A bibliometric analysis of research in the field of forensic psychiatry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Forensic psychiatry is a subspeciality that encompasses applying scientific and clinical expertise in legal contexts. As a field of psychiatry, forensic psychiatry has continued to evolve in various jurisdictions. Several journal publications continue to highlight the contributions and works of various psychiatry researchers in this area on scientific development and trends in practice. However, a quantitative assessment of these publications using a bibliometric analysis has yet to be done. Thus, the present study. Objectives Provide a qualitative assessment of the bibliometrics of peer-reviewed research in forensic psychiatry. Methods In this bibliometric analysis, we used Web of Science (the most frequently used database) to identify research articles in forensic psychiatry from inception to December 2023. Analysis was done using citespace and VOSviewer software. Results Five thousand six hundred ninety articles were identified with 115 countries, 4144 institutions and universities, and 1660 authors. The articles were published in 1022 journals (most are specific to the field), and 4707 unique keywords were used to identify relevant articles. Risk assessments, violence, recidivism, psychopathy, and schizophrenia are the main areas researched. Sixteen funding agencies have funded ten or more articles in the field. The studies were mainly from high-income countries and a relatively scant number from low-income countries, especially African countries. Publications with themes on risk assessment tools – such as the HCR-20- appeared predominant across the analyzed publications. Conclusions Research in forensic psychiatry has continued to grow over time. While many jurisdictions across the globe have embraced the field, more effort is needed to promote forensic psychiatry and research in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The themes or keywords that emerged from the publications included in this analysis suggest that forensic psychiatry mainly deals with offenders with schizophrenia or psychopathy. Disclosure of Interest None Declared
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.038 | 0.100 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".