The Covid Kings of Salami

2022-11-08

I recently attended the American Political Science Association (APSA) conference and while that’s the only political science conference I’ve attended and I watched very few talks there, I was struck by how different it was to the criminology conferences I’ve been to.1 In all the talks I attended at APSA the authors were interested in big, important questions and actually collected their own data to answer these questions. Contrast this to the American Society of Criminology (ASC) conference and it is night and day. At ASC you’re lucky if all the presenters show up, and if they all have something more to present than a lit review and maybe some descriptive statistics. At ASC, and criminology more broadly, they ask small questions and give even smaller answers. Why the difference? There are plenty of potential reasons but I think the big one is just laziness. Or put another way, an acceptance of lazy work. In criminology you can get away with doing a lot less - with doing much lower quality research - and still attain good career achievements. There are few better examples of this than the papers that study the Covid and crime relationship.

The Covid pandemic brought with it a flood of papers assessing how Covid affected crime. This is an important topic worthy of the highest quality research we can offer. And yet criminology did what it does best: disappoint. Many of these papers were characteristic of what I consider to be the greatest rot in criminology: an acceptance of doing the least possible work for a paper. These papers looked at only a single city, and in some cases the same authors wrote multiple papers on that same city.

Now, you might argue that when Covid hit (in an election year no less!) is exactly the time to publish papers quickly. Crime may be changing so this is the moment criminology is built for. Our moment to help the country (and the world, as many papers covered non-American countries) understand what is happening and how to respond. That we don’t have the time to wait for national data or even to collect a representative sample of agencies.

I agree to the first part. When Covid hit was a moment for criminology to shine with knowledge of how to measure crime changes and the right ways to respond to keep people safe. Instead it took - as it almost always does - the easy way out.

There is certainly a balance between waiting for as much data as possible - both in terms of long-term data and in having many agencies - and publishing quickly to address a public need for information. Criminology (and other fields to a smaller degree) clearly decided that speed trumps having more data. And this is a choice. Let’s be clear on that.

The data that many researchers use to study crime is the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program data but that’s always a calendar year after the crime happened. So crime data for 2020 was released in fall 2021, meaning that people would have to wait until then to write anything about 2020 using FBI data. Instead these authors used data directly from local police agencies. There are data available from dozens of police agencies, including most of the largest agencies in the country (see here for a good, though incomplete, list). There is no requirement to get this data - you just go to the link and click download. For most of those agencies the data is up-to-date as of that day or the day before. In addition to these agencies, people (everyone, not just researchers) can ask or FOIA agencies directly to get their data. In my experience FOIAing agencies for basic crime data (just crime type, date, and time) almost all of them will share the data and will do so within a couple of weeks.2

So using only a single city because that’s the only data available is incorrect. When people started writing their single-city papers there was also data from dozens of other cities equally available. Why then are there so many papers that look at only a single city. Let’s start with the most obvious reason: they do it because they can. In criminology if you publish a lot you will get rewarded for it - you’ll get a job, get tenure, get prestige. Sure it’s better to publish in high ranking journals and have impactful research. But quantity beats quality 99 times out of 100. And when that happens the incentive to salami slice grows. Why write one paper that answers a question well when you can write several papers that all bite at that same question? You’re better off writing more papers.

The next reason, and one that I’ve seen people argue, is that single-city papers are okay because some cities are unique and it’s important in their own right to know what’s going on in a particular city. This is a decent argument. But again, if data are available for multiple cities why choose only one? If it’s important to look at individual cities you can still do that in a single paper that presents results of each city separately (preferably in an appendix to avoid having a ton of figures in the main text). You may say that this is just p-fishing by running tests for many different cities. As I discuss below, I don’t think significance really matters for Covid papers as everything is just correlations anyways, and I don’t see much of a difference between one paper looking at 10 cities individually compared to 10 papers each looking at one city. Ultimately it’s the same number of tests run. And while there is a benefit of talking about the uniqueness of certain cities, that’s not what I see done in most of the Covid papers. Sure they all talk about the specifics of the city or its response to Covid, but almost all papers (not just Covid ones) argue that their sample is important and novel. And in the Covid papers that I’ve read there’s almost nothing that stands out that this city is an absolute unique case that needs to be studied specifically.

As a part of this, I’ve seen people argue that it’s important to look at individual cities to help with policy in those cities. Crime is extremely local so it’s a lot more important to local government to know what’s going on in their community than what’s happening on average in some other area or nationwide. There’s a lot to like about this argument. Research should be policy oriented, especially in times of crime change like we saw during Covid. That said, the research quickly becomes less relevant if it takes a long time to publish - and academic papers can takes months to years to publish. If you’re trying to help mayors and police chiefs (and others) about what’s happening in March or May of 2020, what good is a paper that won’t be released until 2021 or later? Not very much. Working papers will help with this - and this seems to be a growing trend in criminology - but it’s also unlikely that many local officially will read a full academic paper. If authors need to have a shorter, modified version of a paper for local officials, why should we lower academic publishing to the same standard?

This argument also tends to fall apart when you actually read the papers. The intro talks about how the city is unique; the discussion says how the city can be generalized to other cities. As an example, here’s how the paper A Case Study of Family Violence During COVID-19 in San Antonio, published in Crime & Delinquency by Leal, Piquero, Kurland, Piquero & Gloyd in 2021, motivated their choice of city: “[The] City of San Antonio has yet to be examined but is a noteworthy city for this type of research for two reasons.” These reasons are that San Antonio is a large and majority Hispanic city, and that it has an atypically high - and increasing - number of domestic violence murders. The discussion section also notes its novelty by calling San Antonio “a unique context due to its demographic composition and long-term high domestic violence/homicide problem.” Nonetheless, it ends by providing broad policy implications that seemingly apply far beyond the context studied:

“[It] is important that social service and social welfare agencies consider and plan for how future pandemics or other major disasters will affect the incidence of family violence and take appropriate steps now to bolster resources and scale up for the future. Local politicians and local influencers can also use their platforms to educate the public about the problem of family violence, where to get resources, and how exerting physical and emotional forms of violence are unacceptable. Lastly, police officers need to obtain specialized training on how to respond to domestic calls and, in turn, how to provide necessary services to domestic violence victims. Current efforts in policing today vis-à-vis mental health calls has some police officers responding to such calls in concert with mental health or social service professionals. To the extent feasible, some consideration should be given to the use of these types of approaches for domestic violence calls as well.”

The third reason, and it’s one that I don’t think a lot of people will like to admit, is that researchers are bad programmers. This is, in my experience working with people from multiple fields, far more of a problem in criminology than other fields.3 If you’re not using FBI data - which itself has challenges to use - then you’ll need to spend the time cleaning each city individually.4 I’ve cleaned data from nearly every agency that makes their data available, as well as several agencies that I’ve FOIAed. It’s quite a bit of work to deal with this data. Even seemingly simple things like standardizing the crime categories can be an arduous and risky (in terms of making an error) process. Some agencies are simple, using only UCR-standard crime category names; others have such detailed crime categories that they have over 1,000 different ones available. So it’s quite a lot of work to deal with these data, and the work grows quickly if you aren’t a strong programmer and have many cities to deal with. So I think a lot of authors just took the easy route of using a single city, the bare minimum they had to do since they don’t have the skills, ambition, or incentives to do more.

A potential fourth reason is that authors write papers about where they live. This is pretty common in both Covid and non-Covid papers where authors will study the city that they live or work in. Maybe they focus on these cities because it’s just what they’re interested in, or that they have relationships with local government or police so want to help them, or that it’s simply easier to study somewhere you already know.5 There’s a benefit of working with data and in a context they’re familiar with. It helps avoid mistakes with the data and with understanding how policies are actually enacted. The tradeoff is that for the field-at-large we’re still left with a large number of single-city papers, even if they were written with good intentions.

Now, let’s get into my actual analysis. I wanted to find the “Covid Kings of Salami”, the people who wrote a lot of the single-city Covid papers. Ultimately, though, keep in mind who the real King of Salami is: the entire field of criminology. There would be no salami slicing if the field didn’t encourage quantity over quality, if editors didn’t accept these kinds of papers, if reviewers started demanding more of authors, if researchers had the ambition to answer big questions with big answers. Will that ever happen? I doubt it. To find these kings I did a semi-systematic review of papers based on a simple search criteria and found all the ones that only looked at a single city. The authors on the largest numbers of papers would be the “kings.”

I searched “covid and crime” in Google Scholar and checked every paper in the first 20 pages of results. Each page has 10 results so I looked at 200 papers. For this post I’m only including papers that quantitatively measure the relationship between Covid and crime. I read the title, abstract and data section to see which cities were studied. If any of them indicates that it is only a single city then I stopped and didn’t read the next parts. If they only studied a single city then I included that in the table shown at the end of this post. I’ll also include Queensland, Australia, specifically, even though it is a state and not a city for a point I’ll explain below. I include both working papers and published papers; in cases where the same paper is in both categories I only include the published paper. Some of the results were introductions to special issues, papers that talked about crime as a metaphor for Covid harming people, qualitative papers, papers that used survey data and not crime data, or that the about crime increases abstractly without including any data.6 I keep only academic papers, excluding the small number of government reports.

From this search I found 56 single-city Covid and crime papers, written by 121 authors and published in 32 journals and as working papers. Considering that I looked at 200 papers in total, this is a considerable share. At minimum this is 28% of papers. And that 200 included quite a few papers that weren’t quantitative Covid and crime papers. While I didn’t record that exact number of all of these papers, I’d ballpark them at about 100-125 of the 200. So the 56 single-city Covid papers are actually about 45-55% of papers. This isn’t the whole set of single-city Covid and crime papers since the search term I used doesn’t always capture the right results and 20 pages is not every possible paper. But I think it is an adequately large sample.

Table 1 shows the number of papers that each of 23 authors who wrote more than one paper wrote. Since by definition you can’t salami slice with a single paper, I exclude from this table authors with only one paper. At the top is Alex Piquero, now the director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics. He was an author on nine papers, 16% of the total. He’s followed by Jason Kurland and Jason Payne who both have five articles (9%). Five authors - Andresen, Chen, Hodgkinson, Kim, and Nicole Piquero each have four papers (7%). The trend of single-city Covid papers is declining with 9 published in 2020, 31 in 2021, and only 16 in 2022. Some cities are far more common than others. There are five papers about Chicago, four each for an unnamed city in China, Rio de Janeiro, Queensland, Australia (which is a state, not a city), New York City, and Vancouver. All other cities have two or fewer papers.

Author	# of Papers	% of Papers
Piquero	9	16.07
Kurland	5	8.93
Payne	5	8.93
Andresen	4	7.14
Chen	4	7.14
Hodgkinson	4	7.14
Kim	4	7.14
Nicole Piquero	4	7.14
Langfield	3	5.36
Aziani	2	3.57
Borrion	2	3.57
Campedelli	2	3.57
Dai	2	3.57
Favarin	2	3.57
Gloyd	2	3.57
Han	2	3.57
Leal	2	3.57
Morgan	2	3.57
Prasetya	2	3.57
Tilley	2	3.57
Wang	2	3.57
Xia	2	3.57
Yang	2	3.57

If you take a look at Table 2 at the bottom of this post, which has the authors, journal, year published, and article title for every paper, a pattern begins to emerge. The people with the most papers often write with each other and write multiple papers on nearly identical topics, as I’ll demonstrate more below. For example, four of Kurland’s five papers were coauthored with Alex Piquero; all of Nicole Piquero’s were with Alex Piquero; Andresen and Hodgkinson wrote all their papers together (one paper also had two additional authors).

So why do I care about salami slicing? It’s pretty common in criminology so is something that’s accepted by the norms of the field. I care because salami slicing is harmful both to the reputation of the field of criminology and to everyone who actually cares about good research.

First, consider the field-wide reputation damage. I’ve worked a great deal with non-criminologists during and since grad school, and especially since I moved to a political science department about 18-months ago. I used to think that these fields looked down on criminology. As some evidence of that consider how econ tends to never cite criminology papers. I was wrong though. In my experience (which is certainly not representative) these fields just don’t think about criminology at all. And for good reason.

Consider, for example, the paper COVID and crime: An early empirical look by David Abrams, an economist working at the University of Pennsylvania. The paper was published in January, 2021, in the Journal of Public Economics. His paper was a simple descriptive analysis of 13 crime categories for 25 cities. This paper is not much different than many of the single-city Covid papers except that it’s more. There are more crimes studied, more cities studied, more robustness checks, more transparency about his data sources and his methods. It’s just better in nearly every conceivable way. Whereas criminology gets similar results through dozens of individual papers, he does it in one 16-page paper. Of course this isn’t a universal truth. There are plenty of good criminology papers (even good Covid papers) and bad econ (and political science and other fields) papers. But I think that it’s true overall.

Now, just throwing the kitchen sink of data at a question and including everything can quickly get into the realm of p-fishing or p-hacking. Though I don’t think that really matters for Covid papers since they’re all just correlational (since you can’t isolate the effect of Covid beyond that it caused a ton of things to change at the same time) so the descriptive results matter way more than statistical significance. And splitting up results into dozens of different papers, even if written by different authors, doesn’t actually solve the multiple hypothesis tests problems. So if you want to know why so many fields - and politicians - ignore criminology, look no further than Abrams’ paper against these 56 single-city papers. Abrams asked a big question and gave a big, satisfying answer. It doesn’t completely answer the question of how Covid affected crime but it goes a big distance. With all the single-city papers you get the same big question but now just a nibble on the answer. If we think about research as illuminating the darkness, Abrams gave us a floodlight, these single-city papers each give us a wet match.

You might say that with enough wet matches we can actually illuminate more than a single floodlight. But consider the second harm of salami slicing: it’s a lot more work for everyone involved - except the authors - to collect matches than floodlights. Every single one of the single-city papers (except for the three working papers) have gone through peer-review. Peer review is certainly flawed but just think about the time it took for these 53 papers.7 We’ll assume that each paper had one editor and two reviewers, and that each spent two hours on the papers. That’s probably an undercount, and that’s assuming that no paper was peer-reviewed and then rejected and therefore reviewed at multiple journals. For all 53 published papers this is 318 hours of reviewer and editor time, using this likely very low estimate of time spent. That’s quite a lot of time spent. Just consider the opportunity cost. Peer review takes forever, partially because there are just so many papers being submitted. When editor and reviewer time is spent on these wet match papers instead of floodlight papers that’s a misuse of resources in most cases. It’s likely easier to review - both as an editor and a reviewer - and to write these short wet match papers than the floodlight papers. But I doubt it’s so much easier that it balances off all the extra papers that need to be read, reviewed, and edited. This is all time that can otherwise be spent on doing work such as research or teaching.

And now let’s think about what happens once these papers are published. Are we supposed to read all of these papers individually? Assuming that each paper is 20 pages, these 56 papers are 1,120 pages and you could easily combine many of them together. That’d make it easier for the reader, and everyone involved in the review process. And it’d make the research more meaningful outside of academia where people aren’t going to read dozens of different papers that all try to answer the same question. A running joke in criminology is that reviewers don’t actually read the papers - at least Review 2 doesn’t. Yet the field continues to publish so many papers - and these all tend to have the same length intro and lit review, even if their data and methods sections are shorter - that it’s impossible to keep up even for researchers who wanted to.

A common trend in my posts is talking about criminology’s reputation and how it’s crucial to do things to benefit the field’s reputation and avoid things that damage it. You might think that I’m totally off base by caring about reputation. That what matters is the actual science and that it’s unimportant (or perhaps a waste of effort) to care about the whole field’s reputation. But researchers are essentially just the messengers of facts. We do our research, yes, and the facts we produce are often heavily caveated or may turn out to be actually wrong, but then we become messengers by writing up a paper with our results. Every paper we read is effectively taking a huge leap of faith that the paper is actually right. We can’t check the code or the data in almost all cases, and even if it was available nobody has time for that. So we need to read and hope it’s right. And we do care about reputation which is why some journals are “highly ranked” and others are not; it’s why some researchers are considered “superstars” and others are not. It’s shorthand for who to trust. When that reputation is damaged, that trust breaks. And since criminology doesn’t have the flood-breaks that some other fields have - such as open code and data requirements - for why we should trust the field even when individuals may cause issues (such as making up data for multiple papers and having journal editors cover it up), reputation is really all this field has.

To finish this post, let me explain why I am calling these people the Kings of Salami. Being a salami slicer is (at least supposed to be) a bad thing so it’d be rude to accuse people of doing that. And, you might say, writing a lot of papers is just being productive and there are completely innocent ways to write similar papers that may appear to a cynical viewer to be salami sliced. But I have what I think is pretty good evidence that at least some of the people at the top of the list of authors intentionally wrote these nearly identical papers. And to be clear, I believe that the tacit - if not explicit - support for salami slicing that criminology has encourages the unethical behavior I’ll discuss below.

When I say nearly identical papers I don’t mean just that the papers have a very similar topic or outcome studied. They’re all Covid and crime papers so will have to be similar at least to some degree. If you look through the papers listed at the table below you’d be forgiven for thinking that some of them are the same. Some of them really are that similar. But what I’m talking about are papers that are so incredibly similar to each other that they have the same text, same figures, and same tables. Papers that massively self-plagiarize themselves.

Take, for example, the papers Exploring regional variability in the short-term impact of COVID-19 on property crime in Queensland, Australia and COVID-19 and social distancing measures in Queensland, Australia, are associated with short-term decreases in recorded violent crime, both written by Payne, Morgan & Piquero. These papers were published in 2021 in Crime Science and in 2022 in the Journal of Experimental Criminology, respectively. It seems the authors were also confused at which paper they were writing as they have a considerable amount of identical text in both papers.

Here’s how the property paper describes the study (I’ve bolded the identical text): In this study, we use officially recorded police data from Queensland, Australia, to explore whether property crime has changed in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.” And now the violence study: “In this study, we use officially recorded police data from Queensland, Australia, to look for early signs that violent crime has changed in the context of the COVID-1 pandemic.”

At various other points in the papers the authors write the identical or nearly identical text. I’ll provide a couple examples. As you read the examples below, please note the parts that aren’t identical. To me, this is strong evidence of intent. It’s not just accidentally copying over text and forgetting to change it - though even that is a problem. It’s the changing of a word or a phrase so it isn’t exactly identical that says to me “I know this was wrong so I’m going to change it so it seems not copied.”

Here’s how the papers (the property paper on the left and the violence paper on the right) describe Covid containment measures.

And this is explaining why crime should be affected by Covid.

Okay, you may be saying. This looks kind of bad but self-plagiarism is not actually that serious. They didn’t steal from other people after all. And it’s only one example. Do you have anything else? I do. There is another pair of papers that are written by the same authors both times, using the same data for the same city and looking at nearly the same outcome both times, that self-plagiarizes a considerable amount. This pair is Drug offence detection during the pandemic: A spatiotemporal study of drug markets, published in the Journal of Criminal Justice in 2021, and Drug markets and COVID-19: A spatiotemporal study of drug offence detection rates in Brisbane, Australia, published in the International Journal of Drug Policy in 2022. Both papers are authored by Payne and Langfield.

Not only do these papers have the same text in parts but they have, to my eye, an identical image.

And an identical Table 1. First is the 2021 paper and then the 2022 paper.

I’ll only provide one example for this pair of papers. This is the bulk of both papers method’s section, which actually does get into some of their results. The 2021 paper is on the left and the 2022 paper is on the right. Again, identical text is bolded.

While I won’t show it to conserve space, another paper authored by Payne - Drug offence detection during the pandemic: An ARIMA analysis of rates and regional differences in Queensland, Australia by Langfield, Payne & Makkai, published in the Journal of Criminology in 2021, has a nearly identical methods section as the property paper discussed above.

Remember who I said was the true King of Salami: the entire field of criminology. Yes it’s bad that there are authors publishing many of these salami sliced papers, they shouldn’t do it. But there are strong incentives to salami slice and let’s not forget that even some papers that appear to be salami are actually done without that intent. For example, an author may write a paper on a topic using specific data because that’s the only data available, and then get access to new data and write a second, similar paper that goes further than the initial paper. To an outsider this is salami slicing even when in fact it isn’t. But the effect is still the same of having many very similar papers that each require writing, reviewing, editing, and reading. It substantially increases the work of research without a corresponding increase in the quality of evidence on that subject.

I say that the field is responsible because the prioritization of quantity of quality encourages both these problems: intentional salami slicing, and honestly writing such small, similar papers that they appear to be salami. The only way to address both of these problems is to increase the standard for what papers get published. Editors and reviewers should reject papers that choose to use only a tiny subset of the available data. Hiring and tenure committees shouldn’t reward people who have a lot of small, salami-ed papers over those with fewer but bigger papers. Editors should run submissions through plagiarism software and reject the papers - and potentially ban the authors - when it is plagiarized. Editors should also check that the authors don’t already have a very similar paper published elsewhere or as a working paper. This is not the job of an editor - who should focus on determining the quality of submissions, not policing them - but I think it’s unfortunately necessary at this point.

What I’m asking is for a lot more people to do a lot more work. Not just for researchers themselves but for editors, reviewers, and people on different committees. All this individual work will be for the non-tangible reward of the field to improve. And the work will fall disproportionately on those who care about salami slicing - which is to say those who already do not do it. If you’re offended by me saying that you’re part of the problem since you’re a member of the field, good. Do something about it.

From the discussions I’ve had with grad students and professors, neither salami slicing nor self-plagiarism are considered big deals. If anything they may be considered good as self-plagiarism is saving time that could otherwise be spent on research and salami slicing is just the cost of getting a lot of publications. Clearly I disagree. But if I’m alone in my considering salami slicing and self-plagiarism to be wrong and ultimately extremely damaging to criminology’s already pathetic reputation, then so be it. I’ll be alone but I’m still right.

Number	Authors	Title	Journal	City	Year Published
1	Andresen & Hodgkinson	Somehow I Always End Up Alone: Covid-19, Social Isolation And Crime In Queensland, Australia	Crime Science	Queensland, Australia	2020
2	Andresen & Hodgkinson	In A World Called Catastrophe: The Impact of Covid-19 On Neighbourhood Level Crime In Vancouver, Canada	Journal of Experimental Criminology	Vancouver, Canada	2022
3	Balmori de la Miyar, Hoehn-Velasco & Silverio-Murillo	Druglords Don’t Stay At Home: Covid-19 Pandemic And Crime Patterns In Mexico City	Journal of Criminal Justice	Mexico City	2021
4	Borrion, Kurland, Tilley & Chen	Measuring The Resilience of Criminogenic Ecosystems To Global Disruption: A Case-Study of Covid-19 In China	PLOS One	Unnamed city in China	2020
5	Brantingham, Tita & Mohler	Gang-Related Crime In Los Angeles Remained Stable Following Covid-19 Social Distancing Orders	Criminology & Public Policy	Los Angeles	2021
6	Bullock & Pellegrino	How Do Covid-19 Stay-At-Home Restrictions Affect Crime? Evidence From Rio De Janeiro, Brazil	EconomiA	Rio de Janeiro, Brazil	2021
7	Campedelli, Aziani & Favarin	Exploring The Immediate Effects of Covid-19 Containment Policies On Crime: An Empirical Analysis of The Short-Term Aftermath In Los Angeles	American Journal of Criminal Justice	Los Angeles	2020
8	Campedelli, Favarin, Aziani & Piquero	Disentangling Community-Level Changes In Crime Trends During The Covid-19 Pandemic In Chicago	Crime Science	Chicago	2020
9	Cavgias, Bruce & Meloni	Policy Enforcement In The Presence of Organized Crime: Evidence From Rio De Janeiro	Working Paper	Rio de Janeiro, Brazil	2020
10	Chelsea & Hansen	Did Covid-19 Lead To An Increase In Hate Crime Against Chinese People In London?	Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice	London	2021
11	Chen, Bowers, Zhu, Gao & Cheng	Spatio-Temporal Stratified Associations Between Urban Human Activities And Crime Patterns: A Case Study In San Francisco Around The Covid-19 Stay-At-Home Mandate	Computational Urban Science	San Francisco	2022
12	Chen, Kurland, Piquero & Borrion	Measuring The Impact of The Covid-19 Lockdown On Crime In A Medium-Sized City In China	Journal of Experimental Criminology	Unnamed city in China	2021
13	Crokidakis & Sigaud	Crime And Covid-19 In Rio De Janeiro: How Does Organized Crime Shape The Disease Evolution?	International Journal of Modern Physics C	Rio de Janeiro, Brazil	2021
14	Dai, Xia & Han	The Impact of Lockdown On Police Service Calls During The Covid-19 Pandemic In China	Policing	Unnamed city in China	2021
15	Dai, Xia & Han	Temporal Variations In Calls For Police Service During Covid-19: Evidence From China	Crime & Delinquency	Unnamed city in China	2022
16	Diaz, Fossati & Trajtenberg	Stay At Home If You Can: Covid-19 Stay-At-Home Guidelines And Local Crime	Working Paper	Montevideo, Uruguay	2022
17	Ejrnaes & Scherg	Nightlife Activity And Crime: The Impact of Covid-19 Related Nightlife Restrictions On Violent Crime	Journal of Criminal Justice	Copenhagen, Denmark	2022
18	Esposito & King	New York City: Covid-19 Quarantine And Crime	Journal of Criminology Psychology	New York City	2021
19	Estevez-Soto	Crime And Covid-19: Effect of Changes In Routine Activities In Mexico City	Crime Science	Mexico City	2021
20	Evans, Hawk & Ripkey	Domestic Violence In Atlanta, Georgia Before And During Covid-19	Violence and Gender	Atlanta	2021
21	Felson, Jiang & Xu	Routine Activity Effects of The Covid-19 Pandemic On Burglary In Detroit, March, 2020	Crime Science	Detroit	2020
22	Gerell, Allvin, Frith & Skardhamar	Covid-19 Restrictions, Pub Closures, And Crime In Oslo, Norway	Nordic Journal of Criminology	Oslo, Norway	2022
23	Halford, Dixon, Farrell, Malleson & Tilley	Crime And Coronavirus: Social Distancing, Lockdown, And The Mobility Elasticity of Crime	Crime Science	Unnamed “UK police service”	2020
24	Henrico, Mayoyo & Mtshawu	Understanding Crime Using Gis And The Context of Covid-19: The Case of Saldanha Bay Municipality	SA Crime Quarterly	Saldanha Bay Municipality, South Africa	2022
25	Hodgkinson & Andresen	Show Me A Man Or A Woman Alone And I’ll Show You A Saint: Changes In The Frequency of Criminal Incidents During The Covid-19 Pandemic	Journal of Criminal Justice	Vancouver, Canada	2020
26	Hodgkinson, Andresen, Frank & Pringle	Crime Down In The Paris of The Prairies: Spatial Effects of Covid-19 And Crime During Lockdown In Saskatoon, Canada	Journal of Criminal Justice	Saskatoon, Canada	2022
27	Kim	Covid-19 And Gun Violence: Keeping Unknown Shocks And Volatility In Perspective	Criminal Justice Review	New York City	2022
28	Kim	The Impact of Covid-19 On Gun Violence Across Census Tracts In Nyc	Homicide Studies	New York City	2022
29	Kim & McCarty	Exploring Violent Crimes In Chicago During The Covid-19 Pandemic: Do Location, Crime Type, And Social Distancing Type Matter?	Journal of Crime and Justice	Chicago	2021
30	Kim & Philips	When Covid-19 And Guns Meet: A Rise In Shootings	Journal of Criminal Justice	Buffalo	2021
31	Koppel, Capellan & Sharp	Disentangling The Impact of Covid-19: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis of Crime In New York City	American Journal of Criminal Justice	New York City	2022
32	Koziarski	The Effect of The Covid-19 Pandemic On Mental Health Calls For Police Service	Crime Science	Barrie, Canada	2021
33	Langfield, Payne & Makkai	Drug Offence Detection During The Pandemic: An Arima Analysis of Rates And Regional Differences In Queensland, Australia	Journal of Criminology	Queensland, Australia	2021
34	Leal, Kurland, Piquero, Gloyd, Nicole Piquero	Where, When, And By Whom: An Exploratory Analysis of Covid-19 Public Health Violations	Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice	San Antonio	2021
35	Leal, Piquero, Kurland, Nicole Piquero & Gloyd	A Case Study of Family Violence During Covid-19 In San Antonio	Crime & Delinquency	San Antonio	2021
36	Lee & Augusto	Crime In The New U.s. Epicenter of Covid-1	Crime Prevention and Community Safety	Los Angeles	2022
37	Lesniak, Polonczyk & Wasniowski	Variations In The Spatial Distribution of Crime Events In An Urban Environment During The Covid-19 Lockdown	Cartography and Geographic Information Science	Krakow, Poland	2021
38	Miller, Segar & Spencer	Effects of The Covid-19 Pandemic On Domestic Violence In Los Angeles	Working Paper	Los Angeles	2020
39	Moise & Piquero	Geographic Disparities In Violent Crime During The Covid-19 Lockdown In Miami-Dade County, Florida, 2018-2020	Journal of Experimental Criminology	Miami-Dade, FL	2021
40	Monteiro, Carvalho & Gomes	Crime And Police Activity During The Covid-19 Pandemic In Rio De Janeiro, Brazil	Ciencia & Saude Coletiva	Rio de Janeiro, Brazil	2021
41	Paramasivan, Sudarsanam, Vellaichamy, Norris & Subburah	Crime Registration And Distress Calls During Covid-19: Two Sides of The Coin	Policing and Society	Tamil Nadu, India	2022
42	Payne & Langfield	Drug Markets And Covid-19: A Spatiotemporal Study of Drug Offence Detection Rates In Brisbane, Australia	International Journal of Drug Policy	Brisbane, Australia	2022
43	Payne & Langfield	Drug Offence Detection During The Pandemic: A Spatiotemporal Study of Drug Markets	Journal of Criminal Justice	Brisbane, Australia	2021
44	Payne, Morgan & Piquero	Exploring Regional Variability In The Short-Term Impact of Covid-19 On Property Crime In Queensland, Australia	Crime Science	Queensland, Australia	2021
45	Payne, Morgan & Piquero	Covid-19 And Social Distancing Measures In Queensland, Australia, Are Associated With Short-Term Decreases In Recorded Violent Crime	Journal of Experimental Criminology	Queensland, Australia	2022
46	Perez-Vincent, Schargrodsky & Garcia Mejia	Crime Under Lockdown: The Impact of Covid-19 On Citizen Security In The City of Buenos Aires	Criminology & Public Policy	Buenos Aires, Argentina	2021
47	Piquero, Nicole Piquero & Kurland	A Case Study of Domestic Violence Arrests During The Covid-19 Pandemic In Miami-Dade County	Victims & Offenders	Miami-Dade	2021
48	Rashid	Impact of Covid-19 On Selected Criminal Activities In Dhaka, Bangladesh	Asian Journal of Criminology	Dhaka, Bangladesh	2021
49	Riddell, Piquero, Kaukinen, Bishopp, Nicole Piquero, Narvey, Iesue	Re-Opening Dallas: A Short-Term Evaluation of Covid-19 Regulations And Crime	Crime & Delinquency	Dallas	2021
50	Rose Bullinger, Carr & Packham	Covid-19 And Crime: Effects of Stay-At-Home Orders On Domestic Violence	American Journal of Health Economics	Chicago	2021
51	Semukhina	Racial Disparities In Crime Victimization During The Covid-19 Lockdown	American Journal of Criminal Justice	Dallas	2021
52	Sun, Huang, Yuan, On Chan & Wang	Spatial Patterns of Covid-19 Incidence In Relation To Crime Rate Across London	International Journal of Geo-Information	London	2021
53	Syamsuddin, Fuady, Prasetya, Prasetya, Chaerul & Umar	The Effect of The Covid-19 Pandemic On The Crime of Theft	International Journal of Criminology and Sociology	Makassar City, Indonesia	2021
54	Walker & Sharma	Data Analysis of Crime And Rates of Hospitalization Due To Covid-19	International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI)	Baltimore	2021
55	Yang, Chen, Zhou, Liang & Bai	The Impact of Covid-19 On Crime: A Spatial Temporal Analysis In Chicago	International Journal of Geo-Information	Chicago	2021
56	Yang, Kang, Low & Wang	Spatial Perspectives of Crime Patterns In Chicago Amid Covid-19	Geospatial Data Analytics and Urban Applications	Chicago	2022