![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
Previous research assessing the productivity of criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) scholars has sought to determine the overall most productive scholars based on various measures (e.g. total articles published, total cites, and articles per year). While such lists may be important for those who rank high, they may be best used to establish benchmarks for the discipline. To date, research examining the stars in CCJ has focused on overall stars. The aim of the current research is to highlight the most productive scholars (in CCJ doctoral programs), but to do so based on academic rank. As such, our sample is more inclusive than others that have assessed highly productive scholars in the field. By disaggregating productivity measures by academic ranks, it is possible to determine rising stars in the discipline as well as top stars overall. Additionally, and we think more importantly, such rankings give insights into the state of the discipline.
Notes
1. Jennings et al. (Citation2008) results should be used with caution for evaluating colleagues at liberal arts colleges as their methodology only focused on faculty that serve on CCJ programs that offer a doctoral degree. This does not mean comparison of productivity levels based on these published benchmarks would not be valid, it simply means that one must be mindful of the source of the data and frame these comparisons properly.
2. We excluded Texas Southern from the analysis because we could not locate a working website when determining faculty at the time of data collection. Also, we omitted Florida International from the analysis because their program offers a Ph.D. in Public Affairs and not in criminology or criminal justice (see Kleck & Barnes, Citation2011).
3. In some cases, such as at American University, institutions use traditional titles for faculty in nonresearch positions. We excluded these individuals from the analysis. We thank faculty at American University for pointing this out to us.
4. Scopus had no record of these individuals in its database. This could be due to them not publishing in articles indexed by Scopus.
5. It should be noted that scores for total articles and citations are based on the journals archived by Scopus.