Daniel Lytle
- Sociology and Political Science top 10%
- Political Science and International Relations top 5%
- Health
- Gender Studies
- Clinical Psychology
- Co-authors
- P. Colin BolgerRyan RandaJonathan IntraviaLawrence F. TravisDale WillitsCarol A. ArchboldCarlos del Valle RojasHunter M. Boehme
- Topics
- Crime Patterns and Interventions (11 papers)Policing Practices and Perceptions (10 papers)Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis (4 papers)
- Partner nations
- United States
In The Last Decade
Daniel Lytle
19 papers receiving 191 citations
Peers
Comparison fields: 5 of 42
- Sociology and Political Science 174
- Political Science and International Relations 136
- Health 46
- Gender Studies 24
- Clinical Psychology 20
Countries citing papers authored by Daniel Lytle
This map shows the geographic impact of Daniel Lytle's research. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Daniel Lytle with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Daniel Lytle more than expected).
Fields of papers citing papers by Daniel Lytle
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Daniel Lytle. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by Daniel Lytle. The network helps show where Daniel Lytle may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Daniel Lytle
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Daniel Lytle. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Daniel Lytle based on the total number of citations received by their joint publications. Widths of edges represent the number of papers authors have co-authored together. Node borders signify the number of papers an author published with Daniel Lytle. Daniel Lytle is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
| # | Work | Indexed citations |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | |
| 2 | 1 | |
| 3 | 20 | |
| 4 | 58 | |
| 5 | 15 | |
| 6 | A meta-analysis of suspect demographic characteristics and American police officer search decisions | 7 |
| 7 | 21 | |
| 8 | 10 | |
| 9 | 39 | |
| 10 | Decision Making in Criminal Justice Revisited: Toward a General Theory of Criminal Justice | 3 |
| 11 | 2 | |
| 12 | 1 | |
| 13 | 1 | |
| 14 | 21 | |
| 15 | 2 | |
| 16 | 1 | |
| 17 | 12 | |
| 18 | 5 | |
| 19 | 1 |
About Daniel Lytle
Daniel Lytle is a scholar working on Political Science and International Relations, Health and Sociology and Political Science, having authored 19 papers that have together received 221 indexed citations. Recurring topics across this work include Crime Patterns and Interventions (11 papers), Policing Practices and Perceptions (10 papers) and Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis (4 papers). The work is most often cited by research in Political Science and International Relations (136 citations), Health (46 citations) and Sociology and Political Science (174 citations). Daniel Lytle has collaborated with scholars based in United States. Frequent co-authors include P. Colin Bolger, Ryan Randa, Jonathan Intravia, Lawrence F. Travis, Dale Willits, Carol A. Archbold, Carlos del Valle Rojas, Hunter M. Boehme and Jessica Warner. Their work appears in journals such as Journal of Criminal Justice, Deviant Behavior and Policing An International Journal.
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.