Countries where authors publish in Homicide Studies
Since Specialization
Citations
This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Homicide Studies. 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 papers published in Homicide Studies with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Homicide Studies more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers published in Homicide Studies. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers published in Homicide Studies.
About Homicide Studies
The 568 papers published in Homicide Studies in the last decades have received a total of 12.3k indexed citations . Papers published in Homicide Studies usually cover Health (274 papers), Sociology and Political Science (500 papers) and Clinical Psychology (166 papers) specifically the topics of Crime Patterns and Interventions (371 papers), Homicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse (189 papers), Gun Ownership and Violence Research (161 papers), Intimate Partner and Family Violence (110 papers), Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis (103 papers), Suicide and Self-Harm Studies (71 papers), Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending (60 papers) and Wildlife Conservation and Criminology Analyses (53 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Homicide Studies are C. Gabrielle Salfati, Amy Nivette, Aki Roberts, Richard Rosenfeld, James Alan Fox, Lynn A. Addington, Patricia L. McCall, Grant Duwe, John P. Jarvis and Kenna Quinet.
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.