Abstract
More than eight years have passed since the first issue of the European Journal of Criminology and, at the beginning of my term as editor, it seems a good moment to reflect on its founding. I would like to explain some features of the journal and review several guiding principles that have been established.
In that first issue, Professor David J. Smith provided the founding vision. The rationale for starting a new criminology journal was to support the growth of criminology in Europe by providing a forum for research on crime and criminal justice institutions (Smith, 2004: 5). The European Journal of Criminology represents an important means for Europe to build its own criminological tradition. Crime and criminal justice figure in political developments across Europe, and criminological scholarship should contribute to wider discussion of these activities. Criminology does not reflect a consensus based on initial assumptions, a research methodology or an explanatory framework. Rather, it attracts scholars with a shared interest in crime and criminal justice, and so we should expect contributions not only from criminologists but from those working in other disciplines as well. We would anticipate contributions to reflect a range of research strategies and theoretical perspectives (Smith, 2004: 11).
Early on, a decision had to be made about research from outside Europe. The USA presents a dilemma owing to its capacity to generate a large number of submissions. As David explained, a clear ambition for European criminology is to develop a knowledge base separate from US criminology. He established the principle that the journal would publish work from the USA provided it was of sufficient interest to European criminologists. The journal would not avoid US research and theory but, rather, would encourage a cross-Atlantic exchange of ideas and information. US criminology journals tend to focus on US criminal justice practices. A journal devoted to European criminology should not reduce its focus to Europe but welcome comparative and international research (Smith, 2004: 8–11).
David established additional guiding principles that are important to restate. The journal should pursue the ‘wider Europe’, meaning ‘within and beyond the European Union’ (Smith, 2004: 7). Some countries have identifiable ties to Europe, although they are not routinely categorized as European countries. Israel, Russia and Turkey come to mind. At the same time, he found that contributions from within Europe tended to come from countries where criminology is already well established. He encouraged submissions from countries where the tradition is less established and added a special section featuring ‘country surveys’ to provide some balance. The country surveys make available a base of information on crime and criminal justice within a particular country for scholars outside the country. They provide a starting point for research on specific issues and, as the collection of countries has grown, a resource for comparative and international analyses. The country surveys make the ‘European dimension of the journal a reality’ (Smith, 2006: 7).
To take this approach a step further, I hope to include review essays in future issues. ‘Review essays’ are intended to bring criminological scholarship originating in languages other than English to the readership of the journal – material from recent books and articles published in German, French, Spanish, and so on. Unlike the country survey, the purpose is not to offer a wide-ranging discussion across the national scene but to identify emerging scholarship on a particular topic and to explain its significance for English-speaking criminologists. The idea here is to pursue conversation across languages as well as national borders. There is some precedent for this (Gerber et al., 2010).
In 2007, the editorship passed to Professor Julian V. Roberts, who ensured the journal’s continuing success. The European Journal of Criminology attracts high-quality scholarship sufficient to fill six issues per year and it ranks near the top of international league tables of criminology publications. Julian’s approach to editorship has adhered to the view that research articles should furnish the primary content of the journal. As he put it: ‘Empirical research that is grounded in a clear theoretical framework is particularly welcome’ (Roberts, 2007: 268). Julian has also called attention to the journal’s diverse readership. Contributions should strive for ‘clear cross-jurisdictional significance’ or ‘general lessons’ for criminology (Roberts, 2007: 267–8; Roberts and Goold, 2007: 355). This approach has proved to be a very good one and I plan to follow it: theory-driven, empirical research into issues of cross-jurisdictional significance is particularly welcome.
Given the importance of policy questions to European criminology, the journal will introduce essays advancing a substantive analysis of policy questions. ‘Policy reviews’ will explore emerging practices and ideas concerning criminal justice across European countries. These discussions will be directed at the policy-making context of the European Union but also at national policies that signify trends, offer models or otherwise have implications for Europe.
Finally, a word about changes in the editorial structure. The advisory board has been abolished. It has been replaced by an expanded editorial board, reconstituted along the lines of the original purpose of the advisory board. Members of the editorial board will review manuscripts in their area of expertise. Given the increasing popularity of the journal, we will continue to draw on reviewers outside the board, but board members will provide an important resource in carrying out this vital activity. The editorial board will continue to have an advisory capacity as well. All board members are invited to a session about the journal scheduled to take place during the annual meeting of the European Society of Criminology.