Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

How International Are the Top International Journals of Criminology and Criminal Justice?

  • Published:
European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Commentary to this article was published on 10 December 2019

A Commentary to this article was published on 03 December 2019

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to assess the level of international, non-Anglo-American involvement in the editorial boards and content of the leading international journals of criminology and criminal law to investigate a reported bias against non-Anglo-American material. The research employed editorial board and content analysis of ten leading journals of criminology and criminal law, selected because of their international involvement according to their own aims and scope’s description. Most of the ten journals were found to have low levels of international involvement, with high proportions of both Anglo-American authors and data, and Anglo-American membership of editorial boards. The editorial board analysis also revealed institutional links with journal boards and a network of overlapping membership between the editorial boards. This suggests the existence of networks of Anglo-American scholars who are naturally inclined to favour research that fits their worldview. Such networks create a hierarchy of knowledge that favours the one produced in the US and the UK and promotes the scientific success of Anglo-American scholars and contents. However, although the shadow of Anglo-American dominance continues to lie over the two fields, there is also evidence of increasing research and authorship diversity. Perhaps, we are entering a new era of research internationalism.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In this paper, we adopt the meaning of ‘Anglo-American’ in the Cambridge Dictionary, as a term used to refer to something involving the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States of America (US). More concretely, as to denote the cultural sphere shared by the UK and the US.

  2. First meaning of ‘international’ according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (Indexed & Unabridged Edition) 2002. Available at http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=international&x=0&y=0 .

  3. It would also be possible to speak about the Anglosphere as practically coincidental with the Inner Circle, in terms of Kachru’s ‘concentric circles’ (1986): The Inner Circle, integrated by countries that represent the traditional bases of English—the UK, the US, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Anglophone Canada and some of the Caribbean territories; the Outer Circle, countries where English is not the native tongue, but is important for historical reasons and plays a part in the nation’s institutions, either as an official language or otherwise—India, Israel, Nigeria, the Philippines, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Malaysia, Tanzania, Kenya, non-Anglophone South Africa and Canada; and the Expanding Circle, which encompasses those countries where English plays no historical or governmental role, but where it is nevertheless widely used as a foreign language. This includes much of the rest of the world’s population: China, Russia, Japan, most of Europe, Korea, Egypt, Indonesia, etc.

  4. We know that there is also stratification within the Anglosphere, but it is not relevant for the argument developed here.

  5. See Zitt and Bassecoulard (1998), Ren and Rousseau (2002), Rey-Rocha and Martín-Sempere (2004), Uzun (2004), Buela-Casal et al. (2006) and Dyachenko (2014).

  6. By identifying and tracking the most influential authors in criminology, previous research has shown a segmented recognition by journals and world regions (Fabianic 1981; Taggart and Holmes 1991; Sorensen 1994; Sorensen and Pilgrim 2002; Wright 1995, 2000, 2002). The most cited authors do not resist the cross-national comparative analysis (Cohn and Farrington 1994, 1999; Cohn et al. 2013, 2017; Cohn and Iratzoqui 2016). The lack of concordance questions the reliability of this measure of scholarly influence. Moreover, it badly reflects the internationalisation of the journal.

  7. To speak about nationalities here could be understood as a form of methodological nationalism. We think that in this study, it is unavoidable to consider the nation state as unit of analysis—in combination with the Anglosphere and the concentric circles—because the institutional affiliation per se would be too dispersing. We are well aware that an editor’s institutional affiliation does not accurately reflect her or his nationality, because many editorial board members work in a country different from their country of origin. However, the institutional affiliation is indicated in the journals’ webpage, showing that this is important information for them, while editors’ nationality is not addressed. Moreover, many studies suggest that irrespective of nationality, country of affiliation is a strong proxy for the current academic network as well as for education and professional standing (Ravenides 2008; Harzing and Metz 2013; Kim et al. 2018).

  8. Twenty-three universities provided four or more board members each, with five institutions providing more than seven board members each: University of California (15 board members), University of Oxford (10), City University of New York (8), University of Edinburgh (8) and University of Glasgow (8). Seven of the 23 universities that supply four or more editorial board members appear to be among the 50 top schools of law, according to the QS Global World University Ranking 2017 in Law and Legal Studies. University of Cambridge was in position 4, University of Oxford in position 6, University of Edinburgh in position 19, University of California-Berkeley in position 27, University of Manchester in position 29, University of Toronto in position 32 and London School of Economics in position 35.

  9. In this study, each article comprised the unit of analysis. Only original articles were considered. We have excluded editorials, book reviews and news. For authors, we only considered the first three co-authors.

  10. The percentage of non-Anglophone social science records in Scopus between 1996 and 2012 was 8%. Non-Anglophone articles represented only 13% of Scopus research articles in the same period (Albarillo 2014: 84 ff.). The Anglophone bias is very strong in law and criminology journals (Andersen 2000). Only a very small proportion of scientific journals published in French, German, Portuguese or Spanish in the fields of criminology and criminal justice are represented in Scopus. For example, according to RESH (Revistas Españolas de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, an information system that integrates quality indicators for the Spanish scientific journals in the fields of social sciences and humanities), there are 301 journals of Law in Spain, of which 20 are dedicated to criminal law. Only one Spanish law journal is included in SJR (0.3%). It is not a criminal law journal.

  11. All but one are European. One could think that better judgement for this journal’s internationality should be the proportion of non-European board members, instead of non-Anglo-American ones. In our opinion, this would be wrong. The degree of linguistic and academic diversity within Europe is much larger than within the Anglosphere. In the European Union only, there are currently 24 official languages and over 60 indigenous regional or minority languages, spoken by some 40 million people. On the contrary, English is the predominant language or the de facto official language in the US, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. Only Canada has another official language, French.

References

  • Aalbers, M. B. (2004). Creative destruction through the Anglo-American hegemony: a non-Anglo American view on publications, referees and language. Area, 36(3), 319–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aalbers, M. B., & Rossi, U. (2006). Beyond the Anglo-American hegemony in human geography: a European perspective. Geo-Journal, 67(2), 137–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aas, K. F. (2012). The Earth is one but the world is not: criminological theory and its geopolitical divisions. Theoretical Criminology, 16(1), 5–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adair, J. G., Coêlho, A. E. L., & Luna, J. R. (2010). How international is psychology? International Journal of Psychology, 37(3), 160–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agozino, B. (2003). Counter-colonial criminology: a critique of imperialist reason. London: Pluto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agozino, B. (2004). Imperialism, crime and criminology: towards the decolonisation of criminology. Crime, Law and Social Change, 41(4), 343–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albarillo, F. (2014). Language in social science databases: English versus non-English articles in JSTOR and Scopus. Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian, 33(2), 77–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ammon, U. (2001). Editor’s preface. In U. Ammon (Ed.), The dominance of English as a language of science (pp. v-x). Mouton de Gruyter.: Berlin-New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ammon, U. (2008). How could international scientific communication be made fairer and more efficient? Resource document. Available at https://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/26274/title/How-Could-International-Scientific-Communication-Be-Made-Fairer-and-More-Efficient-/. Accessed 16 September 2018.

  • Ammon, U. (2010). The hegemony of English. In UNESCO (Ed.), World Social Science Report. Knowledge Divides (pp. 154–155). Paris: UNESCO Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, H. (2000). Influence and reputation in the social sciences – how much do researchers agree? Journal of Documentation, 56(6), 674–692.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archambault, É., Vignola-Gagne, É., Côté, G., Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2006). Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: the limits of existing databases. Scientometrics, 68(3), 329–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bajerski, A. (2011). The role of French, German and Spanish journals in scientific communication in international geography. Area, 43(3), 305–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakir, A., Vitell, S. J., & Rose, G. M. (2000). Publications in major marketing journals: an analysis of scholars and marketing departments. Journal of Marketing Education, 22(2), 99–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bański, J., & Ferenc, M. (2013). International or Anglo-American journals of geography? Geoforum, 45(3), 285–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barberet, R. (2007). The internationalization of criminology? A content analysis of presentations at American Society of Criminology conferences. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 18(3), 406–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beirne, P. (1983). Cultural relativism and comparative criminology. Contemporary Crises, 7(4), 371–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belknap, J. (2016). Asian criminology’s expansion and advancement of research and crime control practices. Asian Journal of Criminology, 11(4), 249–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkbeck, C. (2011). Imprisonment and internment: comparing penal institutions North and South. Punishment & Society, 13(3), 307–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). Ucinet for Windows: software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1999). On the cunning of imperialist reason. Theory, Culture and Society, 16(1), 41–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, T., & Diospatonyi, I. (2005). The counting of core journal gatekeepers as science indicators really counts. Scientometrics, 62(3), 297–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buela Casal, G., Perakakis, P., Taylor, M., & Checa, P. (2006). Measuring internationality: reflections and perspectives on academic journals. Scientometrics, 67(1), 45–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, T. F., & Shaw, N. E. (2010). Editorial board membership of management and business journals: a social network analysis study of the financial times 40. British Journal of Management, 21(3), 627–648.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, S., Gea-Valor, M. L., Moreno, A. I., & Rey-Rocha, J. (2014). Affordances and constraints on research publication: a comparative study of the language choices of Spanish historians and psychologists. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14(June), 72–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrington, K., Hogg, R., & Sozzo, M. (2015). Southern criminology. The British Journal of Criminology, 56(1), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrington, K., Hogg, R., Scott, J., & Sozzo, M. (2018). Criminology, southern theory and cognitive justice. In K. Carrington, R. Hogg, J. Scott, & M. Sozzo (Eds.), The palgrave handbook of criminology and the global south (pp. 3–17). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, L. T. W., Chan, K. C., & Chan, R. Y. K. (2003). Publications in major marketing journals: an analysis of research productivity of Asia-Pacific universities. Journal of Marketing Education, 25(2), 163–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. (1988 [1982]). Against criminology. New Brunswick: Transaction Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (1994). Who are the most-cited scholars in major American criminology and criminal justice journals? Journal of Criminal Justice, 22(6), 517–534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (1999). Changes in the most-cited scholars in twenty criminology and criminal justice journals between 1990 and 1995. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27(4), 345–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohn, E. G., & Iratzoqui, A. (2016). The most cited scholars in five international criminology journals, 2006-10. The British Journal of Criminology, 56(3), 602–623.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohn, E. G., Farrington, D. P., & Iratzoqui, A. (2013). Most-cited scholars in criminology and criminal justice, 1986-2010. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohn, E. G., Farrington, D. P., & Iratzoqui, A. (2017). Changes in the most-cited scholars and works over 25 years: the evolution of the field of criminology and criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 28(1), 25–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connell, R. (2006). Northern theory: the political geography of general social theory. Theoretical Sociology, 35(2), 237–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connell, R. (2007). Southern theory: the global dynamics of knowledge in social science. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Sousa Santos, B. (Ed.). (2008). Another knowledge is possible: beyond northern epistemologies. London: Verso Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyachenko, E. L. (2014). Internationalization of academic journals: is there still a gap between social and natural sciences? Scientometrics, 101(1), 241–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, P. D., & Zhan, G. (2011). How international are the international business journals? International Business Review, 20(1), 100–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2018). Science, research and innovation performance of the EU 2018. Strengthening the foundations for Europe’s future. Luxembourg: European Union. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/rec-17-015-srip-report2018_mep-web-20180228.pdf. Accessed 16 September 2018.

  • Fabianic, D. A. (1981). Institutional affiliation of authors in selected criminal justice journals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 9(3), 247–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, D. C. (2008). Building and maintaining a strong editorial board and cadre of ad hoc reviewers. In Y. Baruch, A. M. Konrad, H. Aguinis, & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Opening the black box of editorship (pp. 68–74). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flowerdew, J. (2008). Scholarly writers who use English as an additional language: what can Goffman’s “Stigma” tell us? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7, 77–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gea-Valor, M.-L., Rey-Rocha, J., & Moreno, A. I. (2014). Publishing research in the international context: an analysis of Spanish scholars’ academic writing needs in the social sciences. English for Specific Purposes, 36(October), 47–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutiérrez, J., & López-Nieva, P. (2001). Are international journals of human geography really international? Progress in Human Geography, 25(1), 53–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A.-W., & Metz, I. (2013). Practicing what we preach. The Geographic Diversity of Editorial Boards. Management International Review, 53(2), 169–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennemann, S., Rybski, D., & Liefner, I. (2012). The myth of global acience collaboration - collaboration patterns in epistemic communities. Journal of Informetrics, 6(2), 217–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogg, R., Scott, J., & Sozzo, M. (2017). Southern criminology: guest editors’ introduction. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 6(1), 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse: English in a global context. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iefremova, O., Sas, D., & Kozak, M. (2016). International collaboration among authors of current science. Current Science, 110(8), 1414–1418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kachru, B. (1986). The alchemy of English: the spread, functions and models of non-native Englishes. Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keim, W. (2010). The internationalization of social sciences: distortions, dominations and prospects. In UNESCO (Ed.), World Social Science Report. Knowledge Divides (pp. 169–170). Paris: UNESCO Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenway, J., & Fahey, J. (Eds.). (2009). Globalising the research imagination. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, B., Lin, A., & Lambert, E. (2014). Research on policing East Asia: a review of SSCI policing specialty journals. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 37(3), 612–629.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, B., Lin, A., & Lambert, E. (2015). Comparative/international research on juvenile justice issues: a review of juvenile justice specialty journals. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 26(4), 545–562.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, B., Merlo, A. V., & Seo, C. (2018). Internationality of women specialty journals: content analysis and survey of editors. Asian Journal of Criminology, 13(3), 231–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitossa, T. (2012). Criminology and colonialism: counter colonial criminology and the Canadian context. The Journal of Pan African Studies, 4(10), 204–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristensen, P. M. (2012). Dividing discipline: structures of communication in international relations. International Studies Review, 14(1), 32–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristensen, P. M. (2015). Revisiting the “American social science” – mapping the geography of international relations. International Studies Perspectives, 16(3), 246–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic writing in a global context: the politics and practices of publishing in English. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, J. (2009). Asian criminology - challenges, opportunities, and directions. Asian Journal of Criminology, 4(1), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • López-Navarro, I., Moreno, A. I., Quintanilla, M. A., & Rey-Rocha, J. (2015). Why do I publish research articles in English instead of my own language? Differences in Spanish researchers’ motivations across scientific domains. Scientometrics, 103(3), 939–976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazenod, A. (2018). Lost in translation? Comparative education research and the production of academic knowledge. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 48(2), 189–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamee, S. J., & Willis, C. L. (1994). Stratification in science: a comparison of publication patterns in four disciplines. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 15(4), 396–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2015). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery, S. L. (2013). Does science need a global language? English and the future of research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moosavi, L. (2018). Decolinising criminology: Syed Hussein Alatas on crimes of the powerful. Critical Criminology, 1-14.

  • Morales, S. T., & Toledo, E. G. (2012). British scholarly journals on film studies: study and evaluation of their internationality. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 44(1), 75–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, W. (2006). Criminology, civilisation and the new world order: rethinking criminology in a global context. London: Glasshouse Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Özbilgin, M. (2004). ‘International’ human resource management: academic parochialism in editorial boards of the ‘top’ 22 journals on international human resource management. Personnel Review, 33(2), 205–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paasi, A. (2005). Globalisation, academic capitalism and the uneven geographies of international journal publishing spaces. Environment and Planning A, 37(5), 769–789.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravenides, C. A. (2008). The internationalization of the American journal of international law: reality or chimera? – A survey. Hastings International & Comparative Law Review, 31(1), 101–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ren, S., & Rousseau, R. (2002). International visibility of Chinese scientific journals. Scientometrics, 53(3), 389–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rey-Rocha, J., & Martín-Sempere, M. J. (2004). Patterns of the foreign contributions in some domestic vs. international journals on Earth Sciences. Scientometrics, 59(1), 95–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. (2011). Country surveys in the European Journal of Criminology. European Journal of Criminology, 8(1), 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenstreich, D., & Wooliscroft, B. (2006). How international are the top academic journals? The case of marketing. European Business Review, 18(6), 422–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russett, B., & Arnold, T. (2010). Who talks, and who’s listening? Networks of international security studies. Security Dialogue, 41(6), 589–598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. J. (2004). Editorial. Criminology and the wider Europe. European Journal of Criminology, 1(1), 5–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. J. (2006). Editorial. Supporting the development of criminology in Europe. European Journal of Criminology, 3(1), 5–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorensen, J. R. (1994). Scholarly productivity in criminal justice: institutional affiliation of authors in the top ten criminal justice journals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22(6), 535–547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorensen, J., & Pilgrim, R. (2002). The institutional affiliations of authors in leading criminology and criminal justice journals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30(1), 11–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stremersch, S., & Verhoef, P. C. (2005). Globalization of authorship in the marketing discipline: does it help or hinder the field? Marketing Science, 24(4), 585–594.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutter, M., & Kocher, M. (2001). Power laws of research output. Evidence for journals of economics. Scientometrics, 51(2), 405–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suzuki, M., Pai, C.-F., & Islam, J. (2017). Systematic quantitative literature review on criminological theories in Asia. Asian Journal of Criminology, 13(2), 129–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taggart, W. A., & Holmes, M. D. (1991). Institutional productivity in criminal justice and criminology: an examination of author affiliation in selected journals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 19(6), 549–561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uzun, A. (2004). Assessing internationality of scholarly journals through foreign authorship patterns: the case of major journals in information science and scientometrics. Scientometrics, 61(3), 457–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uzuner, S. (2008). Multilingual scholars’ participation in core/global academic communities: a literature review. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(4), 250–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Leeuwen, T. N., Moed, H. F., Tijssen, R. J. W., Visser, M. S., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2001). Language biases in the coverage of the Science Citation Index and its consequences for international comparisons of national research performance. Scientometrics, 51(1), 335–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, R. A. (1995). The most-cited scholars in criminology: a comparison of textbooks and journals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 23(4), 303–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, R. A. (2002). Recent changes in the most-cited scholars in criminal justice textbooks. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30(3), 183–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeung, H. W. C. (2001). Redressing the geographical bias in social science knowledge. Environment and Planning A, 33, 2–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimring, F. (2006). The necessity and value of transnational comparative study: some preaching from a recent convert. Criminology & Public Policy, 5(4), 615–622.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zitt, M., & Bassecoulard, E. (1998). Internationalization of scientific journals: a measurement based on publication and citation scope. Scientometrics, 41(1-2), 255–271.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Law, Universidade da Coruña, 15071, A Coruna, Spain

    Patricia Faraldo-Cabana

  2. School of Law, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

    Patricia Faraldo-Cabana

  3. Department of Sociology, Universidade da Coruña, 15071, A Coruna, Spain

    Carmen Lamela

Authors
  1. Patricia Faraldo-Cabana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carmen Lamela
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patricia Faraldo-Cabana.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Patricia Faraldo Cabana is member of the international editorial board of the International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy. Carmen Lamela declares no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Faraldo-Cabana, P., Lamela, C. How International Are the Top International Journals of Criminology and Criminal Justice?. Eur J Crim Policy Res 27, 151–174 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-019-09426-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-019-09426-2

Keywords