Respected criminologist acknowledges elephant in living room

Most criminologists endorse the scientific model. They recognize that knowledge is built bit by bit, as regularities are identified, tentative explanations constructed, hypotheses tested, bodies of empirical findings compiled, and theories developed and modified. Though partly routine, this process relies heavily on creativity and innovation, and it absolutely requires sharing, evaluation, and integration of information. Moreover, knowledge construction is enhanced when numerous scholars address the subject matter and share their findings in a timely manner. Yet, the culture surrounding contemporary dissemination of criminological work in many ways inhibits rather than enhances the scientific enterprise. My objective here is to identify some of those obstructive elements and to suggest an approach that might minimize their impact.

The process is clear enough: scholars conduct research and submit reports of it to journals for anonymous review by other scholars who presumably evaluate how well the submitted papers contribute to the scientific enterprise. Most of the time reviewers recommend against publication, sometimes with dismissive statements but usually with advice about modifications they think might make the paper publishable. In the few instances when reviewers do find merit, they almost always recommend revision. Anticipating this, would-be authors usually devote substantial time that might otherwise be spent in actual research in trying to write their papers to meet potential reviewer requirements or in revising for re-submission to the same or a different journal. As a result the scientific process has become distorted by efforts to hit upon advance formulas for satisfying critics who often disagree among themselves.

The conventional rationale--that the quality of research is enhanced as “experts” offer unencumbered advice in an anonymous framework that protects them from interpersonal backlash-- is not accepted by all. Some question whether, on balance, “revisionism” leads to the best possible outcome. I am somewhat uneasy about the process, myself. During a 43 year career in which I have followed and endorsed conventional practice, I have read no fewer than 5000 reviews, along with the papers they were evaluating. During a six year term as editor of Criminology, I processed over 800 manuscripts, involving three or more reviews each. In addition, I have acted as a selected reviewer for hundreds of papers submitted to various journals, ultimately, of course, examining the other reviews for those manuscripts. I have also received literally hundreds of outside reviews of my own papers.

Based on that experience I wonder whether the process by which knowledge is currently disseminated through journals is as productive to the scientific enterprise as it should be. The apparatus of publication sometimes seems to obstruct accumulation of knowledge rather than enhancing it; it often discourages creativity and innovation rather than encouraging it; it frequently hinders sharing of information rather than facilitating it; it thins rather than enlarges the work force of scholars; and it may not necessarily lead to the highest quality work.