most-cited, and therefore most influential, scholars.

     

Publication productivity of criminal justice faculty in criminal justice journals

An important dimension of university faculty life is publication expectation. Often the level of publication productivity is used to assess general program prestige or to evaluate individual faculty performance. The publication rates of faculty in PhD and master-level programs have been unclear. This study examined the publication rates using a general list of criminal justice journals, and a select list of the leading journals, over a five-year period. The faculty members were located in criminal justice programs that granted PhD and master degrees. Publication productivity rates were established for the two different degree level programs, and the institutions with the strongest publication rates were identified. Publication rates are only one factor used in the assessment of program quality and the relationship of publication rates to other program features is discussed.     

Relative prestige of criminal justice doctoral programs

Organizational sets are made up of organizations with interchangeable personnel, important activity common to members, and a prestige order. The prestige order in other academic disciplines has been identified, and the survey reported here was an attempt to provide some preliminary information on the prestige order among criminal justice doctoral programs. A survey of a sample of Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences members and other criminal justice educators revealed several programs consistently receiving high ratings. These programs are likely to have a substantial influence on the development of criminal justice graduate education by providing models for graduate programs, personnel to staff criminal justice programs, and establishing the standards by which quality education will be defined. In addition, the importance of a list of characteristics pertaining to quality education was examined, and library resources and several faculty attributes emerged as those perceived as most important for quality doctoral education in criminal justice.     

Scholarly influence in criminology and criminal justice journals in 1990-2000

The main aim of this research was to investigate changes in scholarly influence by identifying the most-cited scholars in twenty journals: five American criminology journals, five American criminal justice journals, five international criminology journals, and five international criminal justice journals. The most-cited works of the most-cited scholars were also reported. Results obtained in 2000 were compared with previous findings in 1995 and 1990, and with results obtained from analyzing nine journals in 1996-2000. In 2000, the most-cited scholars were Robert J. Sampson in American criminology journals, Francis T. Cullen in American criminal justice journals, John Braithwaite in international criminology journals, and Robert D. Hare in international criminal justice journals. The expansion from nine to twenty journals benefited international scholars such as John Braithwaite and Richard V. Ericson and scholars in less mainstream areas such as Murray A. Straus. Overall, Robert J. Sampson was the most-cited scholar in these twenty journals in 2000, compared with Lawrence W. Sherman in 1995 and Marvin E. Wolfgang in 1990. The prevalence of citations (the number of different articles in which a scholar was cited) and specialization (where a scholar's influence was based on one or two highly-cited works) were also studied.     

My Professor is Hot! Correlates of RateMyProfessors.com Ratings for Criminal Justice and Criminology Faculty Members

“RateMyProfessors.com” ratings of the easiness, helpfulness, clarity, overall quality, and “hotness” of 407 criminal justice and criminology faculty members from across the United States were collected. Data were analyzed to determine what faculty characteristics determined these ratings. Experience working in the criminal justice field predicted higher ratings, while years of teaching experience was predictive of lower ratings. After controlling for instructors easiness and “hotness” ratings, the instructors’ ascribed characteristics (such as race and sex) explained the greatest proportion of variance in clarity, helpfulness, and overall quality scores. Professional characteristics, such as years of experience, publication rate, and possession of a doctorate were less influential on Ratemyprofessors.com scores.     

Of Athenians and Spartans: Profiles of freedom and enlightenment in the leadership styles of criminal justice academic administrators: An essay

This essay examines the dubious relationship between the quality of criminal justice education and the kind of treatment faculty members and students receive from their academic administrators. It is based on three premises: criminal justice colleges and departments should be held to higher rational and moral standards not because they are qualitatively different from other liberal arts departments, but because they teach justice; if the virtues of criminal justice are worth teaching, then criminal justice faculty members and students should be treated in a manner consistent with these virtues; and treating criminal justice faculty members and students unfairly, disrespectfully, or irresponsibly makes them unable or disinterested in endorsing the noble nature of criminal justice. This article categorizes academic administrators as either Athenians or Spartans. The former are best suited intellectually and temperamentally to administer because they possess a talent for reasoning and act in good faith. The latter are unsuited because, regardless of how well they mask it, they practice domination, deception, favoritism, and indignity.This essay is a theoretical discourse based on the contiguity of modalities, experiences, and impressions generally shared by criminal justice educators and graduate students. Its logic is Humeian and its method is broadly ethnographic.     

What methods are most frequently used in research in criminology and criminal justice?

Articles published in seven leading criminology and criminal justice journals were coded with regard to the research methods used, focusing on the general research designs, data-gathering methods, and statistical analysis techniques employed. The results indicated that survey research was by far the dominant mode of acquiring criminological information, that cross-sectional nonexperimental designs still predominated, and that multivariate statistical methods were the norm. The findings could aid criminology and criminal justice faculty in devising graduate methods curricula that reflected the state-of-the-art as currently practiced by criminological researchers.     

Institutional affiliation of authors in selected criminal justice journals

Publication in professional journals provides both individual and institutional rewards, contributing to the prestige of authors and of colleges and universities with which they are affiliated. Faculty publications are often regarded as important factors in the creation and maintenance of institutional prestige. A survey of six criminal justice journals revealed that the majority of institutions with recognized criminal justice doctoral programs were represented by faculty publications. On the other hand, the list of academic institutions with which published authors were affiliated included many institutions without criminal justice doctoral programs. The data also revealed that slightly over one-quarter of the published material in the selected list of journals had been authored by individuals not affiliated with academic institutions.     

Scholarly Influence in Criminology and Criminal Justice of China

Scholarly influence in criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) is not a new topic. However, in terms of international scholarly influence in Chinese criminology, there still exists no relevant literature, though emphasis on studying China has been increasingly recognized by the international criminological academy. The current study conducts a comprehensive analysis of 191 CCJ articles on China from 20 mainstream CCJ journals and locates those who have done work on Chinese criminology. By productivity and citation analysis, we obtain several rankings of the scholarly influence in Chinese criminology. The most prolific individual identified by the current study is Jianhong Liu; the most productive institution is the City University of Hong Kong; the most-cited scholar is Steven Messner, and the most-cited work is Policing and Punishment in China: From Patriarchy to ‘The People’ by Michael Dutton. Though the current study focuses on Chinese criminology, few local mainland Chinese scholars and publications in Chinese are among the dominant contributions.

     

Criminal justice scholarship: The southern dimension

This paper reports an empirical assessment of the current status of criminal justice scholarship within the southern region of the United States. The data reflects stratification both of scholarly productivity within the discipline of criminal justice and across the various disciplines that contribute to the literature on crime and justice. The data should be particularly useful for identifying weaknesses in scholarly productivity and, hence, directions for growth within the discipline of criminal justice.     

“Scholarly influence” and white-collar crime scholarship

This article explores many of the factors that play a role in the relative lack of scholarly influence of criminology and criminal justice professionals who focus on studying white-collar and corporate crime. The latest studies of “scholarly influence” in criminology and criminal justice journals and textbooks based on citation analyses confirm the absence of scholars who study white-collar and corporate crime. The sparse inclusion of white-collar and corporate crime topics in criminology and criminal justice curriculum in academic programs also indicate that the area is considered by many as a subfield rather than a mainstream component of academic criminology. Whether or not this status will change remains to be seen, but, on a positive note, there are a few encouraging signs that scholarly influence in the field will include more white-collar criminologists in the future.     

Criminal justice faculty and criminal justice students: A case for the missing data

This article reviews the most current criminal justice education research. It examines the interrelationship between the work of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, the Joint Commission on Criminology and Criminal Justice Education and Standards, and the National Advisory Commission on Higher Education for Police, and describes and compares some of their more important findings. Discussed are types of criminal justice programs; characteristics of criminal justice faculty, particularly in terms of earned academic degrees; agency work experience; commitment to research and teaching; types of criminal justice curricula, as typified by certain educational philosophies; and criminal justice students. Although this article notes several areas with which future research might become fruitfully involved, the area in need of most immediate attention, and the area that current research has all but ignored, is the criminal justice student.     

Using Google Scholar to Determine the Most Cited Criminology and Criminal Justice-Related Books

Building on recent research investigating the role of books in the discipline of criminology and criminal justice (C/CJ), this paper uses Google Scholar to identify the most cited books in the field. In particular, the researchers examined the most cited books in four different eras. Prior to1900, the most cited C/CJ-related book was On the Origin of Species. Merton’s Social Theory and Social Structure was the most cited book in the second era (1900–1949). The third era (1950–1999) produced the most cited work in the study, Foucault’s Discipline & Punish. And in the final era (2000 to present), Garland’s Culture of Control was the most cited work. The researchers also sought to determine the most cited books by women and African Americans/Blacks. The most cited book by a female author was Judith Herman’s Trauma and Recovery, and the most cited book by an African American/Black scholar was William Julius Wilson’s The Truly Disadvantaged. The authors conclude by arguing for the continued emphasis on demarcating the “great books” in the discipline.     

Citation analysis of randomized experiments in criminology and criminal justice: a research note

In recent years multiple studies have used citation analysis as a way to examine the most cited scholars and works in criminology and criminal justice and its subfields. This study is the first to focus on the most cited randomized experiments in criminological research. Using citation counts from both Social Science Citation Index and Google Scholar, and multiple sources of randomized experiments, I present the most cited experiments in six areas: policing, courts, corrections, schools, community, and early prevention. Experiments published in non-criminological (e.g., medical) journals tend to be the most cited, and early prevention research is generally cited most frequently of the six categories. I conclude by considering possible reasons why certain experiments are more cited than others.     

The Prisoner's Perspective: A Needed View in Policy Formulation

The need for soliciting attitudes of convicted adult criminals towards the public system of criminal justice remains a neglected area of study. To the exclusion of the “prisoner's perspective”, criminological thought has relied extensively and, at times, exclusively on traditional criminological sources, public opinion polls and simulation studies, for relevant information regarding the criminal justice system. This paper seeks to break the cabal of silence by contending that the “prisoner's perspective” must be a requisite in any effort directed at making better decisions. The relationship between attitudes and behaviour, the sense of participation, the implementation of sound business practices, and the adherence to democratic principles are offered as possible rationales for the acceptance of the “prisoner's perspective”. It certainly cannot be suggested that the majority of ills confronting the criminal justice system are due to the non-recognition of the prisoner; however, unilateral and archaic policy construction and continued bypassing of the “prisoner's perspective” can serve only to harden the apparent resentment and contempt for a criminal justice system predicated on brass-bound policy ideals.     

Meeting in the Middle: A Review of Joint JD/PhD Programs

In recent years there has been a vigorous debate in the discipline of criminology and criminal justice, concerning the role of faculty members in Criminology and Criminal Justice departments who hold a Juris Doctorate (JD), but lack a PhD. Some argue that faculty members with a JD possess sufficient credentials to be tenure-track faculty members within a department; however, others believe that a tenure-track faculty member within a department should hold a PhD. Two primary arguments in the debate concern the discrepancies in the hour requirements for degree certification, as well as the dissertation requirement for completion of a PhD. Although it seems both sides are entrenched in their respective beliefs, one plausible method of attempting to bridge this gap is to encourage interested students to enroll in joint JD/PhD programs. These programs are designed to overlap degree requirements and allow students to concurrently earn both degrees in a shorter period of time than if both degrees were earned separately. To analyze JD/PhD programs, a survey of the 201 American Bar Association (ABA) accredited law schools with joint degree programs within criminology and criminal justice (as well as other academic disciplines) was conducted. Of specific interest was the process of program integration and combined curriculum requirements.     

Reputations and corporate malfeasance: collusive networks in financial statement fraud

The prevailing theory used by economists to explain why more corporations do not engage in fraud focuses on the role of board members, auditors and banks in controlling corporate conduct and the “reputational penalties” that may be imposed on them if they fail to do so. In this view, beyond the formal sanctions imposed by criminal justice and regulatory agencies, these “control agents” are subject to extra-legal consequences for misconduct or failure to perform their duties in which their reputations for honesty and integrity are diminished and thus their value in the marketplace for their services declines. The “reputational penalty” theory has been challenged by recent work that asserts that these entities, far from controlling the behavior of corporate insiders, may form networks of “reputational intermediaries” who collude with corporate executives to give legitimacy to their illegal schemes. In this paper, empirical support for the latter view is provided through an analysis of a sample of 374 publicly traded firms that announced financial restatements between 1997 and 2002 and which were accused of securities fraud. The analysis shows that these schemes involved large numbers of board members, auditors, and bankers who aided and abetted senior managers in their attempts to deceive investors. These findings point to broader issues concerning: (1) the changing nature of corporate power; (2) the strengths of collusive networks; and (3) current policy debates regarding attempts to exert more regulatory control over corporate behavior.     

Power and Criminal Law: Criminalization of Conduct Norms in a Colonial Regime

A content analysis of the published materials in the Journal of Criminal Justice: An International Journal (JCJ), and the International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice (IJCACJ) was undertaken to evaluate if the international functional agenda of the journals to fill the present need for dissemination of new information, ideas and methods (to both practitioners and academicians in the criminal justice area) has been achieved. It was found that there is very limited international discourse currently going on in the Journal of Criminal Justice and that the bulk of the discussion in print in the journal is virtually inter- and intra-American. On the other hand, it was found that a substantial number of materials published in the International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice emanated from outside the United States, were written by non-U.S. practitioners and academicians, and focused on non-American criminal justice systems. It was concluded that in terms of regional composition of both journals' editorial staff, regional distribution of articles by source of origin and regional distribution of articles by subject content, the IJCACJ is more global in scope than the JCJ. The net result is that this journal is more “international” because it is seen to be more likely to generate and promote cross-cultural dialogue in the criminology/criminal justice enterprise.     

“卡迪”模式与刑事公正司法的实现

从“有法必依”到“公正司法”喻示着一种刑事司法观的应然转变:放松了司法者对法律文本本身严格服从的要求,更加强调文本之外的个案公正、合情理等实质合理性依据。这对破解当下具有普遍性的法条主义裁判思维,无疑是一种很好的政策支持和启发。按照罪刑法定原则本意进行合乎逻辑的推演,绝不能推导出“法有明文规定即可定罪处罚”的结论。韦伯关于中国古代司法系“卡迪”模式(即“非理性”)的论断具有一定的事实依据及合理性,这种卡迪模式对实质公正的追求具有目的正当性,不宜将此简单视为“恣意司法”的代名词,其中体现的能动性判断具有司法出罪维度的意义。在目前刑法体系下,法的公正价值与法的安定性并不存在冲突,出罪的理论依据与规范依据完全可以得到恰当融合,但在法适用中需要缓和法的命令性要求。恰当的说理论证是嫁接法的安定性与个案公正的纽带,该过程实际上是将合情理、合目的等价值考量揉入刑法文本的理解、适用及说理论证过程当中。