Measuring the utility of journals in the crime‐psychology field: Beyond the impact factor

Abstract

Abstract A measure of formal journal utility designed to offset some of the more noteworthy limitations of the impact factor (IF)—i.e., short follow‐up, citations to items in the numerator that are not included in the denominator, self‐citations, and the greater citation rate of review articles—was constructed and applied to 15 crime‐psychology journals. This measure, referred to as Citations Per Article (CPA), was correlated with a measure of informal journal utility defined as the frequency with which 58 first authors in the field consulted these 15 crime‐psychology journals. Results indicated that the CPA, but not the IF, correlated significantly with informal utility. Two journals (Law and Human Behavior and Criminal Justice and Behavior) displayed consistently high impact across measures of formal and informal utility while several other journals (Journal of Interpersonal Violence; Psychology, Public Policy, and Law; Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment; and Behavioral Sciences and the Law) showed signs of moderate impact when formal and informal measures were combined.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 14 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.