Pub Date : 2023-07-26DOI: 10.1177/10439862231189410
Jerry M. Stott, Jordan T. Giese, L. Gittner, Robert E. Forbis, Jeff A. Dennis
This introduction offers a primer for this special edition of the Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice. The purpose is to provide an interdisciplinary platform for scholars and practitioners to communicate perspectives of criminal justice, criminology, and law; public policy and administration, economics and political science; social work and sociology; behavioral health, counseling and psychology; public health, emergency medicine, and psychiatry around diversion. While disciplines share objectives of diversion as (1) rehabilitation, (2) efficient case processing, and (3) reducing resources, the defining and reporting of diversion differs. Justice-involved individuals with mental health issues making successful re-entry into the civil society, however, becomes convoluted. Diversion in practice has taken many shapes. Diversion in theory has taken many meanings. This special edition offers a variety of empirical and theoretical articles that attempt to provide clarity to an often implemented and understudied area of criminal justice and health care. Interviews with street-level officials, quantitative analyses of programs, and philosophical challenges to innate assumptions about individuals and systems are seen from a wide variety of scholars. The authors showcase their varied backgrounds with graduate students, university faculty, and practitioners, offering the fields of criminal justice and health care insight into diversion at all levels.
{"title":"Perspectives on Diversion in the Criminal Justice and Health care Systems","authors":"Jerry M. Stott, Jordan T. Giese, L. Gittner, Robert E. Forbis, Jeff A. Dennis","doi":"10.1177/10439862231189410","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10439862231189410","url":null,"abstract":"This introduction offers a primer for this special edition of the Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice. The purpose is to provide an interdisciplinary platform for scholars and practitioners to communicate perspectives of criminal justice, criminology, and law; public policy and administration, economics and political science; social work and sociology; behavioral health, counseling and psychology; public health, emergency medicine, and psychiatry around diversion. While disciplines share objectives of diversion as (1) rehabilitation, (2) efficient case processing, and (3) reducing resources, the defining and reporting of diversion differs. Justice-involved individuals with mental health issues making successful re-entry into the civil society, however, becomes convoluted. Diversion in practice has taken many shapes. Diversion in theory has taken many meanings. This special edition offers a variety of empirical and theoretical articles that attempt to provide clarity to an often implemented and understudied area of criminal justice and health care. Interviews with street-level officials, quantitative analyses of programs, and philosophical challenges to innate assumptions about individuals and systems are seen from a wide variety of scholars. The authors showcase their varied backgrounds with graduate students, university faculty, and practitioners, offering the fields of criminal justice and health care insight into diversion at all levels.","PeriodicalId":47370,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45965761","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 : 2023-07-26DOI: 10.1177/10439862231189415
L. Gittner, Jeff A. Dennis, Robert E. Forbis
There is a distinct lack of a normative theory for diversion of justice-involved individuals with mental illness at the intersection of the criminal justice and health care systems. The nexus where the criminal justice and health care systems are supposed to connect during diversion is not conceptually framed in a measurable way. The paper proposes a potential systems theory of diversion that explicates the overlapping boundaries within and between the criminal justice and health care systems. From a systems perspective, diversion is operationalized differently depending on the entry of an individual with justice involvement and mental illness into one of the systems. The criminal justice and health care systems have multiple levels (micro-, meso-, and macro-), but individuals enter both systems at the respective systems intersection of the micro- and meso-levels. The theoretical disconnect may fail to consider the impact of criminal justice diversion on the health care system. We propose a unified systems theory of diversion to improve evaluation, comparability, sustainability, resource allocation, and outcomes of diversion programs.
{"title":"Diversion: A Systems Theory Perspective","authors":"L. Gittner, Jeff A. Dennis, Robert E. Forbis","doi":"10.1177/10439862231189415","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10439862231189415","url":null,"abstract":"There is a distinct lack of a normative theory for diversion of justice-involved individuals with mental illness at the intersection of the criminal justice and health care systems. The nexus where the criminal justice and health care systems are supposed to connect during diversion is not conceptually framed in a measurable way. The paper proposes a potential systems theory of diversion that explicates the overlapping boundaries within and between the criminal justice and health care systems. From a systems perspective, diversion is operationalized differently depending on the entry of an individual with justice involvement and mental illness into one of the systems. The criminal justice and health care systems have multiple levels (micro-, meso-, and macro-), but individuals enter both systems at the respective systems intersection of the micro- and meso-levels. The theoretical disconnect may fail to consider the impact of criminal justice diversion on the health care system. We propose a unified systems theory of diversion to improve evaluation, comparability, sustainability, resource allocation, and outcomes of diversion programs.","PeriodicalId":47370,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42235716","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 : 2023-07-26DOI: 10.1177/10439862231189639
Robert E. Forbis, L. Gittner, Jeff A. Dennis, Jerry M. Stott, Jordan T. Giese
This conclusion provides a brief synopsis of the research articles presented in this special edition of The Journal of Contemporary Justice. The research findings clearly demonstrate that when the objective of diversion is sought by diversion-based programs where the criminal justice and health care systems intersect, processes and services frequently break down. As this collection of articles highlights, our collective understanding of diversion is siloed by academic discipline; thus, the broader picture of diversion remains muddled. It remains muddled because the reporting of diversion is scattered across disciplinary journals where a more robust understanding of diversion becomes unwieldy if not impossible for researchers and practitioners alike without sifting through multiple books, journals, manuscripts, and websites. Therefore, diversion will continue to elude efficacy without the coordination and cooperation of numerous disciplines spanning both the criminal justice and health care systems diversion. As this collection of articles strongly suggests, there is a need to create a transdisciplinary understanding of diversion as well as publication outlets so best practices can be developed and shared in one place.
{"title":"Diversion: Where Do We Go From Here?","authors":"Robert E. Forbis, L. Gittner, Jeff A. Dennis, Jerry M. Stott, Jordan T. Giese","doi":"10.1177/10439862231189639","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10439862231189639","url":null,"abstract":"This conclusion provides a brief synopsis of the research articles presented in this special edition of The Journal of Contemporary Justice. The research findings clearly demonstrate that when the objective of diversion is sought by diversion-based programs where the criminal justice and health care systems intersect, processes and services frequently break down. As this collection of articles highlights, our collective understanding of diversion is siloed by academic discipline; thus, the broader picture of diversion remains muddled. It remains muddled because the reporting of diversion is scattered across disciplinary journals where a more robust understanding of diversion becomes unwieldy if not impossible for researchers and practitioners alike without sifting through multiple books, journals, manuscripts, and websites. Therefore, diversion will continue to elude efficacy without the coordination and cooperation of numerous disciplines spanning both the criminal justice and health care systems diversion. As this collection of articles strongly suggests, there is a need to create a transdisciplinary understanding of diversion as well as publication outlets so best practices can be developed and shared in one place.","PeriodicalId":47370,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45391273","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 : 2023-07-25DOI: 10.1177/10439862231189977
R. Rosenfeld, Mark T. Berg
The study of change over time in crime rates is as old as criminology itself. A fundamental question about crime rates is whether they are moving up or down. This special issue of the Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice brings together recent research on trends in crime and related issues, such as arrests, imprisonment, terrorism, and reporting crimes to the police. These papers show that the study of crime trends is alive and well in criminology and point to innovative data sources, methods, and topics that deepen our understanding of how and why crime rates move up and down over time.
{"title":"Studying Crime Trends: Introduction to the Special Issue","authors":"R. Rosenfeld, Mark T. Berg","doi":"10.1177/10439862231189977","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10439862231189977","url":null,"abstract":"The study of change over time in crime rates is as old as criminology itself. A fundamental question about crime rates is whether they are moving up or down. This special issue of the Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice brings together recent research on trends in crime and related issues, such as arrests, imprisonment, terrorism, and reporting crimes to the police. These papers show that the study of crime trends is alive and well in criminology and point to innovative data sources, methods, and topics that deepen our understanding of how and why crime rates move up and down over time.","PeriodicalId":47370,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43515041","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 : 2023-07-21DOI: 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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
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：