Pub Date : 2023-07-21DOI: 10.1177/10439862231189416
Colleen M. Berryessa
This study, using semi-structured interviews with a sample of probation officers (N = 151), develops a model that suggests how officers may weigh psychiatric diagnoses when assessing defendants’ expressions of remorse and how this may shape their presentencing recommendations for sentencing diversion. Results suggest that probation officers consider psychiatric diagnoses when evaluating remorse in sentencing contexts in three main ways: (a) the extent to which psychiatric symptoms may lead defendants to have difficulties showing conventional expressions of remorse and complicate how officers understand their non-normative remorse displays; (b) how psychiatric symptoms can mitigate defendants’ emotional behaviors used to develop and “feel” remorse, particularly their blunted empathy and hindered recognition of their criminal acts; and (c) some officers make stigmatized assumptions about personal qualities of defendants diagnosed with psychiatric diagnoses, which can lead them to be critical of their remorse. Then, drawing from views in the first two areas, officers discussed providing information on defendants’ psychiatric illnesses—and the potential impacts on their abilities to show or develop remorse—to support recommendations for sentencing diversion in presentencing reports. Takeaways, as well as how remorse assessments may shape probation recommendations for sentencing diversion for defendants with psychiatric diagnoses, are discussed.
{"title":"Exploring the Impact of Remorse on Recommendations for Sentencing Diversion for Defendants With Psychiatric Diagnoses","authors":"Colleen M. Berryessa","doi":"10.1177/10439862231189416","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10439862231189416","url":null,"abstract":"This study, using semi-structured interviews with a sample of probation officers (N = 151), develops a model that suggests how officers may weigh psychiatric diagnoses when assessing defendants’ expressions of remorse and how this may shape their presentencing recommendations for sentencing diversion. Results suggest that probation officers consider psychiatric diagnoses when evaluating remorse in sentencing contexts in three main ways: (a) the extent to which psychiatric symptoms may lead defendants to have difficulties showing conventional expressions of remorse and complicate how officers understand their non-normative remorse displays; (b) how psychiatric symptoms can mitigate defendants’ emotional behaviors used to develop and “feel” remorse, particularly their blunted empathy and hindered recognition of their criminal acts; and (c) some officers make stigmatized assumptions about personal qualities of defendants diagnosed with psychiatric diagnoses, which can lead them to be critical of their remorse. Then, drawing from views in the first two areas, officers discussed providing information on defendants’ psychiatric illnesses—and the potential impacts on their abilities to show or develop remorse—to support recommendations for sentencing diversion in presentencing reports. Takeaways, as well as how remorse assessments may shape probation recommendations for sentencing diversion for defendants with psychiatric diagnoses, are discussed.","PeriodicalId":47370,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice","volume":"39 1","pages":"491 - 512"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42489560","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-25DOI: 10.1177/10439862231172737
Scott Jacques
In this article, I describe and explain a way for criminologists—as individuals, as groups, and, especially, as university units (e.g., colleges, departments, schools)—to increase the quantity and quality of open criminology. They should ask university librarians to make their outputs open access (OA) on their “unit repositories” (URs), which are unit-dedicated “collections” on universities’ institutional repositories (IR). I try to advance this practice by devising and employing a metric, the “URscore,” to document, analyze, and rank criminology units’ contributions to open criminology, as prescribed. To illustrate the metric’s use, I did a study of 45 PhD-granting criminology units in the United States. I found almost all of them have access to an IR; less than two thirds have a UR; less than one third have used it this decade; their URs have a total of 190 open outputs from the 2020s, with 78% emanating from the top three “most open” PhD-granting criminology units in the United States: University of California, Irvine (with 72 open outputs), John Jay College of Criminal Justice (with 47 such outputs), and University of Nebraska, Omaha (with 30 such outputs). I end with a discussion of critical issues, instructions, and futures, including what I learned from publishing this article’s preprint.
{"title":"Ranking the Openness of Criminology Units: An Attempt to Incentivize the Use of Librarians, Institutional Repositories, and Unit-Dedicated Collections to Increase Scholarly Impact and Justice","authors":"Scott Jacques","doi":"10.1177/10439862231172737","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10439862231172737","url":null,"abstract":"In this article, I describe and explain a way for criminologists—as individuals, as groups, and, especially, as university units (e.g., colleges, departments, schools)—to increase the quantity and quality of open criminology. They should ask university librarians to make their outputs open access (OA) on their “unit repositories” (URs), which are unit-dedicated “collections” on universities’ institutional repositories (IR). I try to advance this practice by devising and employing a metric, the “URscore,” to document, analyze, and rank criminology units’ contributions to open criminology, as prescribed. To illustrate the metric’s use, I did a study of 45 PhD-granting criminology units in the United States. I found almost all of them have access to an IR; less than two thirds have a UR; less than one third have used it this decade; their URs have a total of 190 open outputs from the 2020s, with 78% emanating from the top three “most open” PhD-granting criminology units in the United States: University of California, Irvine (with 72 open outputs), John Jay College of Criminal Justice (with 47 such outputs), and University of Nebraska, Omaha (with 30 such outputs). I end with a discussion of critical issues, instructions, and futures, including what I learned from publishing this article’s preprint.","PeriodicalId":47370,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136284540","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-25DOI: 10.1177/10439862231175557
E. Cohn, J. Worrall
{"title":"Evaluating Citation Analysis: Introduction to the Special Issue","authors":"E. Cohn, J. Worrall","doi":"10.1177/10439862231175557","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10439862231175557","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47370,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice","volume":"39 1","pages":"324 - 326"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42572162","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-25DOI: 10.1177/10439862231175088
T. Pratt
Citation-based indicators of scholarly impact are controversial in the sciences. Although they are often used in rankings of institutions, scholarly works, and scholars themselves, they have been criticized for their failure to capture a wider spectrum of “scholarly impact.” Much like the “five tools” that baseball players can use to influence the outcome of a baseball game, there are a lot of different ways that scholars can have an impact with their work. Accordingly, this article discusses multiple dimensions of impact—research (publications and citations), student mentorship, institutional and programmatic development, community engagement, and the discipline at large—where scholars can make a difference in people’s lives. In the end, the broader message is that, while there will inevitably be few players like Roberto Clemente or Willie Mays in the sciences, there are still several important ways that scholars can make an impact.
{"title":"Baseball and Science: What Roberto Clemente and Willie Mays Can Teach Us About Measuring Scholarly Impact","authors":"T. Pratt","doi":"10.1177/10439862231175088","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10439862231175088","url":null,"abstract":"Citation-based indicators of scholarly impact are controversial in the sciences. Although they are often used in rankings of institutions, scholarly works, and scholars themselves, they have been criticized for their failure to capture a wider spectrum of “scholarly impact.” Much like the “five tools” that baseball players can use to influence the outcome of a baseball game, there are a lot of different ways that scholars can have an impact with their work. Accordingly, this article discusses multiple dimensions of impact—research (publications and citations), student mentorship, institutional and programmatic development, community engagement, and the discipline at large—where scholars can make a difference in people’s lives. In the end, the broader message is that, while there will inevitably be few players like Roberto Clemente or Willie Mays in the sciences, there are still several important ways that scholars can make an impact.","PeriodicalId":47370,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice","volume":"39 1","pages":"341 - 353"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46285170","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-19DOI: 10.1177/10439862231172731
E. Cohn, D. Farrington
Research using citation counts as a metric for measuring scholarly influence and prestige generally gives equal weighting to all authors of a scholarly work. However, as the order of authors frequently reflects the relative importance and involvement of authors, it may be more valid to consider this issue when examining citations. This article focuses on citations in Criminology and gives authors a score based on their order in the author list. Only the first five authors in each reference are counted, so the first author is given a score of 5, the second author a score of 4, and so on. In addition, citation analysis typically counts the total number of citations, rather than the number of different articles in which a scholar is cited. Arguably, the number of different articles is a more valid measure because it shows how many other authors are influenced by a scholar. A large number of citations in a small number of articles may reflect a relatively small amount of scholarly influence. This article shows the effect of counting the number of different articles in which a scholar is cited. We argue that citation analysis would be improved by taking account of the order of authors and the number of different articles.
{"title":"Improving Citation Analysis: Taking Account of Order of Authors and Number of Different Articles in Which a Scholar Is Cited","authors":"E. Cohn, D. Farrington","doi":"10.1177/10439862231172731","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10439862231172731","url":null,"abstract":"Research using citation counts as a metric for measuring scholarly influence and prestige generally gives equal weighting to all authors of a scholarly work. However, as the order of authors frequently reflects the relative importance and involvement of authors, it may be more valid to consider this issue when examining citations. This article focuses on citations in Criminology and gives authors a score based on their order in the author list. Only the first five authors in each reference are counted, so the first author is given a score of 5, the second author a score of 4, and so on. In addition, citation analysis typically counts the total number of citations, rather than the number of different articles in which a scholar is cited. Arguably, the number of different articles is a more valid measure because it shows how many other authors are influenced by a scholar. A large number of citations in a small number of articles may reflect a relatively small amount of scholarly influence. This article shows the effect of counting the number of different articles in which a scholar is cited. We argue that citation analysis would be improved by taking account of the order of authors and the number of different articles.","PeriodicalId":47370,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice","volume":"39 1","pages":"446 - 457"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43318012","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-03DOI: 10.1177/10439862231170971
Whitney S. Sanders, J. Corey, J. Worrall
Criminal justice and criminology (CCJ), like many academic disciplines, conducts its share of rankings. Citation-based ranks of individual scholars are particularly popular, and they tend to consistently identify the field’s supposedly “top” scholars and “academic stars.” Whether citations equate with “influence,” however, is up for debate. At the least, citation-based metrics are unidimensional and fail to capture attention outside academia. Accordingly, we drew on the work of Cohn et al. and re-ranked top-cited scholars using the Google Chrome “Altmetric it!” bookmarklet. As expected, the Altmetrics methodology fundamentally altered past rankings. The most influential scholars in our rankings, Terrie E. Moffitt and Avshalom Caspi, received higher Altmetric scores than all the remaining ranked scholars combined.
{"title":"Beyond Citation Counts: Reassessing Top Criminologists’ “Influence” With Altmetric Scores","authors":"Whitney S. Sanders, J. Corey, J. Worrall","doi":"10.1177/10439862231170971","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10439862231170971","url":null,"abstract":"Criminal justice and criminology (CCJ), like many academic disciplines, conducts its share of rankings. Citation-based ranks of individual scholars are particularly popular, and they tend to consistently identify the field’s supposedly “top” scholars and “academic stars.” Whether citations equate with “influence,” however, is up for debate. At the least, citation-based metrics are unidimensional and fail to capture attention outside academia. Accordingly, we drew on the work of Cohn et al. and re-ranked top-cited scholars using the Google Chrome “Altmetric it!” bookmarklet. As expected, the Altmetrics methodology fundamentally altered past rankings. The most influential scholars in our rankings, Terrie E. Moffitt and Avshalom Caspi, received higher Altmetric scores than all the remaining ranked scholars combined.","PeriodicalId":47370,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice","volume":"39 1","pages":"387 - 404"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41697660","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-03DOI: 10.1177/10439862231170972
J. Worrall, E. Cohn
As a means for measuring scholarly influence, citation analysis has several limitations and shortcomings. We first review the main sources of citation data (Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and information collected directly from reference lists) and discuss the shortcomings of each source. Next, we review five significant limitations of citation analysis as a methodology (academic over popular interest, various motivations for citing, manipulation potential, failure to account for author ordering, and citations only appearing in “indexed” journals). The issues we touch on set the stage for the remainder of the articles in this special issue.
引文分析作为衡量学术影响力的一种手段，有几个局限性和不足。我们首先回顾了引文数据的主要来源（Web of Science、Scopus、Google Scholar和直接从参考文献列表中收集的信息），并讨论了每个来源的缺点。接下来，我们回顾了引用分析作为一种方法论的五个重要局限性（学术性超过大众兴趣、引用的各种动机、操纵潜力、未能解释作者排序以及引用仅出现在“索引”期刊中）。我们所涉及的问题为本期特刊的其余文章奠定了基础。
{"title":"Citation Data and Analysis: Limitations and Shortcomings","authors":"J. Worrall, E. Cohn","doi":"10.1177/10439862231170972","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10439862231170972","url":null,"abstract":"As a means for measuring scholarly influence, citation analysis has several limitations and shortcomings. We first review the main sources of citation data (Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and information collected directly from reference lists) and discuss the shortcomings of each source. Next, we review five significant limitations of citation analysis as a methodology (academic over popular interest, various motivations for citing, manipulation potential, failure to account for author ordering, and citations only appearing in “indexed” journals). The issues we touch on set the stage for the remainder of the articles in this special issue.","PeriodicalId":47370,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice","volume":"39 1","pages":"327 - 340"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49118671","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-01DOI: 10.1177/10439862231170966
A. Lavorgna, Pamela Ugwudike, F. Vianello
What scholarly impact is, and how it is evaluated, vary across different countries. In the United Kingdom, for instance, scholarly impact is mainly assessed through the Research Excellence Framework (REF) in the context of providing—among other things—accountability for public investment in research, demonstrating the public benefits of research, and informing the selective allocation of research funding. In the REF system, impact needs to show a demonstrable effect on change, or evidence of benefits outside academia, and is formally assessed through case studies. In Italy, there is a comparable system for evaluating research, known as Evaluation of Research Quality, but in this latter case, the focus is on the quality of selected research outputs as indicators of research performance. Impact is here considered with reference to the so-called third mission (which includes activities aimed at the valorization of research, and activities that have positive spillovers into society at large) and is evaluated separately. Our contribution aims at critically analyzing the commonalities and differences of these two systems when it comes to evaluating research in Criminology and Criminal Justice, considering some of the benefits and potential pitfalls of research evaluation in both regions, and discussing how these disciplines are framed and delimited differently in the two countries considered.
{"title":"Evaluating Research and Scholarly Impact in Criminology and Criminal Justice in the United Kingdom and Italy: A Comparative Perspective","authors":"A. Lavorgna, Pamela Ugwudike, F. Vianello","doi":"10.1177/10439862231170966","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10439862231170966","url":null,"abstract":"What scholarly impact is, and how it is evaluated, vary across different countries. In the United Kingdom, for instance, scholarly impact is mainly assessed through the Research Excellence Framework (REF) in the context of providing—among other things—accountability for public investment in research, demonstrating the public benefits of research, and informing the selective allocation of research funding. In the REF system, impact needs to show a demonstrable effect on change, or evidence of benefits outside academia, and is formally assessed through case studies. In Italy, there is a comparable system for evaluating research, known as Evaluation of Research Quality, but in this latter case, the focus is on the quality of selected research outputs as indicators of research performance. Impact is here considered with reference to the so-called third mission (which includes activities aimed at the valorization of research, and activities that have positive spillovers into society at large) and is evaluated separately. Our contribution aims at critically analyzing the commonalities and differences of these two systems when it comes to evaluating research in Criminology and Criminal Justice, considering some of the benefits and potential pitfalls of research evaluation in both regions, and discussing how these disciplines are framed and delimited differently in the two countries considered.","PeriodicalId":47370,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice","volume":"39 1","pages":"354 - 370"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49342814","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-28DOI: 10.1177/10439862231170954
Danielle M. Fenimore, S. P. Roche, Wesley G. Jennings, Remy Heinen
Prior research has frequently employed various methods for investigating issues surrounding publication productivity and authorship, including examinations of the number of co-authors in peer-reviewed journal articles and the order of authorship. Relying on 5 years of data from publications from the “Big 5” journals in criminology and criminal justice (i.e., Criminology, Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Crime & Delinquency, and Justice Quarterly), the current study extends this extant research by providing a social network analysis of publishing networks. Results are consistent with previous findings, suggesting that publishing networks are largely decentralized, although key networks and definitive leaders in these networks exist as well. In addition, several authors were identified that have significant leverage over the publishing networks. Study limitations and directions for future research are also discussed.
{"title":"A Social Network Analysis of Publishing Networks in the “Big 5” Journals in Criminology and Criminal Justice","authors":"Danielle M. Fenimore, S. P. Roche, Wesley G. Jennings, Remy Heinen","doi":"10.1177/10439862231170954","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10439862231170954","url":null,"abstract":"Prior research has frequently employed various methods for investigating issues surrounding publication productivity and authorship, including examinations of the number of co-authors in peer-reviewed journal articles and the order of authorship. Relying on 5 years of data from publications from the “Big 5” journals in criminology and criminal justice (i.e., Criminology, Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Crime & Delinquency, and Justice Quarterly), the current study extends this extant research by providing a social network analysis of publishing networks. Results are consistent with previous findings, suggesting that publishing networks are largely decentralized, although key networks and definitive leaders in these networks exist as well. In addition, several authors were identified that have significant leverage over the publishing networks. Study limitations and directions for future research are also discussed.","PeriodicalId":47370,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice","volume":"39 1","pages":"429 - 445"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47105344","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-28DOI: 10.1177/10439862231170949
J. Corey, W. Sanders
Citation counts have commonly been used to measure “influence” of criminal justice and criminology (CCJ) scholars and articles. However, citation counts do not reflect influence outside of academia and thus may not be the best way to determine the true impact of scholarly work. This study uses the Altmetrics Attention Score (AAS) to measure which CCJ articles are the most influential in CCJ. Results demonstrate how AAS affects the ranking of “top” articles relative to the typical citation count measures. Implications for future ranking studies are discussed.
{"title":"The Altmetrics Hot 100: What Are the Most Influential Articles in Criminology and Criminal Justice?","authors":"J. Corey, W. Sanders","doi":"10.1177/10439862231170949","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10439862231170949","url":null,"abstract":"Citation counts have commonly been used to measure “influence” of criminal justice and criminology (CCJ) scholars and articles. However, citation counts do not reflect influence outside of academia and thus may not be the best way to determine the true impact of scholarly work. This study uses the Altmetrics Attention Score (AAS) to measure which CCJ articles are the most influential in CCJ. Results demonstrate how AAS affects the ranking of “top” articles relative to the typical citation count measures. Implications for future ranking studies are discussed.","PeriodicalId":47370,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice","volume":"39 1","pages":"405 - 428"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48426049","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：