Changes in Scholarly Influence in Major International Criminology Journals, 1986–2005
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Changes in scholarly influence in four major international criminology journals (CJC—Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice; CRIM—Criminology; BJC—British Journal of Criminology; ANZ—Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology) were measured by determining the most-cited scholars in 2001–2005 and comparing them with the most-cited scholars in 1996–2000, 1991–1995, and 1986–1990. The number of cited authors increased by over 90% between 1986–1990 and 2001–2005. The most-cited scholars in 2001–2005 were Julian V. Roberts in CJC, Robert J. Sampson in CRIM, John Braithwaite in BJC, and Lawrence W. Sherman in ANZ. There was clear concordance between CJC and CRIM, and between BJC and ANZ, in the most-cited authors. The analyses reveal the increasing scholarly influence of some authors over this 20-year time period, the decreasing scholarly influence of others, and the continuing high influence of others. A list of the most-cited works of the most-cited authors showed that some scholars were specialized, with a large number of citations of one or two seminal works, usually books and often theoretical in nature. Other scholars were versatile: they had many different works cited a few times each.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.037 | 0.052 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".