Search

Previous research has identified numerous barriers to reporting hate crimes. However, high variability exists in the outcome measures considered across multiple studies, including whether hate crimes encompass non-criminal behaviours, whether victims’ perceptions are considered bias indicators, and whether the incident is reported to police or to other organisations. These inconsistencies prevent an understanding of whether different barriers relate to different types of hate crimes. This article presents the results of an exploratory empirical study with a convenience sample of members of minorities facing hate crime victimisation in Victoria, Australia (N = 260). Our study participants experienced different types of barriers regarding incidents with different levels of perceived severity. Internalisation and lack of knowledge were more relevant to the underreporting of incidents perceived as less serious—verbal assault. Fear of consequences, lack of trust in statutory agencies, and accessibility were more relevant to the underreporting of incidents perceived as more serious—physical violence and property destruction.

Whether hate crime against minority groups increases or decreases over time underpins important theoretical and policy questions. However, the ability to capture trends is limited due to a dearth of data and measurement problems, especially in countries where there is no official register of hate crime. Using Chile as a case study, we compare longitudinal data from victimization surveys, registers of community organizations and mainstream media reports. The results allow us to discuss opportunities and limitations of triangulating different data sources to capture trends of hate crime. Our study results show a general increase in trends of hate crimes in Chile between 2015 and 2019, but important differences between data sources and victim groups (we consider LGBTI, migrant and Indigenous victims). We propose that the qualitative difference in the size of variation across different sources is explained by different biases of the data, which we review. This article illustrates the importance of disaggregating hate crimes because trends, correlates and key predictors often differ depending on the type of hate crime and the source of data.

The thermal decomposition of Y[Fe(CN)6]·4H2O has been studied in order to investigate the formation of the multi-ferroic oxide YFeO3. The starting material (Y[Fe(CN)6]·4H2O) and the decomposition products were characterized by IR spectroscopy, thermal analysis, X-ray powder diffraction (PXRD), and scanning electron microscopy. Metastable YFeO3 with hexagonal structure, space group P63/mmc, was obtained by thermal decomposition of Y[Fe(CN)6]·4H2O at 600 °C in air. Orthorhombic YFeO3 was obtained by the same method at T ≥ 800 °C in air. The crystal structure of orthorhombic YFeO3 was refined by Rietveld analysis using PXRD data. We found that it was slightly deficient in Y3+, which is in agreement with the small amount of Y2O3 found as impurity in the sample. The formula of the orthorhombic phase is Y0.986FeO3.

In order to investigate the formation of the multiferroic BiFeO3, the thermal decomposition of the inorganic complex Bismuth hexacyanoferrate (III) tetrahydrate, Bi[Fe(CN)6]·4H2O has been studied. The starting material and the decomposition products were characterized by IR spectroscopy, thermal analysis, laboratory powder X-ray diffraction, and microscopic electron scanning. The crystal structures of these compounds were refined by Rietveld analysis. BiFeO3 were synthesized by the decomposition thermal method at temperature as low as 600 °C. There is a clear dependence of the type and amount of impurities that are present in the samples with the time and temperature of preparation.

This study analyses the bibliometric characteristics of the presentations at the 5th, 8th and 10th Conferences of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, which were subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals covered by the Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index and LISA databases. 31.7% of all the papers presented at the three conferences were published. Scientometrics was the journal that published the highest proportions. A low rate of publication deprives researchers of potentially interesting results and points up the role of the ISSI Conference proceedings as a primary source of information.