To link to this article:

Publisher: Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Criminal Justice Education

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcje20

The Most Prolific Female Scholars in

Elite Criminology and Criminal Justice

Journals, 2000-2010

Henriikka Weir & Erin Orrick Published online: 13 Aug 2012.

To cite this article: Henriikka Weir & Erin Orrick (2013) The Most Prolific Female Scholars in Elite Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals, 2000-2010, Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 24:3,

273-289, DOI: 10.1080/10511253.2012.709258

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2012.709258

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Most Prolific Female Scholars in Elite

Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals,

2000-2010

Henriikka Weir and Erin Orrick

There has been a steady stream of research exploring the impact of scholars’ research within criminology/criminal justice journals (CCJ), but only a small number of studies have examined the impact of female scholars in particular. Extending that line of work, the present study identifies the most productive sole and lead female authors published in eight top-ranked CCJ journals between 2000 and 2010. Findings reveal that individual ranks of the female scholars are relatively stable when adjusting for frequency and journal impact factor. However, there is more movement in the ranks when they are adjusted based on the year the PhD degree was earned. Consistent with previous research including both males and females, a handful of female scholars, in particular Robin Engel, Beth Huebner, Jodi Lane, and Nicole Leeper Piquero appear to be responsible for a large portion of work in the selected eight elite CCJ journals.

Introduction

Publication productivity has emerged as one of several important metrics used to rate the impact of a scholar’s research. Indeed, in the past few years there have been a stream of papers attempting to rank scholarly productivity in one way or another (Cohn & Farrington, 2007; Cohn, Farrington, & Sorensen, 2000; Fabianic, 2001; Frost, Phillips, & Clear, 2007; Jennings, Gibson, Ward, & Beaver, 2008; Jennings, Schreck, Sturtz, & Mahoney, 2008; Kleck & Barnes, 2011; Rice, Terry, Miller, & Ackerman, 2007; Shutt & Barnes, 2008; Sorensen & Pilgrim, 2002; Wright & Cohn, 1996). Although the majority of this research has included male and female scholars, some have begun to note the importance of separating males and females when calculating rankings (Khey, Jennings, Higgins, Schoepfer, & Langton, 2011; Orrick & Weir, 2011; Rice et al., 2007). Previous research on female scholars in criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) has mainly concentrated on the gender gap in publishing productivity, with explanations for this gap typically being traced to women’s

Ó2012 Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences

higher commitment to motherhood and family responsibilities (Baker, 2010; Kennelly & Spalter-Roth, 2006), lesser degree of specialization by women (Leahey, 2006), and issues surrounding career length, rank, time designated to research, and type of academic institution in which women are likely to be employed (Snell, Sorensen, Rodriguez, & Kuanliang, 2009; Stack, 2002).

The vast majority of recent studies assessing scholarly productivity have done so by utilizing publication counts (see Cohn et al., 2000; Frost et al., 2007; Jennings, Gibson et al., 2008; Jennings, Schreck et al., 2008: Kleck, Wang, & Tark, 2007; Orrick & Weir, 2011; Shutt & Barnes, 2008; although see Cohn & Farrington, 2007; Khey et al., 2011). As with any method of productiv-ity assessment, this technique undeniably captures only one aspect of aca-demic productivity. Though the quantity of peer-reviewed journal articles continues to be an important consideration in hiring and promotion decisions, some attention has been given to number of articles published in “elite” CCJ journals. The “elite” status of given journals have typically been established by prestige surveys and impact studies (see Sorensen, Snell, & Rodriguez, 2006). These two approaches have generally produced fairly consistent results concerning what is and what is not an elite journal (Sorensen, 2009).

In addition to publication counts and journal status, authorship order has become an increasingly important consideration in hiring and tenure decisions (Seipel, 2003). While collaboration in empirical investigations is inherently important to the development of the field (Sever, 2005), sole authorship of an article can be especially valuable as any uncertainty of the contribution by the author is eliminated. Similarly, focusing on lead authorship status in individual-level ranking studies may be a useful way to determine which individuals play more central roles in the creation of the paper (within the field of CCJ, authorship order is customarily determined based on merit [Sever, 2005]).

Female Academic “Stars”

Very few studies have focused on the publication productivity of female scholars in CCJ. Rice et al. (2007) examined the publication trajectories of 88 female scholars who had received their doctoral degrees between 1996 and 2006 from US universities. Among these 88 female scholars, Rice and col-leagues (2007) distinguished 20 “academic stars” based on the greatest number of articles in 22 peer-reviewed journals. The authors noted that the most pro-ductive female scholars seemed to possess wider research interests as well as work at universities labeled as “high-research institutions” by the Carnegie classification system. Though the findings from this study go a long way towards addressing the gap in the literature concerning female productivity, certain limitations of this study restrict the information that can be gleaned from the findings. Perhaps most important was that Rice et al. (2007) limited their sample to female scholars who had graduated in or after 1996. The cur-rent analysis extends these selection criteria by including all female scholars

who have been active in publishing since 2000 or after, regardless of when they graduated.

Khey and colleagues (2011) recently performed a follow-up to Rice et al.’s (2007) analysis. Utilizing the same sample of female scholars identified by Rice et al., Khey and colleagues extended the original study by using the Harzing Publish or Perish software program,1which automatically calculates individual level data on both citation and publication counts via Google Scholar. This approach allowed for a consideration of a wider body of work on part of the female scholars rather than using publication counts from a selected list of journals. Utilizing multiple indexes (i.e. ranking adjustments for different fac-tors such as authorship order and journal impact), Khey and colleagues (2011) found that Robin Engel, Angela Gover, Nicole Leeper Piquero, and Jean McGloin were consistently ranked among the top five female scholars regard-less of the index used. For the most part, the results of Khey et al.’s (2011) study were consistent with Rice et al. (2007), although Robin Engel more clearly maintained the number one rank in the follow-up study.

Current Study

The current study extends recent ranking studies by focusing exclusively on female sole and lead authors in “elite” CCJ journals. By doing so, the current paper seeks to offer an alternative approach to the available ranking studies of CCJ female scholars (see Khey et al., 2011; Rice et al., 2007). To our knowl-edge, no study has examined the productivity of individual female scholars based only on sole and lead authorships in the most prestigious CCJ journals. Additionally, prior work has focused on a small subpopulation of female schol-ars in CCJ, thereby excluding certain researchers from their sample. The pres-ent study will address these shortcomings in the literature by evaluating the productivity of all individual female scholars publishing in “elite” CCJ journals either as lead or sole authors between 2000 and 2010 (Jennings, Higgins, & Khey, 2009; Sorensen, 2009; Sorensen & Pilgrim, 2002; Steiner & Schwartz, 2007). In doing so, the current examination aspires to pinpoint those female academics who might be considered the most influential scholars in CCJ, at least with the use of a particular metric. The present paper will also argue that though caution should be used when considering ranking studies in the decisions impacting the careers of individual scholars, many such studies have produced fairly consistent results across different methodologies.

In sum, the present study offers a unique approach to the evaluation of scholarly productivity in the CCJ field by limiting the inclusion of eligible scholars by authorship order, journal status, and gender. While admitting to

1. Another recent study by Long, Boggess, and Jennings (2011) re-assessed Rice et al.’s 22 “aca-demic stars” using the Harzing Publish or Perish software program. The results generated by this program were largely consistent with Rice et al.’s (2005) as well as Shutt and Barnes’ (2008) findings.

the potential exclusion of productive female CCJ scholars who publish in other fields or focus their time and expertise in academic activities other than pub-lishing, the present article provides a valuable technique in assessing one aspect of professional performance. After all, the main goal of the current study is to recognize the female forerunners in the CCJ field based on author-ship order and journal prestige, as these factors appear to isolate (some of) the most meaningful criteria of publishing productivity.

Methods

The current study began by compiling a list of all female scholars who have published in eight elite CCJ journals from 2000 to 2010 (definition of elite CCJ journals is offered below). Compilation of the data necessary for this analysis followed a two-step process. First, it was necessary to identify the elite jour-nals in CCJ. Second, a database of all female scholars who published in these journals from 2000 to 2010 was collected. Each of these two steps to the analysis is discussed below.

Journal Selection

The journals selected for inclusion in the study were identified by Sorensen and Pilgrim (2002) and Steiner and Schwartz (2006) as the elite CCJ journals.2 The journals included wereCrime and Delinquency (CD), Criminal Justice and Behavior(CJB),Criminology (CRIM), the Journal of Criminal Justice(JCJ), the

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (JCLC), the Journal of Quantitative Criminology(JQC), the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency(JRCD), and Justice Quarterly (JQ). Aside from forming the basis of the rankings in Sorenson and Pilgrim’s and Steiner and Schwartz’s work, these journals have received wide acceptance as “elite” CCJ journals and have appeared at the top of many recent journal prestige and ranking studies (Jennings et al., 2009; Sorensen, 2009; Sorensen et al., 2006). In looking specifically at the stability and variability of journal rankings, Jennings et al. (2009) noted that while there is relative stability within the high-end CCJ journal rankings, they did find some variability in rankings over time. The journals selected for inclusion in the current study were all found to be in top 20, with regard to mean rank based on impact factors from 1998 to 2007, and to be relatively stable over time (Jennings et al., 2009).

Excluded from the current study, however, was Criminology & Public Policy

(CPP), which did appear as a top-ranked journal by both Sorensen (2009) and Sorensen et al. (2006). CPP ranked highly in both the Sorensen (2009) and Sorensen et al. (2006) journal prestige studies at rank 5 and 6, respectively.

2. The same eight journals were also included in Steiner and Schwartz’s (2007) study of doctoral

programs; however, they also includedLaw and Society Review.

However, the criteria for journals to be included in our study required that they be considered an elite CCJ journal, peer-reviewed, indexed by the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), and in press since 2000. Because CCP did not publish its first issue until November of 2001, we omitted it from the analysis.

Table 1 presents a breakdown of the journals included in the study with total counts of articles appearing in each journal, counts of female sole or lead-authored articles in each journal, as well as the percentage of total articles published by female sole lead authors.

Generating the Database of Female Authors

Once the journals for inclusion were selected, citation data were collected from the SSCI for all articles published in the eight journals between 2000 and 2010. A list of all articles was prepared and cleaned by the authors to delete any duplicates. Next, articles were identified and nonempirical research arti-cles such as editorial introductions, response essays, and book reviews were excluded. The next step was to determine whether the article was sole or mul-tiauthored and to tabulate all the sole and lead authors. The sampling frame of the current study thus included all individuals who appeared as a sole or lead author of a multiauthored empirical research article published in the eight SSCI-indexed journals between 2000 and 2010.3 At this point, a large list of authors had been compiled, but the task of identifying female authors was still necessary. In order to identify female authors, each author listed in the initial database was individually reviewed. Gender was determined by carefully scrutinizing the author’s complete name. For any case that was ambiguous, internet searches were conducted for photos and/or biographical information that could clarify that case (e.g. use of the term “she” in biographical statement).

After the list of female authors was cleaned, individual-level authorship counts were calculated. A new variable was generated that indexed the total number of articles each author had published as sole or lead author in any of the elite CCJ journals between 2000 and 2010. Next, the list was sorted on this summary count measure. All females with three or more sole or lead-authored publications were selected for inclusion in the study, resulting in a final sample of 58 female authors.

It is important to note that the publication history of each of the female scholars was independently validated. Specifically, the publication history of all included authors was checked against her current curriculum vitae. In most cases, an up-to-date vita, confirmed by either a date on the vita or the years of listed publications including 2011, was available via the internet. In a few cases, no recent vita was available. When this occurred one of the study

3. Articles “in press”, “forthcoming”, or only available in online versions of a journal were also excluded. In order for an article to be counted, it had to appear in a hard-copy version of a journal between 2000 and 2010.

Table 1 Number of articles published in Elite Criminology and Criminal Justice Journals , 2000-2010 Journal Total number of articles Number of female sole/lead-authored articles Percent female sole/ lead-authored articles (%) 2010 impact factor Crime and Delinquency 284 99 34.9 1.750 Criminal Justice and Behavior 553 209 37.8 1.590 Criminology 393 100 25.4 2.658 Journal of Criminal Justice 645 210 32.6 1.076 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 277 97 35.0 0.849 Journal of Quantitative Criminology 212 47 22.2 2.378 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 188 64 34.0 1.694 Justice Quarterly 317 104 32.8 1.929 Total 2,869 930 32.4

authors attempted to contact the individual directly to obtain an updated ver-sion. In three cases, authors’ publication histories were not available online and the did not respond to our email requests. All entries were checked for accuracy prior to generating the final results.

Analysis Plan: Considering Different Ranking Methods

Rankings were conducted using three different methods. First, female authors were ranked by their total number of sole or lead-authored publications. These rankings, however, may favor those who earned their degrees earlier and had more time to accrue publications. As such, a second method of ranking was also used based on a standardized rate, similar to that presented by Rice et al. (2005). This standardized publication rate is an adjusted rate, based on the number of years since degree if the author’s PhD was earned post-2000. Those who earned their degrees prior to 2000 had a PhD year weight of 11, as they were eligible to publish during the entire length of the study period. For exam-ple, Beth Huebner earned her degree in 2003, resulting in a standardized rate based on eight years in the field (2003-2010).4

Finally, a third ranking was calculated that weighted the article count based on the journal impact factors reported in the 2010 Journal Citation Reports. Impact factors are reported in the last column of Table 1. For each author, the number of articles published in each journal was multiplied by the jour-nal’s impact factor and the sum of these weighted article counts were ranked accordingly.

Findings

During the study period (2000-2010), a total of 2,869 articles were published in the eight CCJ journals included in the current analysis (see Table 1). There was a fairly large range between the eight journals, with JRCD publishing the fewest number of articles (188) and JCJ accounting for the most (645), a reflection of the page space afforded between journals. A total of 662 different females published 930 articles as either sole or lead authors of multiauthored papers over this timeframe, for an average of 1.4 articles per female author over the study period. Female sole or lead-authored articles made up just less than one-third of all the papers published in these top eight

4. The use of the standardized rate based solely on years since the PhD (as used by Rice et al., 2005) presents some additional confounding issues with regard to the best method to rank author-ship. Solely using years since the PhD (if less than 10) as the denominator for the rate may over inflate the rate for any individuals who published in the eight journals prior to earning their PhD Conversely, it could be argued that these articles should be given additional weight if the author was able to accomplish publication as a sole or lead author in addition to completing necessary requirements for earning a PhD. There were, however, no substantive differences in the rankings when using either the year of PhD or a more conservative year of first publication if prior to PhD year, for the standardized rate.

CCJ journals. Among the eight elite journals, JQC published the lowest per-centage of female sole or lead-authored articles (22.2%), whereas CJB had the highest percentage (37.8%).

In Table 2, the 59 female authors with three or more articles published in the eight elite journals are presented. A total of 242 articles were used to gen-erate the data presented in Table 2. This group of authors makes up 3.5% of all authors (males and females) who published in these journals between 2000 and 2010, but together were responsible for about 8.4% of the total number of articles. They were responsible for an even larger percentage of the total num-ber of female sole or lead-authored articles (26.8%), echoing the results from previous studies which revealed a small group of scholars are responsible for a disproportionate percentage of published articles (Cohn & Farrington, 1994; Cohn et al., 2000; Jennings, Schreck et al., 2008; Orrick & Weir, 2011; Rice et al., 2005, 2007).

There are eight columns presented in Table 2. The first column lists the female author’s full name. In the second column, we present the raw count of sole or lead-authored articles published in the eight CCJ journals between 2000 and 2010. The third column is the rank associated with the raw article count. For an instance, where there was a tie based on number of articles, authors were listed alphabetically by last name. The fourth column presents the impact factor weight for each author. To calculate this weight, articles for each journal were multiplied by the respective journal’s impact factor score, and then summed for each author. The next column then presents the ranks associated with the impact factor weighted score. Listed in the sixth column is the year the author earned her PhD, and the last two columns present the PhD weight and respective ranking.

As shown in Table 2, Robin Engel earns the overall number one rank for the total sole and lead-authored articles. She is followed by Beth Huebner, Jodi Lane, and Nicole Leeper Piquero, who all rank second in this category. Robin Engel retains her position for the ranking adjusting for the journal impact fac-tor, followed by Dana Haynie, Janet Lauritsen, and Karen Parker. However, when the rank is adjusted based on years since PhD, some interesting trends emerge. For example, Min Xie moves from 12th overall, and 9th based on impact factor, to the first ranked position. In general, there is more relative stability between the overall rankings and those based on impact factor weights.

The fact that there is some change in the rankings based on impact factor suggests that rankings can be influenced by the journals authors publish in. While it may be desirable for authors to have all of their work appear in these elite journals, it is not always possible to do so. However, it is conceivable that some authors are able to develop relationships with certain journals, learn the culture and best practices for preparing manuscripts for a particular jour-nal, or just have “good luck” in getting acceptances for publication. Table 3 presents the counts of articles by journal for the top ranking female authors with four or more sole or lead-authored articles. For each author, the

Table 2 Authors ranked by total number of lead or sole authored articles, impact factor, and rate of publication Author Article count Article count rank IF weight IF rank PhD year PhD weight PhD rank Engel, Robin S. 12 1 17.37 1 1999 1.09 2 Huebner, Beth M. 8 2 12.18 6 2003 1.00 3 Lane, Jodi 8 11.90 8 1998 0.73 9 Piquero, Nicole Leeper 8 11.94 7 2001 0.80 6 Haynie, Dana L. 7 5 15.64 2 1999 0.64 10 McGloin, Jean Marie 7 13.30 5 2004 1.00 3 Stolzenberg, Lisa 7 10.18 13 1993 0.64 10 Griffin, Marie L. 6 8 8.13 18 1997 0.55 14 Lauritsen, Janet L. 6 14.83 3 1989 0.55 14 Parker, Karen F. 6 13.80 4 1996 0.55 14 Wilcox, Pamela 6 10.22 12 1994 0.55 14 Bouffard, Leana Allen 5 1 2 7.77 21 2001 0.50 18 Fisher, Bonnie S. 5 6.30 32 1988 0.45 20 Rodriguez, Nancy 5 9.06 16 1998 0.45 20 Warner, Barbara D. 5 9.16 15 1989 0.45 20 Xie, Min 5 11.56 9 2007 1.25 1 Armstrong, Gaylene S. 4 1 7 5.25 27 2000 0.36 28 Dugan, Laura 4 10.35 11 1999 0.36 28 Gottfredson, Denise C. 4 6.78 26 1980 0.36 28 Holtfreter, Kristy 4 6.40 29 2004 0.57 13 Kubrin, Charis E. 4 8.70 17 2000 0.36 28 Listwan, Shelley Johnson 4 6.68 27 2001 0.40 25 MacKenzie, Doris Layton 4 6.35 31 1983 0.36 28 ( Continu ed )

Table 2 ( Continued ) Author Article count Article count rank IF weight IF rank PhD year PhD weight PhD rank Rafter, Nicole 4 10.63 10 1978 0.36 28 Spohn, Cassia 4 9.19 14 1978 0.36 28 Taxman, Faye S. 4 6.01 34 1982 0.36 28 Addington, Lynn A 3 27 7.13 22 2002 0.33 36 Alarid, Leanne Fiftal 3 3.85 53 1996 0.27 39 Anderson, Amy L. 3 3.98 51 2000 0.27 39 Antonaccio, Olena 3 7.01 24 2008 1.00 3 Auerhahn, Kathleen 3 3.14 58 2000 0.27 39 Blackwell, Brenda Sims 3 4.81 42 1995 0.27 39 Feder, Lynette 3 4.71 47 1989 0.27 39 Finn, Mary A. 3 4.55 48 1989 0.27 39 Giordano, Peggy C. 3 7.97 19 1974 0.27 39 Gover, Angela R. 3 4.17 49 2000 0.27 39 Harmon, Talia Roitberg 3 4.17 49 2000 0.27 39 Hilton, N. Zoe 3 4.77 44 1992 0.27 39 Hughes, Lorine A. 3 5.08 39 2003 0.38 26 Johnson, Ida M. 3 3.23 55 1987 0.27 39 Kazemian, Lila 3 5.82 35 2005 0.50 18 Kempf-Leonard, Kimberly 3 4.80 43 1986 0.27 39 Kruttschnitt, Candace 3 6.53 28 1979 0.27 39 Kurlychek, Megan C. 3 7.07 23 2004 0.43 23 Lo, Celia C. 3 3.90 52 1993 0.27 39 Miller, Holly Ventura 3 3.50 54 2006 0.60 12 Miller, Jody 3 5.08 39 1996 0.27 39 ( Continu ed )

Table 2 ( Continued ) Author Article count Article count rank IF weight IF rank PhD year PhD weight PhD rank Payne, Allison Ann 3 7.01 24 2002 0.33 37 Pozzulo, Joanna D. 3 4.77 44 1998 0.27 39 Roberts, Aki 3 5.43 36 2001 0.30 38 Robertson, Angela 3 5.03 41 1984 0.27 39 Schoepfer, Andrea 3 3.23 55 2007 0.75 7 Schwartz, Jennifer 3 7.97 19 2003 0.38 26 Slocum, Lee Ann 3 6.39 30 2007 0.75 7 Terry-McElrath, Yvonne M. 3 5.25 37 a 0.27 39 Time, Victoria 3 3.23 55 1997 0.27 39 Viljoen, Jodi L. 3 4.77 44 2004 0.43 23 Wiesner, Margit 3 6.05 33 1999 0.27 39 Not es . IF = Imp act fac tor; Ph D. we ight = numb er of articles after adj ustme nt for graduat ion year; PhD. rank = rank after adjusting for grad uation year. a Hig hest degree earne d is a Maste r’s.

tive count of articles for the journal listed is presented in each column. As shown in Table 3, there are some authors whose sole and lead-authored arti-cles were published in one journal. For example, all of Denise Gottfredson’s four qualifying articles were published in JRCD and all of Nicole Rafter’s four articles were in CRIM. Robin Engel had the most number of articles in one jour-nal with five qualifying articles in JQ. Jodi Lane and Lisa Stolzenberg had work appearing in the most number of journals, each published in five of the eight journals. If all female authors with three or more sole or lead authored articles are included (not shown, but available upon request), 12 of the 58 authors had all of their qualifying articles published in only one journal.

More movement is found in the rankings when they are adjusted based on year of PhD As mentioned above, the use of this standardized rate moves Min Xie to the number one rank, but also moves Jean Marie McGloin and Olena

Table 3 Number of articles by journal for top female ranking authors with four or more sole or lead-authored articles

Author Articles CD CJB CRIM JCJ JCLC JRCD JQC JQ

Engel, Robin S. 12 2 4 1 5

Huebner, Beth M. 8 2 3 3

Lane, Jodi 8 3 1 2 1 1

Piquero, Nicole Leeper 8 2 1 2 3

Haynie, Dana L. 7 3 1 2 1

McGloin, Jean Marie 7 2 4 1

Stolzenberg, Lisa 7 1 1 3 1 1

Griffin, Marie L. 6 3 2 1

Lauritsen, Janet L. 6 2 4

Parker, Karen F. 6 1 3 1 1

Wilcox, Pamela 6 1 1 2 2

Bouffard, Leana Allen 5 1 1 2 1

Fisher, Bonnie S. 5 1 1 3 Rodriguez, Nancy 5 2 1 1 1 Warner, Barbara D. 5 2 2 1 Xie, Min 5 3 1 1 Armstrong, Gaylene S. 4 1 1 2 Dugan, Laura 4 3 1 Gottfredson, Denise C. 4 4 Holtfreter, Kristy 4 1 1 2 Kubrin, Charis E. 4 2 2

Listwan, Shelley Johnson 4 2 2

MacKenzie, Doris Layton 4 1 2 1

Rafter, Nicole 4 4

Spohn, Cassia 4 3 1

Taxman, Faye S. 4 1 2 1

Antonaccio from 5th and 17th, respectively, to 3rd; and Andrea Schoepfer and Lee Ann Slocum both from 27th to 7th. These results indicate that there is a small group of recent female graduates who have been very productive. Finally, an average rank for each author was calculated, using the three differ-ent ranking schemes. The top 25 female authors based on average rank are presented in Table 4. Among the top five scholars are Robin Engel, Beth Hueb-ner, Jean McGloin, Nicole Leeper Piquero, and Dana Haynie.

Discussion

Prior research (Orrick & Weir, 2011) has noted an underrepresentation of females among the top-ranked CCJ scholars. Multiple reasons have been identi-fied by past studies as predictors of this observed gender gap (Rice et al., 2007; Sever, 2005; Stack, 2002). Although an examination of these causes is

Table 4 Top 25 female authors by average rank

Author Average rank

Engel, Robin S. 1.33

Huebner, Beth M. 3.67

McGloin, Jean Marie 4.33

Piquero, Nicole Leeper 5.00

Haynie, Dana L. 5.67 Lane, Jodi 6.33 Xie, Min 7.33 Lauritsen, Janet L. 8.33 Parker, Karen F. 8.67 Stolzenberg, Lisa 9.33 Wilcox, Pamela 11.33 Griffin, Marie L. 13.33 Warner, Barbara D. 15.67 Rodriguez, Nancy 16.00

Bouffard, Leana Allen 17.00

Antonaccio, Olena 18.00 Rafter, Nicole 18.33 Dugan, Laura 18.67 Holtfreter, Kristy 19.67 Spohn, Cassia 19.67 Kubrin, Charis E. 20.67

Slocum, Lee Ann 21.33

Fisher, Bonnie S. 21.33

Listwan, Shelley Johnson 23.00

Gottfredson, Denise C. 23.67

beyond the scope of this (and likely any other) study, the current paper sought to tabulate the female scholars who are frequently publishing as sole or lead authors in elite CCJ journals. Orrick and Weir (2011) previously observed that of the 20 female “academic stars” identified by Rice and colleagues (2007), only six appeared on their list of most prolific authors when considered in the full sample of male and female criminologists (Robin Engel, Marie Griffin, Beth Huebner, Jodi Lane, Jean McGloin, and Nicole Leeper Piquero). When only females were included in the rankings, six more females from Rice and col-leagues’ (2007) “academic star” list were further identified by the present study (Leanne Alarid, Gaylene Armstrong, Leana Bouffard, Angela Gover, Kristy Holtfreter, and Shelley Listwan). Moreover, the results of the present study were generally consistent with findings by Khey et al. (2011). Specifically, four of the top five females (Robin Engel, Angela Gover, Jean McGloin, and Nicole Leeper Piquero) identified in Khey et al.’s (2011) follow-up study on female academic “stars” were also named in the present study. These findings give merit to the relative stability of ranking female productivity using multiple ranking methodologies. Indeed, the current study demonstrates that despite the differences in the sample selection criteria or the research design employed, the same core group of scholars emerges from one ranking study to another.

Additionally, the findings of the present study revealed that rankings of the female scholars based on publication productivity in the selected CCJ articles during the past decade remained relatively stable when adjusting the rankings based on the journal’s impact factor. Robin Engel retained the number one spot on overall count of sole or lead-authored articles as well as the adjusted rankings by the journal impact factor. There was more variation, however, in the rankings when they were adjusted by the PhD degree year. Min Xie made a substantial leap from overall count and journal impact factor rankings to the first ranked position based on the adjustment for the year PhD degree was earned. This latter finding suggests that it is important to consider the amount of time since graduation when developing a productivity ranking.

Though the current analysis was motivated to fill in gaps left by previous research, the present study was not without limitations. First, constraining the examination to a limited number of journals could be seen as a weakness since many prominent CCJ scholars publish in prestige journals in other fields (see Kleck & Barnes, 2011). Nonetheless, the goal of the current study was to choose journals that are seen as having the highest impact on the CCJ field as established by the previous studies (see Orrick & Weir, 2011). Further, some people may argue that the standardized rate based on the PhD year used in the present study may overemphasize for articles published by recently gradu-ated female scholars as they may have started publishing prior to receiving their degrees. In addition, the authors who earned their PhD degrees prior to 2000 may already have been promoted, thus allowing them to shift their focus from sole and lead publishing to other aspects of scholarly activity. More specifically, as scholars progress into their careers, they may be stretched into

various directions such as increased service to their departments and universi-ties (graduate director, department chair) as well as into professional and organizational responsibilities (journal editor, executive board membership)—— all of which have appeared to be common among the more senior (earlier PhD years) female scholars in this study.

The final limitation of the present study highlights a concern generalizable to all ranking studies. While the most prolific scholars, such as those identified by the current examination, most certainly have enhanced marketability within the CCJ field, it should be re-emphasized that the publication productivity is not and should not be the only criterion considered when evaluating the con-tribution of scholars to the field (Fabianic, 2002; Rice et al., 2007; Steiner & Schwartz, 2006). Thus, the hiring and promotion decisions impacting the careers of individual scholars named (and even more importantly, not named) in the ranking articles should not extensively rely on these types of studies. While the present study demonstrates that the rankings of individual scholars tend to remain relatively stable regardless of the methodology used (see Khey et al., 2011; Orrick & Weir, 2011), ranking studies may exaggerate the produc-tivity of some scholars and more dangerously, completely overlook many very productive and highly qualified professionals in the CCJ field (Schreck, 2011). Indeed, ranking studies may be viewed by some as serving no other purpose than inflating the egos of the scholars whose names regularly appear in them. Understanding the limitations and possible dangers of the ranking studies is important; however, it is equally important to appreciate the ranking studies as valuable technique of assessing certain, albeit limited, aspects of scholarly performance. Whether good or bad, evaluating individual faculty members and academic programs remains a reality in academia. With this said, future research would benefit from evaluating the factors that may contribute to the publishing productivity of female scholars. Investigating the academic positions held, career length, the employing institutions, specialization, as well as fam-ily and relationship factors of the most prolific female scholars may shed light on the dynamics that set these females apart from their peers and allow them to be highly competitive in the male-dominated market.

The present study also has implications for the field as a whole. Future research should not only explore the role of the departments and universities that produced and currently employ the leading female innovators of the CCJ field but also investigate the impact that these exceptional female scholars have on the departments and universities that host them.

References

Baker, M. 2010. Choices or constraints? Family responsibilities, gender and academic

career.Journal of Comparative Family Studies41: 1-18.

Cohn, E. G., and D. P. Farrington. 1994. Who are the most influential criminologists in

the English-speaking world?British Journal of Criminology34: 204-225.

Cohn, E. G., and D. P. Farrington. 2007. Changes in scholarly influence in major

Ameri-can criminal and criminal justice journals between 1986 and 2000.Journal of

Crimi-nal Justice Education18 (1): 6-34.

Cohn, E. G., D. P. Farrington, and J. R. Sorensen. 2000. Journal publication of PhD

graduates from American criminology and criminal justice programs.Journal of

Crim-inal Justice Education11: 35-48.

Fabianic, D. 2001. Frequently published scholars and educational backgrounds.Journal

of Criminal Justice29: 119-125.

Fabianic, D. 2002. Publication productivity of criminal justice faculty in criminal justice

journals.Journal of Criminal Justice30: 549-558.

Frost, N. A., N. D. Phillips, and T. R. Clear. 2007. Productivity of criminal justice

schol-ars across the career.Journal of Criminal Justice Education18 (3): 428-443.

Jennings, W. G., C. L. Gibson, J. T. Ward, and K. M. Beaver. 2008. “Which group are you in?”: A preliminary investigation of group-based publication trajectories of

crimi-nology and criminal justice scholars. Journal of Criminal Justice Education 19 (2):

227-250.

Jennings, W. G., G. E. Higgins, and D. N. Khey. 2009. Exploring the stability and vari-ability of impact factors and associated rankings in criminology and criminal justice

journals, 1998-2007.Journal of Criminal Justice Education20 (2): 157-172.

Jennings, W. G., C. J. Schreck, M. Sturtz, and M. Mahoney. 2008. Exploring the schol-arly output of academic organization leadership in criminology and criminal justice:

A research note on publication productivity.Journal of Criminal Justice Education19

(3): 404-416.

Kennelly, I., & R. M. Spalter-Roth. 2006. Parents on the job market: Resources and

Strategies that help sociologists attain tenure-track jobs. The American Sociologist

37 (4): 29-49.

Khey, D. N., W. G. Jennings, G. E. Higgins, A. Schoepfer, and L. Langton. 2011. Reran-king the top female academic “stars” in Criminology and Criminal Justice using an

alternative method: A research note. Journal of Criminal Justice Education 22:

118-129.

Kleck, G., and J. C. Barnes. 2011. Article productivity among the faculty of criminology

and criminal justice doctoral programs, 2005-2009.Journal of Criminal Justice

Edu-cation22 (1): 43-66.

Kleck, G., S.-Y. K. Wang, and J. Tark. 2007. Article productivity among the faculty of

criminology and criminal justice doctoral programs, 2000-2005. Journal of Criminal

Justice Education18 (3): 385-405.

Leahey, E. 2006. Gender differences in productivity: Research specialization as a

miss-ing link.Gender and Society20: 754-780.

Long, H., L. N. Boggess, and W. G. Jennings. 2011. Re-assessing publication productivity

among academic “stars” in criminology and criminal justice.Journal of Criminal

Jus-tice Education22 (1): 102-117.

Orrick, E. A., and H. Weir. 2011. The most prolific sole and lead authors in Elite

Crimi-nology and Criminal Justice Journals, 2000-2009.Journal of Criminal Justice

Educa-tion22 (1): 24-42.

Rice, S. K., E. G. Cohn, and D. P. Farrington. 2005. Where are they now? Trajectories of publication “stars” from American criminology and criminal justice programs.

Journal of Criminal Justice Education16 (2): 244-264.

Rice, S. K., K. J. Terry, H. V. Miller, and A. R. Ackerman. 2007. Research trajectories

of female scholars in criminology and criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice

Education18: 360-384.

Schreck, C. J. 2011. Editor’s farewell. Journal of Criminal Justice Education 22 (4):

477-478.

Seipel, M. O. 2003. Assessing publication for tenure. Journal of Social Work Education

39 (1): 79-88.

Sever, B. 2005. Ranking multiple authors in criminal justice scholarship: An examination

of underlying issues.Journal of Criminal Justice Education16 (1): 79-100.

Shutt, J. E., and J. C. Barnes. 2008. Reexamining criminal justice “star power” in a lar-ger sky: Belated response to Rice et al. on sociological influence in criminology and

criminal justice.Journal of Criminal Justice Education19 (2): 213-226.

Snell, C., J. Sorensen, J. J. Rodriguez, and A. Kuanliang. 2009. Gender differences in

research productivity among criminal justice and criminology scholars. Journal of

Criminal Justice37: 288-295.

Sorensen, J. R. 2009. An assessment of the relative impact of criminal justice and

crim-inology journals.Journal of Criminal Justice37: 505-511.

Sorensen, J., and R. Pilgrim. 2002. The institutional affiliations of authors in leading

criminology and criminal justice journals.Journal of Criminal Justice30: 11-18.

Sorensen, J. R., C. Snell, and J. J. Rodriguez. 2006. An assessment of criminal justice

and criminology journal prestige.Journal of Criminal Justice Education17: 297-322.

Stack, S. 2002. Gender and scholarly productivity: The case of criminal justice.Journal

of Criminal Justice30: 175-182.

Steiner, B., and J. Schwartz. 2006. The scholarly productivity of institutions and their

faculty in leading criminology and criminal justice journals.Journal of Criminal

Jus-tice34 (4): 393-400.

Steiner, B., and J. Schwartz. 2007. Assessing the quality of doctoral programs in

crimi-nology in the United States.Journal of Criminal Justice Education18: 53-86.

Wright, R. A., and E. G. Cohn. 1996. The most cited scholars in the criminal justice

textbooks, 1989-1993.Journal of Criminal Justice24 (5): 459-467.