Introduction

The main aim of this article is to assess the most cited scholars in five international journals in three time periods: 2006–2010, 2011–2015, and 2016–2020. The five international journals are the Asian Journal of Criminology (AJC), the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology (ANZ), the British Journal of Criminology (BJC), the Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice (CJC), and the American journal Criminology (CRIM). The most cited scholars in four of these journals (all except AJC) have been studied in five-year time periods from 1986–90 to 2011–2015 (see Cohn, 2011; Cohn & Farrington, 1994, 1998, 2007; Cohn et al., 2014, 2017). AJC only began publishing in 2006. Iratzoqui et al. (2019) assessed the most cited scholars in AJC in 2006–2010 and 2011–2015, and compared them with the most cited scholars in the other four journals up to 2011–2015.

In AJC in 2011–2015, 85 articles were published by 177 individual authors, of whom 76 (43%) were from the USA and 67 (38%) were from Asian countries (mainly Japan, mainland China, and Hong Kong); see Iratzoqui et al. (2019). In contrast, in AJC in 2006–2010, 56 articles were published by 86 individual authors, of whom 32 (37%) were from the USA and only 18 (21%) were from Asian countries. The increase in the number of articles was at least partly attributable to the fact that, in 2012, AJC expanded from two to four issues per year. In the present article we will investigate whether the number of AJC authors from Asian countries has continued to increase in 2016–2020.

Farrington et al. (2019) and Iratzoqui et al. (2019) found that AJC tended to identify the same most cited scholars as the other four international journals. For example, every one of the most cited nine scholars in the other four international journals in 2011–2015 was among the most cited 51 scholars in AJC in 2011–2015, as were eight other scholars who were highly cited in the four international journals. In the present article, we will investigate overlaps between journals in the most cited scholars in 2016–2020. In addition, we will investigate whether the citations of older scholars are decreasing and whether the citations of younger scholars are increasing (see e.g., Cohn et al., 2020), and whether citations of female scholars have increased or decreased over time.

It is often true that the most cited scholars in one time period tend also to be among the most cited scholars in the next time period. For example, in CRIM, 32 of the 50 most cited scholars in 2011–2015 (64%) were also among the 51 most cited scholars in 2006–2010 (Iratzoqui et al., 2019). Because the most cited scholars were defined as all those ranked up to 50, their number might not be exactly 50. The percentage overlap was also high for ANZ (59%) and BJC (56%), but lower for CJC (39%) and lowest of all for AJC (29%). In the present article, we will investigate whether these trends have continued over time.

The most cited scholars in the four international journals (and especially in ANZ and CRIM) in 2011–2015 tended to be working on developmental and life-course topics. Robert J. Sampson, David P. Farrington, John H. Laub, Alex R. Piquero, Daniel S. Nagin, and Terrie E. Moffitt were among the most cited nine scholars. However, the most cited scholars in AJC in 2011–2015 were more diverse. In the present article, we will investigate the main topics of the most cited scholars in these five journals.

We are using the number of citations as a measure of scholarly influence. However, it might be argued that citation counts do not distinguish between positive and negative references, and that some researchers may deliberately cite their friends and avoid citing their critics. Nevertheless, research shows that most citations are positive rather than negative, and that citation analysis tends to identify the same scholars as other measures of scholarly influence, including peer ratings, scholarly awards and recognition, and productivity and publication rates (see Cohn & Farrington, 2012). The main point is that citations are an objective measure of scholarly influence, and that the basic information is readily available and can be easily checked by anyone.

It might be argued that an analysis of a small number of journals, however important, should not be used to draw wider conclusions about scholarly influence in criminology. However, Cohn et al. (2021) studied 20 journals and found very similar results to those obtained in studies of fewer journals. The 20 journals included five American criminology journals, five American criminal justice journals, five international criminology journals, and five international criminal justice journals. The most cited nine scholars in these 20 journals in 2015 included Robert J. Sampson, Alex R. Piquero, David P. Farrington, John H. Laub, Daniel S. Nagin, Terrie E. Moffitt, and Rolf Loeber—all known for their research in developmental and life-course criminology. All seven scholars were among the most cited 11 scholars in nine major journals in 2011–2015 and all seven were among the most cited 50 scholars in AJC in 2015.

Method

Because of the identified limitations of other sources of citation data (e.g., Google Scholar, Scopus, Social Sciences Citation Index), Cohn and Farrington (1990, 1994) began manually counting the number of times each scholar was cited in the reference lists of all articles in each journal. A similar counting method was used in the present analyses. “Articles” include research notes, comments, and rejoinders, but exclude book reviews, book review articles, editorials, letters, and obituaries. Unpublished reports and conference papers are included if they were cited. Articles and authors are excluded if institutions were listed as authors, and all self-citations are excluded. Co-author citations, however, are included, which occur when the author of an article cites one of their own multi-authored works. For example, if X cites an article by X and Y, the citation of X would be excluded as a self-citation, but the citation of Y would be included as a co-author citation.

Information was collected and checked in several stages. First, the references pages were downloaded from online full-text copies of all journals. Next, a file was created that generated counts for each cited scholar in each article in each issue of all journals. When a reference had multiple authors, duplicate listings were made of the reference, in order to count each co-author. Extensive checking was conducted to ensure that no references were omitted, to minimize the possibility of typographical errors, and to detect, and if possible correct, mistakes in reference lists, including misspelled names and incorrect or missing initials. Where references specified “et al.” rather than listing all authors, the names of all co-authors were obtained whenever possible. Finally, the complete list of references for all five years of each journal was then sorted alphabetically and the number of times that each name occurred was counted. Citations to scholars with multiple names were merged where known. In the case of Chinese names, both orderings of first and second names were investigated and amalgamated where they were found (e.g., Jianhong Liu and Liu Jianhong).

The “nationality” of all authors of all articles published in the five journals was also coded and analyzed. Nationality was determined by the author’s institutional or organizational affiliation, as stated in the article, rather than by citizenship. Importantly, this means that a scholar who is of Asian origin, but who is working and publishing in an American university, would be classified as American for the purposes of this analysis.

Results

Table 1 shows citation information for the five international journals in 2016–2020. BJC published the most articles (357) with the most authors (759), while AJC published the fewest articles (88) with the fewest authors (207). Compared with 2011–2015 (Iratzoqui et al., 2019), the number of published articles increased considerably in ANZ (from 115 to 151) and BJC (from 289 to 357), but not much in the other three journals. For example, AJC increased only from 85 articles in 2011–2015 to 88 articles in 2016–2020. The average number of cited scholars per article was around 100 for four journals but 195 for CRIM, which increased from 157 in 2011–2015, as did AJC (from 78 to 110) and CJC (from 78 to 103).

Table 1 Citation information for the five international journals in 2016–2020
Full size table

In AJC in 2016–2020, 88 articles were published by a total of 207 individual authors (not necessarily different authors, as a person would be counted more than once if they published more than one article). Of these authors, 78 (38%) were from the USA, 22 (11%) were from the UK, 19 (9%) were from Australia, 7 (3%) were from Canada, and 3 (1%) were from the Netherlands. The other 78 (38%) were from a variety of Asian countries: 19 from mainland China, 13 from Japan, 6 from South Korea, 6 from Taiwan, 6 from Vietnam, 5 from Singapore, 5 from the Philippines, 5 from Hong Kong, 5 from Brunei, 4 from Malaysia, 1 from India, 1 from Pakistan, 1 from Bangladesh, and 1 from the United Arab Emirates. As mentioned, the percentage of Asian authors in AJC increased greatly from 2006–2010 (21%) to 2011–2015 (38%) but it then stabilized at 38% in 2016–2020. The percentage of US authors has stayed tolerably constant, at 37% in 2006–2010, 43% in 2011–2015, and 38% in 2016–2020. These articles produced a total of 10,142 cited scholars (again, not necessarily different persons), including 477 self-citations and 448 co-author citations. Therefore, there were 9,665 eligible cited scholars, an average of 110 per article.

Table 2 shows the 47 most cited scholars in AJC in 2016–2020 (all those ranked up to 50). Each scholar was given a score of 51 minus their rank, which meant that all scholars ranked 51 or greater received a score of 0. The most cited scholar, Tom R. Tyler, was cited 73 times. He had 34 different works cited in 16 different articles (18% of all articles in AJC). His most cited work, “Why people obey the law” (Tyler, 2006), was cited 12 times. The second most cited scholar, Jianhong Liu, was cited 64 times.

Table 2 Most cited scholars in AJC, 2016–2020
Full size table

Of the 47 most cited scholars, 33 (70%) were based in the USA, 7 (15%) in the UK, 4 (9%) in Australia, 2 (4%) in China, and 1 (2%) in Canada (based on locations in 2016). The highest-ranked scholars of Asian origin (based on their names) were Jianhong Liu (ranked 2), Liqun Cao (ranked 8), Ivan Y. Sun (ranked 10), Yuning Wu (ranked 12), and Lening Zhang (ranked 14.5). However, of these five scholars, only Jianhong Liu was based in Asia (in Macau, China). Six of the most cited scholars were female, and the highest-ranked females were Yuning Wu (at 12), Kristina Murphy (at 17), and Lorraine Mazerolle (at 39).

Of the 47 most cited scholars in AJC in 2016–2020, 26 (55%) were also highly cited in 2011–2015. This is a big increase from the 29% overlap between 2006–2010 and 2011–2015. Between 2011–2015 and 2016–2020, big advances were made by Tom R. Tyler (from 12 to 1), Jianhong Liu (from 8 to 2), and Ivan Y. Sun (from 18 to 10). The highest new entrants were Jonathan Jackson (at 3), Ben Bradford (at 8), and Yuning Wu (at 12). Only 10 scholars were among the most cited in all three time periods.

In ANZ in 2016–2020, 151 articles were published by a total of 379 individual authors. Of these authors, 242 (64%) were from Australia, 24 (6%) were from New Zealand, 23 (6%) were from the USA, 23 (6%) were from the UK, and 20 (5%) were from Canada. A total of 31 authors (8%) were from Asian countries: 11 from mainland China, 8 from Hong Kong, 5 from Thailand, 5 from Singapore, 1 from Taiwan, and 1 from Indonesia. This was a big increase from only 5 Asian authors in 2011–2015.

Table 3 shows the 50 most cited scholars in ANZ in 2016–2020. The most cited scholar, once again Tom R. Tyler, was cited 63 times. He had 26 different works cited in 16 different articles (11% of all articles in ANZ). His most cited work, again “Why people obey the law” (Tyler, 2006), was cited 12 times. The second most cited scholar, Don Weatherburn, was cited 47 times. Of the 50 most cited scholars, 23 (46%) were based in Australia, 15 (30%) in the USA, 8 (16%) in the UK, 3 (6%) in Canada, and 1 (2%) in France. Twelve of the scholars were female, and the highest-ranked females were Kristina Murphy (at 11), Samantha Jeffries (at 13.5) and Christine E. W. Bond (at 15).

Table 3 Most cited scholars in ANZ, 2016–2020
Full size table

Of the 50 most cited scholars in ANZ in 2016–2020, only 19 (38%) were also highly cited in 2011–2015. This was a decrease from the overlap of 59% between 2006–2010 and 2011–2015. Between 2011–2015 and 2016–2020, big advances were made by Don Weatherburn (from 34.5 to 2), Jonathan Jackson (from 39.5 to 6), and David Weisburd (from 26.5 to 10). The highest new entrants were Chris Cunneen (at 7), Ben Bradford (at 8), and Ronald V. Clarke (at 12). Only 12 scholars were among the most cited in all three time periods.

In BJC in 2016–2020, 357 articles were published by a total of 759 individual authors. Of these authors, 312 (41%) were from the UK, 128 (17%) were from the USA, 99 (13%) were from Australia, 54 (7%) were from Canada, and 30 (4%) were from the Netherlands. A total of 22 authors (3%) were from Asian countries: 16 from Hong Kong and 6 from mainland China. This was a big increase from only 2 Asian authors in 2011–2015.

Table 4 shows the 50 most cited scholars in BJC in 2016–2020. The most cited scholar, Robert J. Sampson, was cited 163 times. He had 45 different works cited in 73 different articles (20% of all articles in BJC). His most cited work, “Neighborhoods and violent crime” (Sampson et al., 1997), was cited 21 times. The second most cited scholar, Tom R. Tyler, was cited 131 times. Of the 50 most cited scholars, 22 (44%) were based in the UK, 14 (28%) in the USA, 4 (8%) in Australia, 4 (8%) in Canada, 2 (4%) in Norway, 2 (4%) in France, 1 (2%) in Denmark, and 1 (2%) in the Netherlands. Five of the most cited scholars were female, and the highest-ranked females were Sandra Walklate (at 11), Alison Liebling (at 14.5), and Kristina Murphy (at 28).

Table 4 Most cited scholars in BJC, 2016–2020
Full size table

Of the 50 most cited scholars in BJC in 2016–2020, 33 (66%) were also highly cited in 2011–2015. This was a little higher than the overlap of 56% between 2006–2010 and 2011–2015. Between 2011–2015 and 2016–2020, big advances were made by Ben Bradford (from 27.5 to 7), Stephen Farrall (from 27.5 to 8), and Sandra Walklate (from 27.5 to 11). The highest new entrants were Stuart Hall (at 9), Ben Crewe (at 10), and Alison Liebling (at 14.5). As many as 22 scholars were among the most cited in all three time periods.

In CJC in 2016–2020, 103 articles were published by a total of 260 individual authors. Of these authors, 225 (87%) were from Canada, 23 (9%) were from the USA, 6 (2%) were from the UK, and 5 (2%) were from Australia. None was from an Asian country (as in 2011–2015).

Table 5 shows the 54 most cited scholars in CJC in 2016–2020. The most cited scholar, Julian V. Roberts, was cited 47 times. He had 32 different works cited in 20 different articles (19% of all articles in CJC). His most cited work, “Aboriginal incarceration in Canada since 1978” (Roberts & Reid, 2017), was cited 6 times. The next most cited scholars, Anthony N. Doob and Alex R. Piquero, were each cited 44 times. Of the 54 most cited scholars, 28 (52%) were based in the USA, 17 (31%) in Canada, 8 (15%) in the UK, and 1 (2%) in the Netherlands. Eight of the most cited scholars were female, and the highest-ranked females were Patricia L. Brantingham (at 14.5), Jane B. Sprott and Cheryl M. Webster (both at 28).

Table 5 Most cited scholars in CJC, 2016–2020
Full size table

Of the 54 most cited scholars in CJC in 2016–2020, 23 (43%) were also highly cited in 2011–2015. This was similar to the overlap of 39% between 2006–2010 and 2011–2015. Between 2011–2015 and 2016–2020, big advances were made by Alex R. Piquero (from 9 to 2.5), Martin A. Andresen (from 27 to 7), and John H. Laub (from 41.5 to 17.5). The highest new entrants were David Weisburd (at 8), Liqun Cao (at 10), and Tom R. Tyler (at 10). Only 14 scholars were among the most cited in all three time periods.

In CRIM in 2016–2020, 133 articles were published by a total of 326 individual authors. Of these authors, 278 (85%) were from the USA, 17 (5%) were from the UK, and 11 (3%) were from the Netherlands. Only one author was from an Asian country (Hong Kong), compared with two Asian authors in 2011–2015.

Table 6 shows the 51 most cited scholars in CRIM in 2016–2020. The most cited scholar, Robert J. Sampson, was cited 216 times. He had 65 different works cited in 74 different articles (56% of all articles in CRIM). His most cited work, “Shared beginnings, divergent lives” (Laub & Sampson, 2003), was cited 19 times. The next most cited scholar, Alex R. Piquero, was cited 184 times. Of the 51 most cited scholars, 46 (90%) were based in the USA, 3 (6%) in the UK, and 2 (4%) in Canada. Nine of the most cited scholars were female, and the highest-ranked females were Terrie E. Moffitt (at 21), Devah Pager (at 23), and Elizabeth Cauffman (at 34.5).

Table 6 Most cited scholars in CRIM, 2016–2020
Full size table

Of the 51 most cited scholars in CRIM in 2016–2020, 30 (59%) were also highly cited in 2011–2015. This was similar to the overlap of 64% between 2006–2010 and 2011–2015. Between 2011–2015 and 2016–2020, big advances were made by Raymond Paternoster (from 11 to 3), Jeffrey A. Fagan (from 48 to 6), and Christopher Uggen (from 34.5 to 10). The highest new entrants were Laurence Steinberg (at 7), Tom R. Tyler (at 8), and Thomas A. Loughran (at 17). As many as 21 scholars were among the most cited in all three time periods.

Table 7 shows the most cited 50 scholars across all five international journals. As mentioned, each scholar in each journal was given a score of 51 minus their ranking, and then the scores were added up over the five journals (for a maximum possible score of 250). This method of scoring gives equal weight to all five journals.

Table 7 Most cited scholars in five journals, 2016–2020
Full size table

Table 7 shows that the most cited scholars, Robert J. Sampson (score 239) and Tom R. Tyler (score 233), were highly cited (in the top 10) in all five journals, and their scores were close to the maximum possible score of 250. Four other scholars were among the most cited in all five journals: Alex R. Piquero, David P. Farrington, Francis T. Cullen, and Jonathan Jackson. Of the 50 most cited scholars, 28 (56%) were based in the USA, 11 (22%) in the UK, 6 (12%) in Canada, 4 (8%) in Australia, and 1 (2%) in Macau, China (Jianhong Liu). Jianhong Liu was also the only Asian scholar on this list in 2011–2015. Only four of the scholars were female: Kristina Murphy (ranked 14), Patricia L. Brantingham (ranked 31), Yuning Wu (ranked 47.5), and Sandra Walklate (ranked 50). However, this was an increase compared to 2011–2015, when only two of the most cited scholars were female.

Of the 50 most cited scholars in 2016–2020, 29 (58%) were also among the most cited in 2011–2015. Between 2011–2015 and 2016–2020, big advances were made by Tom R. Tyler (from 9 to 2), Jonathan Jackson (from 27 to 6), Liqun Cao (from 42.5 to 9), and David Weisburd (from 20 to 10). The highest new entrants were Ben Bradford (at 7), Kristina Murphy (at 14), and Stephen Farrall (at 17). As many as 21 scholars were among the most cited in all three time periods.

Table 8 shows the most cited works of the 10 most cited scholars. In four cases (Robert J. Sampson, Alex R. Piquero, David P. Farrington, John H. Laub), these were concerned with developmental and life-course criminology, while in four other cases (Tom R. Tyler, Jonathan Jackson, Ben Bradford, Liqun Cao), they were concerned with law, legitimacy, and policing research. In addition, although David Weisburd’s most cited works in these five journals were on the criminology of place, he is also well-known as a policing scholar. For example, according to Google Scholar, his most cited work overall is “General deterrent effects of police patrol in crime hot spots” (Sherman & Weisburd, 1995). Another policing scholar, Lawrence W. Sherman, was ranked 11 in Table 7. In comparison, in 2011–2015, five of the most cited six scholars worked on developmental and life-course criminology (the above four plus Daniel S. Nagin). Of the other five scholars in the top 10 listed above, only Tom R. Tyler was among the most cited 10 scholars in 2011–2015.

Table 8 Most cited works of the most cited scholars in five Journals, 2016–2020
Full size table

Alex R. Piquero had the largest number of different works cited (166), followed by David P. Farrington (140). John H. Laub had the fewest number of different works cited (36), followed by Liqun Cao (37). Cohn et al. (2021) distinguished between versatile scholars, who had a relatively large number of cited works and a relatively small number of citations per work, and specialized scholars, who had a relatively small number of cited works and a relatively large number of citations per work. Based on Table 8, David P. Farrington and Alex R. Piquero were the most versatile of these scholars, and John H. Laub was the most specialized.

Conclusion

The main change in citations between 2011–2015 and 2016–2020 is the decreasing dominance of developmental and life-course criminology among the most cited scholars (although this topic is still important) and the increasing importance of law, legitimacy, and policing research. However, it is clear that many other topics are important, and that the most cited scholars are often versatile in their research topics. For example, Francis T. Cullen is highly cited not only for the types of theoretical papers listed in Table 8, but also for his work on the effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation (e.g., Lipsey & Cullen, 2007) and many other topics. The five most cited scholars in Table 7 were highly cited in all five journals.

The five journals varied in their identification of the most cited scholars. There was most agreement between ANZ and BJC, as 19 scholars appeared in the most cited lists of both journals. The next highest agreement was between AJC and ANZ (17), BJC and CJC (17), AJC and BJC (15), AJC and CRIM (15), and ANZ and CJC (15). There was lower agreement between CJC and CRIM (14), AJC and CJC (13), BJC and CRIM (12), and ANZ and CRIM (9). There was least agreement between CRIM and the other four journals (average overlap 12.5) and more agreement for BJC (15.75), AJC (15), ANZ (15), and CJC (14.75).

In 2016–2020, the most parochial journals in terms of authors were CJC (87% of authors from Canada), CRIM (85% of authors from the USA), and ANZ (70% of authors from Australia or New Zealand). The least parochial journals in terms of authors were AJC (38% of authors from Asia) and BJC (41% of authors from the UK). The most parochial journal in terms of most cited scholars was CRIM by far (90% from the USA), followed by ANZ (46% from Australia), BJC (44% from the UK), and CJC (31% from Canada). AJC was not at all parochial in its most cited scholars, as only 4% of these were from Asia.

Between 2011–2015 and 2016–2020, there was most overlap in the most cited scholars for BJC (66%), followed by CRIM (59%), and AJC (55%), and least overlap for CJC (43%) and ANZ (38%). Compared with the overlap between 2006–2010 and 2011–2015, the biggest increase was for AJC (from 29 to 55%), and the biggest decrease was for ANZ (from 59 to 38%). It seemed that citations became more consistent over time in AJC and less consistent over time in ANZ.

It might be expected that the citation rankings of older scholars would generally decrease over time, while the rankings of younger scholars would increase. In order to investigate this, the highly cited scholars in Table 7 were classified into the oldest (born before 1950), the middle-aged (born 1950–1969), and the youngest (born 1970 or later), based on available information. Only 10 scholars were born in 1970 or later, but their rankings improved between 2011–2015 and 2016–2020 in nine cases and stayed constant in the other case: Alex R. Piquero (born 1970), who was ranked 3 in both 2011–2015 and 2016–2020.

Of the 24 middle-aged scholars, 13 advanced in their rankings, 10 decreased, and one stayed constant: Robert J. Sampson (born 1956), who was ranked 1 in both time periods. Of the 16 oldest scholars, nine advanced and seven decreased. Also, of the seven scholars who were ranked highest (in the top 30) in 2011–2015 but who were absent from the 2016–2020 table (i.e., who all decreased), only three were in the oldest category and four were middle-aged. Therefore, there was no indication from Table 7 that the oldest scholars were decreasing more than the middle-aged scholars in their rankings, although it was very clear that the youngest scholars were advancing.

Between 2011–2015 and 2016–2020, the percent of the most cited authors who were Asian stayed constant in AJC (at 38%) but increased considerably in ANZ (from 2 to 8%) and in BJC (from 1.5 to 3%). Asian authors were rare in CRIM (only one in 2016–2020) and completely absent in CJC. Asian scholars were absent from the most cited lists in 2016–2020 except for AJC, but even in AJC only two Asian scholars were among the most cited.

How could the citations (and the scholarly influence) of Asian scholars be increased? It would clearly be desirable that more researchers based in Asia should seek to publish their research in major, widely-read, international journals. There were encouraging signs of an increase in Asian authors in ANZ and BJC, but more efforts to communicate Asian research to international scholars are clearly needed.