Content uploaded by Allan Scherlen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Allan Scherlen on Oct 31, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Robinson, Matthew & Allan Scherlen. (2009) ―Publishing in Criminal Justice: Assessing Journal
Editors‘ Awareness and Acceptance of Open Access‖ International Journal of Criminal
Justice Sciences (IJCJS) July – December 2009, Vol. 4: 2 pp. 98–117. (ISSN: 0973-5089)
Published by the South Asian Society of Criminology and Victimology (SASCV). The version of
record is available open access from the publisher at: http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/ or
http://www.ijcjs.co.nr
Publishing in Criminal Justice and Criminology: Assessing
Journal Editors’ Awareness and Acceptance of Open Access
Matthew B. Robinson & Allan Scherlen
ABSTRACT
The authors, building upon a previous article that challenged the subscription-based
journal publishing model, assess the awareness and attitudes of editors of journals in
criminal justice and criminology toward open access, author rights, and related issues of
justice. The authors employ a survey to capture opinions from editors of dozens of
journals in criminal justice and criminology with regard to traditional subscription-based
vs. open access publishing. The results show that editors in the field widely embrace
the principles on which open access is based and favor allowing authors more freedom
to expand and control access to their scholarship while remaining resistant to making
their journals open access. These findings and their implications for ―justice‖ and the
future of scholarly communication in criminal justice and criminology are discussed.
1
ARTICLE
INTRODUCTION
Open access generally refers to the free availability of scholarly literature on the
public Internet, permitting anyone to read, download, copy, distribute, or print the full
text without restrictions (other than to give authors control over the integrity of their work
and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited). Open access means there are no
unnecessary licensing, copyright, or subscription restrictions (Cornwell and Suber,
2008). When people refer to ―open access,‖ they most commonly are talking about
journals that feature scholarship published online, freely available to readers. Yet, open
access also includes self-archiving, both in the form of faculty members at universities
maintaining their own websites where they offer copies of their own scholarship, and
universities themselves (e.g., through library services) that collect and publicly
disseminate scholarship authored by faculty on web-accessible institutional repositories.
In spite of these possibilities, open access practices are far less common than
one might expect. In the academic disciplines of criminal justice and criminology, open
access is generally not widely known or understood. This is ironic given the implications
for justice of current publishing arrangements. Scherlen and Robinson (2008), using two
postmodern theories of social justice, argued that current publishing arrangements in
criminal justice are inconsistent with social justice. This ―injustice‖ occurs because the
traditional method of distributing knowledge in criminal justice and criminology—
2
practiced by journals that restrict access only to a limited subset of scholars and
practitioners who gain access through a paid subscription—interferes with the principles
laid out in leading theories of social justice as well as international laws such as the
United Nation‘s Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights; and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and
Cultural Rights. As for the international laws mentioned, they explain that every person
has the right to free education and access to knowledge, the right to benefit from
advances in knowledge, and the right to benefit from and control one‘s own work.
As for the social justice theories, they posit that citizens enjoy the rights to equal
liberties and equal opportunities (Rawls, 2003). Restricting access to scholarship
through subscription barriers restricts people‘s right to knowledge (including the equal
right to benefit from advances in knowledge), as well as the rights of individuals to
benefit from their own work. The theories also posit that citizens should enjoy the rights
to have their needs met, to have their work rewarded (i.e., desert), and to be treated
equally (i.e., equality) (Miller, 2003). Restricting access to scholarship through
subscription barriers limits the ability of individuals to increase their educational
attainment in order to better meet their own needs. Further, by restricting access
through subscription tolls, individuals are not given full access to the information they
deserve as human beings as well as citizens. Additionally, within such restrictions
scholars do not fully gain rewards earned through their own work. Finally, within the
traditional subscription model people are being treated unequally since more or less
access to knowledge is based largely on their ability to pay for it. The essential purpose
3
of open access journals is simply to reach more readers than subscription-based
journals (Tenopir, 2004).
Many agree that open access is more in line with the ―common good‖ and our
democratic principles (Willinksy, 2002). For example, Blaaij (2006) writes that ―the
accessibility of scientific information is crucial as a political instrument in strengthening a
democratic society and to improve the knowledge driven society by efficient and
effective distribution of scientific information‖ (p. 7). In spite of such growing assertions,
academic journal publishing has become big business, run for profit, and providing
access largely only to those who can pay for it.
THE STATE OF PUBLISHING
According to Willinsky (2006), a handful of corporate publishers produce a
growing portion of academic literature. Four major publishers—Reed Elsevier (with over
2,000 journal titles); Springer (with over 1,700 titles); John Wiley, which acquired
Blackwell for $1.1 billion and became Wiley-Blackwell (with over 1,250 titles); and
Taylor & Francis (with over 1,000 titles)—control the vast majority of the research
indexed in the ISI Web of Science citation index. As large, for-profit corporations have
taken over journals, subscription prices have increased dramatically (McCabe, 2002).
Even in the academic disciplines of criminal justice and criminology— disciplines
that are to a great extent focused on issues of ―justice‖—little notice has been taken of
the fact that the distribution of scholarship has largely been made commercial with little
critical discussion within the discipline about the scholarly ramifications of this
4
arrangement. Academic societies by and large have chosen to outsource the publishing
of their journals to large corporate publishers such as Sage, Springer, Taylor & Francis,
and Wiley-Blackwell, which earn a substantial profit by limiting access to scholarship
through annually inflated subscription barriers (Scherlen and Robinson, 2008). These
commercial publishing arrangements have not, of course, been without some benefits
for academic associations and their members. The associations are relieved of the
burden of managing journals and receive a share of the profits from subscriptions while
subscribers gain access to value-added digital delivery systems.
But increasingly it is becoming evident that high-priced journals are affecting
accessibility of citizens to scholarship. When practitioners, scholars, and even academic
institutions and their libraries cannot afford to pay ever-inflating journal subscription
fees, scholars who write journal articles have a diminishing impact on an ever-narrowing
audience. Moreover, subscription barriers—which translate into journal titles not being
available at their library—blocks potential access to important information that could
inform their own work. Ironically, the cost of much of the research upon which many
articles are based is born by grant funding agencies, authors‘ home institutions, and
authors themselves. The labor employed for peer review of submitted articles is also
generally done gratis by academicians in the field. Yet, there are times when authors
cannot even access their own articles without paying a fee! Open access is one
potential solution to this problem (Harnad and Brody, 2004).
Open access initiatives have expanded rapidly in recent years (Morrison, 2009).
In 2009, institutional mandates—requiring faculty to archive their journal articles in their
5
university‘s open access repository—grew from twenty-five institutions worldwide a few
years ago to seventy-nine in 2009. The number of open access journals listed in the
Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) grew in 2009 to over 4,400 titles, an
increase of more than 700 journals during 2009. Open access principles have also
steadily expanded at various levels within the disciplines of criminal justice and
criminology. For example, in their review of open access journals in criminal justice and
criminology, Scherlen and Robinson (2008) noted only twelve open-access journals
related to the field that could be found in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
as of January 2007. Since 2007, a number of journals that serve the disciplines of
criminal justice and criminology were added to the DOAJ database, including Public
Space: The Journal of Law and Social Justice, the International Journal of Cyber
Criminology, Open Forensic Science Journal, and Open Criminology Journal, bringing
the number of CJ journals in DOAJ to twenty-eight open access titles.i
Generally speaking, corporate publishers are opposed to making their journals
open access, at least without charging substantial fees to pay their costs (Watkinson,
2006). They‘ve even gone as far as hiring public relations firms to counter the
movement toward open access. For example, the Association of American Publishers
hired Dezenhall Resources to ―paint a picture of what the world would look like without
peer-reviewed articles,‖ aimed at trying to create the impression that open access
journals are not peer-reviewed (Brown and Monastersky, 2007). In spite of this
opposition, scholars generally agree that open access publishing represents the future
(Kelty et al., 2008).
6
Yet, a recent experience of one of the authors of this paper shows that open
access journal publishing still has a long way to go. After having an article accepted for
publication in a commercially produced journal (a journal about social justice no less!),
the author was given the option to make his article open access. The publisher noted:
―Choosing open access means making your journal article freely available to everyone,
everywhere in exchange for your payment of an open access publication fee. You will
not be required to transfer copyright. The final published version of your article can be
archived in institutional or funder repositories and can be made publicly accessible
immediately.‖ The cost of this service was $3,000, to be paid by the author! And this
choice ―is final and cannot be cancelled later.‖ Of course, authors can make most
traditionally published articles open access for no cost by submitting the post-print of
their articles themselves to their institutional repository but publishers—like the one
mentioned above—may not be very forthcoming with that small detail.
Far more important than shifting journal publishing itself to an open access model
or even getting scholars to choose to publish in open access journals is the need for
scholars to self-archive their scholarship in a web-accessible institutional repository. As
Harnad (2004) has noted, while the conversion of scholarly publishing to open access is
still far out of sight, near total open access is well within our immediate grasp if authors
of academia would universally participate in self-archiving their articles in an e-
repository or at least on their own web site. Already, as noted earlier, the members of
seventy-nine universities have agreed to mandate the deposit of newly published
articles into their institution‘s repositories while forty-two funding groups now require
7
their grant recipients to make a copy of the final article open access (Registry of Open
Access Repository Material Archiving Policies, 2010).
The number of open access archives for scholarship has grown to over 1,500
worldwide as listed in OpenDOAR website. These developments mean that scholars in
the field of criminal justice have a growing opportunity to expand the accessibility of
their work through self-archiving in an institutional repository. Cross-checking the list of
top criminal justice/criminology graduate schools provided by U.S. News and World
Report 2009 rankings against the Directory of Open Access Repositories at
OpenDOAR.org shows that, of twenty-five graduate schools listed, seventeen currently
have institutional repositories for faculty scholarship while only eight do not (Directory of
Open Access Repositories, 2010). Thus, most of the major institutions where much of
the scholarship in criminal justice and criminology is done in the U.S. have institutional
repositories waiting for their work to be made open access to the world by the simple
act of deposit.
Most academic journal publishers allow for some form of self-archiving. An
examination of 523 journal policies regarding author rights to archive by researchers at
Sherpa/RoMEO found 63% of non-open access journals consent in advance to post-
print [the final peer-reviewed version] archiving while another 31% of journals consent to
self-archiving the pre-print [pre-peer-reviewed version] of the author‘s article (Sherpa-
Romeo, 2010). Authors can easily discover if their publisher allows them to self archive
their articles by searching for a journal‘s polices using the Sherpa/Romeo database,
examining a journal‘s policies usually located on the journal website, or simply e-mailing
8
the editor for permission. Many other publishers, moreover, will grant permission upon
request.ii
WHY ASSESS JOURNAL EDITORS?
The authors examined the literature on open access and academic journal
publishing only to discover that while the subject receives intense discussion among
scholars publishing in science, technology and medicine (STM) journals and among
those involved in journal publishing organizations and library science, much of the
discussion has been taking place outside the disciplines of criminal justice and
criminology. A search of the keyword phrase ―open access‖ in the Criminal Justice
Periodical Index only yielded twenty articles of which only one addressed criminal
justice journals.iii That single article, written by the authors of this paper, which called for
open access to scholarship in criminal justice and criminology concluded with a major
starting place: encourage the membership of professional associations and the editors
of journals to discuss the merits of opening access to their literature. The editors see
their share of the discipline‘s literature in the form of paper submissions. They have
experience in the craft and process of disseminating that literature. And so, it is
conjectured by the authors of this paper—even though some editors may be set in their
ways and tied to traditional publishing practice— their experience and vested interest in
academic publishing must lend them toward worthwhile insights not only in sustaining
their own publication but also for finding ways to assure knowledge and discourse within
the discipline continues to thrive in the future. If open access to a greater or lesser
9
degree is to be a part of that future in scholarship in criminal justice and criminology, it is
logical to begin this important discussion with those centrally involved in an important
current mode of the scholarly communication process, journal editors.
METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY
In order to assess the perceptions of journal editors in criminal justice and
criminology, we created a survey instrument pertaining to publishing, open access, and
social justice. The survey was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the
authors‘ university.
Selection of Journal Editors to Survey
The authors assembled a list of journals that serve research within the disciplines
of criminal justice and criminology by integrating the lists of a number of journal article
indexes and journal directories. Since the fields of criminal justice and criminology are
interdisciplinary and literature of the field can be found published in journals of various
related fields including sociology, psychology, law, and political science—to name a
few—the authors chose to restrict the bulk of their list to journals that are primarily
focused on criminal justice and criminology. However, some journals from related fields
were included to broaden the sample. These included some journals in the areas of
aggression and deviant behavior. The authors also included two open access journals
in the initial list even though the survey questions asked about the editor‘s views on
10
issues related to open access since they were both, in the opinion of the authors, well-
established in the field.
The first step in building the list of journals to be surveyed was to collect the
names of those journals listed as peer-reviewed in International Periodical Directory
2009 (R.R Bowker), and Serials Directory (via EBSCOhost) as well as indexed in key
journal indexes used by researchers and students in the field. The indexes chosen
were: Social Science Citation Index (Web of Science, Thomson Reuters) (SSCI),
National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), and the Criminal Justice
Periodicals Index (ProQuest)(CJPI). SSCI was chosen because it is looked upon by
many as the traditional gold standard for establishing journal rankings and the core
journals of a discipline. NCJRS was chosen because it is a long established and
respected bibliographical index hosted by the U.S. Government. And CJPI was chosen
because it is a major commercial index of criminal justice literature. The authors then
refined the list of criminal justice, criminology, and related journals to be surveyed by
selecting only those that appeared in at least two of the three indexes. The authors
then made sure they had included journals from the American Society of Criminology
(ASC) journal list (http://www.asc41.com/JOURNALS. html). The resulting list totaled
over one-hundred journal titles.
The authors then set out to find current contact information for the editors of the
journals chosen. They first used Ulrich's International Periodical Directory 2009 (R.R
Bowker), and Serials Directory (via EBSCOhost) and confirmed or revised those
findings by searching through websites of the journals and websites of the editors‘
institutions. Ultimately, the researchers were able to compile a spreadsheet containing
11
current and valid contact information for sixty-five editors of journals in the disciplines of
criminal justice and criminology to be contacted as recipients of the survey instrument.
An e-mail was sent to each respondent notifying them of the impending arrival of
the survey. The survey was then mailed to the sixty-five editors. The survey contained
thirty-six questions which were primarily multiple-choice (the instrument is available
upon request from the authors). Participants were informed that their participation in the
study was voluntary and they were given the option to not identify themselves by name
on their survey form. To further protect confidentiality, participants were not identified by
name in this final study report and any information told explicitly in confidence was
respected as such. During the report-writing phase care was taken by the researchers
to be sure no confidential information was used to link any individual respondents with
specific responses.
The Instrument
The questionnaire sent to the journal editors covered six areas related to
academic journal and author rights: (1) [Q 1-4] Four questions asked about each
editor‘s length and breadth of experience in journal work; (2) [Q 5-7] Three questions
related to each editor‘s opinion regarding whether scholars should be able to access as
much scholarship as possible and/or be able to reach as wide an audience as possible--
both in general and in regards to their particular journals; (3) [Q 8-10] Three questions
solicited the editors‘ opinions on whether scholars should be permitted to self-archive
and control their own published work; (4) [Q 11-21] Eleven questions addressed the
editors‘ familiarity with open access publishing as well as their journal‘s openness in
12
terms of becoming open access or making back issues open access; (5) [Q 22-25] Four
questions sought the editors‘ opinion as well as knowledge regarding their own journals‘
policy regarding authors‘ rights to self-archive articles after publication; And, finally, (6)
[Q 26-30] five questions solicited the editors‘ attitudes regarding social justice and the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights as related to authors‘ rights and access to
scholarship
Response rate
We ultimately received responses from 29 journal editors. This represents a 45%
response rate. Ideally, we would like to have received a higher portion of the surveys we
sent out, but many editors simply refused to participate. Yet, the response rate is
considered sufficient for survey research (Punch, 2003). Of the respondents, only one
was the editor of an open access journal. Thus, nearly all of our respondents were
editors of traditional, subscription based journals.
FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION
Beginning with a summary of the respondents, a large majority (69%) of our
sample are at the Professor level, followed by 17% Associate Professor and 7%
Assistant Professor. Two additional respondents (7%) identified themselves as doctoral
students. We suspect these may be respondents who are serving in the Managing
Editor role for journals.
The average length of time that respondents had been serving as editor of their
respective journal at the time of the survey was 4.9 years. This means that our
13
respondents have been involved in a combined 142 years of editorial experience.
The vast majority (86%) of our respondents had not served as editor of another
journal. Only 14% of our respondents had served as editor of another journal. Of these
respondents who had served as editor of another journal, the average time of service as
editor was 6.5 years. Further, nearly all (93%) of the respondents had also served in a
different editorial capacity with another journal. The average time of editorial experience
was 12.9 years. This amounts to a total of 348 years of additional journal experience.
From these data, we are confident that our respondents have an enormous amount of
experience editing journals as well as serving in other editorial roles with journals (e.g.,
editorial board, associate editor).
Table 1 depicts the current publishing arrangements that the journals edited by
our respondents had in place at the time of the survey. More than half (59%) of the
respondents indicated that the journals they edited ―restrict access of the general public
to its content.‖ Further, almost half (45%) of the respondents indicated that the journals
they edited ―restrict access of scholars to its content.‖ Additionally, about half (48%) of
the respondents indicated that the journals they edited ―restrict access of criminal justice
practitioners to its content.‖ About half (46%) of the respondents also indicated that the
journals they edited ―restrict the rights of the author of a work within it to archive it on a
publically accessible personal faculty website.‖ Finally, about half (48%) of the
respondents also indicated that the journals they edited ―restrict the rights of the author
of a work within it to archive it on their institution‘s or agency‘s publically accessible
electronic repository.‖ Given that only one of our respondents edits an open access
journal, an interesting finding is that these percentages were not higher, for the journals
14
our respondents edit do in fact restrict access to their journals under certain
circumstances.
Each of these practices is inconsistent with open access publishing. Open
access aims to make information widely available to the public, to scholars, and to
practitioners. Further, open access does not restrict the rights of authors to archive their
works on websites or an electronic repository. Our first major finding is thus that the
publishing arrangements of the journals edited by our respondents are largely not
consistent with open access.
Table 1 – Current Publishing Arrangements of Journals and Awareness of “Open
Access” Publishing
Journal restricts access of the general public to its content
Yes 17 (59%)
No 12 (41%)
Unsure 0 (0%)
n = 29
Journal restricts access of scholars to its content
Yes 13 (45%)
No 13 (45%)
Unsure 3 (10%)
n = 29
Journal restricts access of criminal justice practitioners to its content
Yes 14 (48%)
No 12 (41%)
Unsure 3 (10%)
n = 29
Journal restricts the rights of the author of a work within it to archive it on a
publically accessible personal faculty website
Yes 13 (46%)
No 6 (21%)
Unsure 9 (32%)
n = 28
15
Journal restricts the rights of the author of a work within it to archive it on their
institution‘s or agency‘s publically accessible electronic repository
Yes 14 (48%)
No 5 (17%)
Unsure 10 (35%)
n = 29
Aware of Open Access?
Yes 26 (90%)
No 3 (10%)
Unsure 0 (0%)
How Aware of Open Access?
Very aware 16 (55%)
Somewhat aware 10 (35%)
Not at all aware 3 (10%)
n = 29
Table 1 also shows that the vast majority of respondents (90%) said they had
―ever heard of ‗open access‘ or ‗open access publishing.‘‖ Only three respondents
(10%) had never heard of open access publishing. Further, of the 90% who indicated
they were aware of open access, 55% said they were very aware of it, while 35%
indicated they were somewhat aware of it. Again, 10% indicated they were not aware of
it at all. Thus, a second major finding is that journal editors in criminal justice are aware
of open access.
Table 2 demonstrates that respondents seem to strongly favor the principles on
which open access publishing is founded. For example, every respondent (100%) said
they strongly favor ―scholars being able to access as much scholarship as possible to
inform their own work.‖ Every respondent also indicated they favored ―scholars reaching
as wide an audience as possible with their scholarship.‖ Further, every respondent
16
indicated they favored ―reaching as wide as possible an audience with the journal you
edit.‖
Table 2 – Opinion of Open Access Principles
Support scholars being able to access as much scholarship as possible to inform
their own work
Strongly favor 29 (100%)
Favor 0 (0%)
Neutral 0 (0%)
Oppose 0 (0%)
Strongly oppose 0 (0%)
Unsure 0 (0%)
Support scholars reaching as wide an audience as possible with their scholarship
Strongly favor 28 (97%)
Favor 1 (3%)
Neutral 0 (0%)
Oppose 0 (0%)
Strongly oppose 0 (0%)
Unsure 0 (0%)
Support reaching as wide an audience as possible with the journal you edit
Strongly favor 28 (97%)
Favor 1 (3%)
Neutral 0 (0%)
Oppose 0 (0%)
Strongly oppose 0 (0%)
Unsure 0 (0%)
n = 29
The findings are consistent with open access publishing. Open access publishing
makes content available to anyone who wants access to it, including of course scholars.
Open access also allows scholars to reach virtually anyone with their work. Finally,
open access publishing would help journal editors reach a wider audience. Thus, a third
major finding of this research is that journal editors in criminal justice are highly
17
supportive of the principles that underlie open access publishing (even though the
journals they edit tend not to be open access journals).
In spite of what might be seen as signs that our respondents might generally
accept open access publishing, this is not necessarily true. Support for open access
publishing varied among our respondents based on how questions were asked. For
example, in terms of general opinion of open access publishing, we asked respondents
whether they favored ―making scholarly literature freely available on the public Internet,
permitting anyone to read, download, copy, distribute, or print the full text, without
restrictions, other than to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the
right to be properly acknowledged and cited.‖ Table 3 shows results for this question.
More than half (55%) of respondents said they favored it. Thus, when open access was
more specifically defined, support fell from 100% to 55%. Still, only 24% of respondents
opposed open access when it was defined this way. Another 17% said they were
neutral and 3% were unsure.
18
Table 3 – Opinion of Open Access Publishing
Opinion of ―making scholarly literature freely available on the public Internet,
permitting anyone to read, download, copy, distribute, or print the full text, without
restrictions, other than to give authors control over the integrity of their work and
the right to be properly acknowledged and cited‖
Strongly favor 9 (31%)
Favor 7 (24%)
Neutral 5 (17%)
Oppose 4 (14%)
Strongly oppose 3 (10%)
Unsure 1 (3%)
Opinion of ―scholars being able to make their own work freely available online
through a university or agency maintained electronic repository once it is
published‖
Strongly favor 8 (28%)
Favor 12 (42%)
Neutral 5 (17%)
Oppose 1 (3%)
Strongly oppose 1 (3%)
Unsure 2 (7%)
Opinion of ―scholars being able to make their own work freely available online by
archiving it on their personal website once it is published‖
Strongly favor 9 (31%)
Favor 8 (28%)
Neutral 7 (24%)
Oppose 1 (3%)
Strongly oppose 2 (7%)
Unsure 2 (7%)
Opinion of ―scholars being able to own and maintain control of their own work
once it is published in a traditional journal‖
Strongly favor 8 (28%)
Favor 5 (17%)
Neutral 7 (24%)
Oppose 4 (14%)
Strongly oppose 2 (7%)
Unsure 3 (10%)
n = 29
19
Table 3 also shows respondents‘ opinions ―with regard to scholars being able to
make their own work freely available online through a university or agency maintained
electronic repository once it is published.‖ Here, support was higher at 70%. Only 6%
opposed this. Another 17% said they were neutral and 7% were unsure.
Also shown in Table 3 are respondents‘ opinions ―with regard to scholars being
able to make their own work freely available online by archiving it on their personal
website once it is published.‖ Here, support was still above 50%. Specifically, 59% of
respondents said they favored it. Yet, only 10% opposed open access when it was
defined this way. Another 24% said they were neutral and 7% were unsure.
Finally, Table 3 shows respondents‘ opinions ―with regard to scholars being able
to own and maintain control of their own work once it is published in a traditional
journal.‖ Here, support fell below 50%. Specifically, 45% of respondents said they
favored it. Another 21% opposed this. Another 24% said they were neutral and 10%
were unsure.
Based on these results, a fourth major finding of our research is that support for
actual practices of open access is weaker than support for the principles at the heart of
open access. The degree of support for open access depends on the question being
asked, but ranges from 45% to 70%. Yet, in every case, support for the practices of
open access was higher than opposition to it; opposition ranged only from 6% to 24%
depending on the measure. It is interesting that support was lowest for scholars being
able to own and control their own work after it appears in a journal.
When asked to ―rank the overall quality of scholarship in traditional subscription
journals in Criminal Justice and Criminology such as the one(s) you have edited?‖ 61%
20
of respondents rated traditional journals as excellent (18%) or very good (43%). Another
29% ranked these journals as good. Only one respondent (4%) ranked the journals as
not very good and no one ranked them as poor. Two respondents (7%) said they were
not sure. These results are shown in Table 4.
When asked to ―rank the overall quality of scholarship appearing in open access
journals in Criminal Justice and Criminology,‖ the majority of respondents (55%) said
they were not sure. This leads us to believe that at least half of our respondents have
not read enough scholarship in open access journals in order to adequately rate their
relative level of quality. Of the 45% who rated open access journals, none of the
respondents ranked these journals as excellent and only 14% rated them as very good.
Another 17% ranked these journals as good. About 14% rated these journals as not
very good (7%) or poor (7%).
21
Table 4 – Ranking Open Access and Traditional Subscription Publishing
Overall quality of traditional subscription journals
Excellent 5 (18%)
Very good 12 (43%)
Good 8 (29%)
Not very good 1 (4%)
Poor 0 (0%)
Unsure 2 (7%)
n = 28
Overall quality of open access journals
Excellent 0 (0%)
Very good 4 (14%)
Good 5 (17%)
Not very good 2 (7%)
Poor 2 (7%)
Unsure 16 (55%)
n = 29
Relative quality of open access journals versus traditional subscription journals
Open access journals are much better 0 (0%)
Open access journals are a bit better 0 (0%)
Open access are equal in quality 4 (14%)
Traditional subscription journals are a bit better 7 (25%)
Traditional subscription journals are much better 6 (21%)
Unsure 11 (39%)
n = 28
Finally, when asked to ―rank the overall quality of open access journals in
Criminal Justice and Criminology relative to traditional subscription journals such as the
one(s) you have edited?‖ the largest portion (39%) of the respondents was not sure.
This is logically due to the fact that about half of the respondents were simply not aware
enough about open access journals to compare them to traditional journals. Yet, of
those who did rank open access journals relative to traditional journals, only 14% rated
open access journals as equal in quality to traditional journals, and none said that open
22
access journals are much better or a bit better. About half (46%) rated traditional
journals as better.
A fifth major finding of our research is thus that journal editors in criminal justice
generally have a much more favorable view of traditional journals than they do of open
access journals. Yet, a large percentage of our respondents were ―unsure‖ about this
issue. It is possible that this is due to the editors not being very informed about the
quality of scholarship in open access journals.
Given that all but one of the editors we surveyed were editors of journals that are not
open access journals, we were interested in whether the editors would be open to
―making the journal you edit an open access journal.‖ When asked this question, 28%
said they favored doing so. Another 31% did not favor making their journal open access.
Almost one-third (28%) of respondents were neutral and 14% were unsure. These
results are depicted in Table 5.
Table 5 – Opinion of Making Journal You Edit Open Access
Support making open access journal
Strongly favor 6 (21%)
Favor 2 (7%)
Neutral 8 (28%)
Oppose 3 (10%)
Strongly oppose 6 (21%)
Unsure 4 (14%)
Support making back files open access
Strongly favor 7 (24%)
Favor 8 (28%)
Neutral 5 (17%)
Oppose 3 (10%)
Strongly oppose 3 (10%)
Unsure 3 (10%)
23
Support giving authors the right to archive their work on a personal faculty
website
Strongly favor 8 (28%)
Favor 9 (31%)
Neutral 8 (28%)
Oppose 1 (3%)
Strongly oppose 1 (3%)
Unsure 2 (7%)
Support allowing authors the right to archive their work on their institution‘s or
agency‘s publically accessible electronic repository
Strongly favor 8 (28%)
Favor 9 (31%)
Neutral 7 (24%)
Oppose 3 (10%)
Strongly oppose 0 (0%)
Unsure 2 (7%)
n = 29
When asked about whether they would favor making past issues (or ―back files‖)
available online to anyone, more than half (52%) favored this. Only 20% did not favor
making their journal open access. Another 17% were neutral and 10% were unsure.
Support was even higher for ―allowing authors of your journal the right to archive
their work independently of the publication on a publically accessible personal faculty
website.‖ More than half (59%) favored this. Only 6% did not favor making their journal
open access. Another 28% were neutral and 7% were unsure.
Support was equally high for ―allowing authors of your journal the right to archive
their work independently of the publication on their institution‘s or agency‘s publically
accessible electronic repository.‖ More than half (59%) favored this. Only 10% did not
favor making their journal open access. Another 24% were neutral and 7% were unsure.
Thus, a sixth major finding of this work is that journal editors are not generally
favorable of making the journals they edit open access journals, although support is
24
nearly equal to opposition and a large portion are either neutral or unsure. Further, more
than half of our respondents favor making back files of journals open access, of giving
authors the right to archive their work on personal websites, and of giving authors the
right to archive their work on their institution‘s or agency‘s publically accessible
electronic repository. This is all evidence of support for open access.
Table 6 illustrates the perceived relevance of international declarations and
covenants for journal publishing. Only one-third (33%) of respondents said that
international laws granting people the ―right to receive and impart information and ideas
through any media and regardless of frontiers and to enjoy the arts and to share in
scientific advancement and its benefits‖ should ―be relevant for the way your journal
publishes articles,‖ versus only 19% who said it should not be relevant. About half
(48%) were not sure. Further, only about one-third (30%) of respondents said that
international laws specifying that ―education should be free to all and generally available
and accessible to all‖ should ―be relevant for the way your journal publishes articles,‖
versus 22% who said it should not be relevant. About half (48%) were not sure.
Additionally, slightly more than one-third (37%) of respondents said that international
laws specifying that ―individuals should be able to enjoy the benefits of scientific
progress and its applications‖ should ―be relevant for the way your journal publishes
articles,‖ versus only 19% who said this should not be relevant. About half (44%) were
not sure.
Finally, almost half (46%) of respondents said that international laws specifying
that ―individuals should be able to benefit from the protection of the moral and material
interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the
25
author‖ should ―be relevant for the way your journal publishes articles,‖ versus only 15%
who said it should not be relevant. Another 39% were not sure.
Table 6 – Relevance of International Declarations/Covenants
Relevance of Articles 19 and 27.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
specifying that all people have the right to ―receive and impart information and
ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers and to enjoy the arts and to
share in scientific advancement and its benefits.‖
Yes 9 (33%)
No 5 (19%)
Unsure 13 (48%)
n = 27
Relevance of Article 13.1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and
Cultural Rights specifying that ―education should be free to all and generally
available and accessible to all.‖
Yes 8 (30%)
No 6 (22%)
Unsure 13 (48%)
n = 27
Relevance of Article 15.1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and
Cultural Rights specifying that ―individuals should be able to enjoy the benefits of
scientific progress and its applications.‖
Yes 10 (37%)
No 5 (19%)
Unsure 12 (44%)
n = 27
Relevance of Article 15.1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and
Cultural Rights specifying that ―individuals should be able to benefit from the
protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary
or artistic production of which he is the author.‖
Yes 12 (46%)
No 4 (15%)
Unsure 10 (39%)
n = 26
26
Thus, a seventh major finding of this work is that journal editors are generally not
sure about the relevance of international law for the way their journals operate. This is
probably not surprising considering the international laws from which these rights arise
are unknown to most. Further, it is unlikely that many journal editors would even
consider these laws as important to their journal functions in the first place. That nearly
half of our respondents thought the final right of individuals being able to benefit from
the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or
artistic production of which he is the author is, however, consistent with open access
publishing.
Note that, in each case, a higher percentage of respondents indicated they
thought that these declarations and covenants are ―relevant for the way your journal
publishes articles‖ than said the declarations and covenants were not relevant. In fact,
in no case did more than 22% of respondents say these kinds of documents were not
relevant.
Yet, given that such a large percentage of our respondents answered ―unsure‖ to
each of these questions, this makes it impossible to determine if relationships exist
between perceived relevance of these international declarations and covenants
pertaining to social justice and outcomes of open access publishing addressed in the
survey. That is, it is not possible for us to determine if those respondents who think
these documents are relevant for journal publishing are more or less likely to support
open access publishing than those who do not think the documents are relevant.
We looked for relationships between numerous variables we treated as
independent variables (e.g., degree of awareness of open access) and others we
27
treated as dependent variables (e.g., support for open access publishing). Although
many were in the expected direction and though some resulted in statistically significant
chi-square values, more than one-fifth of the expected values in the cells of the cross-
tabs were less than five, making the chi-square tests not dependable. Even after
recoding the variables into less categories, this was still a problem, due entirely to our
small sample size. Thus, we recorded the variables of interest into two categories each.
As an example, we recoded the awareness of open access variable into two
categories—those that were very aware of open access versus everyone else (those
who were only somewhat aware of not at all aware). Another example is we recoded
open access opinion variables into two categories—those that strongly favored or
favored open access versus everyone else (those who were neutral, strongly opposed,
opposed, or unsure).
After doing this, most of the chi-square tests we ran were in the direction we
expected, and many were statistically significant. For example, those respondents who
were most aware of open access were more likely to favor ―scholars being able to make
their own work freely available online through a university or agency maintained
electronic repository once it is published than to be neutral, strongly opposed, opposed,
or unsure about this issue (88% versus 12%). This was statistically significant
(X2=6.604, df=1, p=0.01). They were also more like to favor ―scholars being able to
make their own work freely available online through a university or agency maintained
electronic repository once it is published‖ than to be neutral, strongly opposed, opposed,
or unsure about this issue (88% versus 12%). This was statistically significant
(X2=5.729, df=1, p=0.017). They were also more likely to favor ―scholars being able to
28
make their own work freely available online by archiving it on their personal website
once it is published‖ (69% versus 31%), although this was not statistically significant
(X2=1.510, df=1, p=0.219). Finally, they were also more likely to favor ―making scholarly
literature freely available on the public Internet, permitting anyone to read, download,
copy, distribute, or print the full text, without restrictions, other than to give authors
control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and
cited‖ than to be neutral, strongly opposed, opposed, or unsure about this issue (63%
versus 37%), although this was not statistically significant (X2=0.775, df=1, p=0.379).
Those respondents who thought Articles 19 and 27.1 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights specifying that all people have the right to ―receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers and to enjoy the
arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits‖ were relevant were more
likely to favor ―scholars being able to make their own work freely available online
through a university or agency maintained electronic repository once it is published than
to be neutral, strongly opposed, opposed, or unsure about this issue (89% versus 11%).
This was statistically significant (X2=6.075, df=1, p=0.014). They were also more likely
to favor ―scholars being able to make their own work freely available online by archiving
it on their personal website once it is published‖ than to be neutral, strongly opposed,
opposed, or unsure about this issue (89% versus 11%). This was also statistically
significant (X2=3.819, df=1, p=0.049). They were also more likely to favor ―authors of
your journal the right to archive their work independently of the publication on their
institution‘s or agency‘s publically accessible electronic repository‖ than to be neutral,
strongly opposed, opposed, or unsure about this issue (100% versus 0%). This was
29
statistically significant (X2=4.725, df=1, p=0.03). They were also more likely to favor
―scholars being able to own and maintain control of their own work once it is published
in a traditional journal‖ than to be neutral, strongly opposed, opposed, or unsure about
this issue (67% versus 33%), although this was not statistically significant (X2=1.854,
df=1, p=0.173). Finally, they were more likely to favor putting past articles online than to
be neutral, strongly opposed, opposed, or unsure about this issue (78% versus 22%),
although this was not statistically significant (X2=3.635, df=1, p=0.057).
Further, those respondents who thought Article 13.1 of the International
Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights specifying that ―education should be
free to all and generally available and accessible to all‖ was relevant were more likely to
favor ―scholars being able to make their own work freely available online through a
university or agency maintained electronic repository once it is published‖ than to be
neutral, strongly opposed, opposed, or unsure about this issue (88% versus 12%). This
was statistically significant (X2=4.698, df=1, p=0.03). They are also more likely to favor
―scholars being able to make their own work freely available online by archiving it on
their personal website once it is published‖ than to be neutral, strongly opposed,
opposed, or unsure about this issue (88% versus 12%). This was not statistically
significant (X2=2.935, df=1, p=0.087). They were also more likely to favor ―scholars
being able to own and maintain control of their own work once it is published in a
traditional journal‖ than to be neutral, strongly opposed, opposed, or unsure about this
issue (63% versus 37%), although this was not statistically significant (X2=0.938, df=1,
p=0.333). Finally, they were also more likely to favor putting past articles online than to
be neutral, strongly opposed, opposed, or unsure about this issue (75% versus 25%),
30
although this was not statistically significant (X2=2.440, df=1, p=0.118).
Similarly, those respondents who thought Article 15.1 of the International
Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights specifying that ―individuals should
be able to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications‖ were more likely
to favor ―scholars being able to make their own work freely available online through a
university or agency maintained electronic repository once it is published‖ than to be
neutral, strongly opposed, opposed, or unsure about this issue (80% versus 20%). This
was statistically significant (X2=3.844, df=1, p=0.05). They are also more likely to favor
―scholars being able to make their own work freely available online by archiving it on
their personal website once it is published‖ than to be neutral, strongly opposed,
opposed, or unsure about this issue (80% versus 20%), but this was not statistically
significant (X2=1.977, df=1, p=0.160). They were also more likely to favor ―scholars
being able to own and maintain control of their own work once it is published in a
traditional journal‖ than to be neutral, strongly opposed, opposed, or unsure about this
issue (60% versus 40%), although this was not statistically significant (X2=0.894, df=1,
p=0.345). Finally, they were also more likely to favor putting past articles online than to
be neutral, strongly opposed, opposed, or unsure about this issue (70% versus 30%),
although this was not statistically significant (X2=2.095, df=1, p=0.148).
Respondents who thought Article 15.1 of the International Covenant on
Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights specifying that ―individuals should be able to
benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any
scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author‖ were more likely to
favor putting past articles online than to be neutral, strongly opposed, opposed, or
31
unsure about this issue (75% versus 25%), and this was statistically significant
(X2=4.013, df=1, p=0.045). They were also more likely to favor ―scholars being able to
make their own work freely available online by archiving it on their personal website
once it is published‖ than to be neutral, strongly opposed, opposed, or unsure about this
issue (75% versus 25%), although this was not statistically significant (X2=0.910, df=1,
p=0.340).
They are also more likely to favor ―scholars being able to make their own work
freely available online through a university or agency maintained electronic repository
once it is published‖ than to be neutral, strongly opposed, opposed, or unsure about this
issue (83% versus 17%), but this was not statistically significant (X2=0.516, df=1,
p=0.473). Finally, they were more likely to favor ―scholars being able to own and
maintain control of their own work once it is published in a traditional journal‖ than to be
neutral, strongly opposed, opposed, or unsure about this issue (58% versus 42%),
although this was not statistically significant (X2=0.619, df=1, p=0.431).
Thus, a final major finding of this research is that those respondents who are
most aware of open access and of the opinion that international laws are relevant for
the way journals operate are more supportive of open access publishing. This suggests
the possibility that increasing awareness of open access and international law will
increase support of open access publishing.
CONCLUSIONS
This study examined the perceptions of journal editors in criminal justice and
criminology regarding open access and principles of justice related to publishing and
32
author‘s rights. The questions were general in nature and not intended to retrieve the
full detail of the editors‘ knowledge and/or opinions related to various nuanced
approaches to opening access to scholarship. But the survey was useful in beginning to
understand where these major players in journal publishing stand on the broad
questions of open access.
Our study of journal editors found that the journals being edited by our
respondents were largely not consistent with open access. The vast majority of the
journal editors in this study are aware to some extent of open access. Importantly,
journal editors in criminal justice and criminology are highly supportive of the principles
that underlie open access publishing. Yet, support for actual practices of open access is
weaker than support for the principles at the heart of open access. The degree of
support for open access depends on the question being asked, but ranges from 45% to
70%. Yet, in every case, support for the practices of open access was higher than
opposition to it. This leads us to believe that editors of journals in the fields of criminal
justice and criminology may very well be open to seriously considering making their
journals open access at some time in the future; at the least, they are willing to consider
it.
However, among our respondents, journal editors generally have a much more
favorable view of traditional journals than they do of open access journals. Given then a
large percentage of our respondents were ―unsure‖ about this issue, it is possible that
this is due to the editors not being very informed about the quality of scholarship in open
access journals or to a bias for the traditional model for which they have become
33
accustomed. Thus, a logical implication is to make scholars in the field more aware of
open access journals and the scholarship they contain.
Journal editors are not generally favorable of making the journals they edit open
access journals, although support is nearly equal to opposition and a large portion are
either neutral or unsure. Further, more than half of our respondents favor making back
files of journals open access, of giving authors the right to archive their work on
personal websites, and of giving authors the right to archive their work on their
institution‘s or agency‘s publically accessible electronic repository. This is all evidence
of support for open access.
Our journal editors are also generally not sure about the relevance of
international law for the way their journals operate. Even so, almost half of our
respondents thought the right of individuals being able to benefit from the protection of
the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary, or artistic
production of which he or she is the author is relevant for their journal; this is consistent
with open access publishing.
Finally, those respondents who are most aware of open access and of the
opinion that international laws are relevant for the way journals operate are more
supportive of open access publishing. This suggests the possibility that increasing
awareness of open access and international law will increase support for open access
publishing. This may be an important strategy to follow in bringing about open access to
publishing in criminal justice and criminology.
Besides giving us a snapshot of journal editor perceptions of open access, this
study may be beneficial in other ways. The survey gave recipients an opportunity to
34
reflect upon major issues in academic publishing facing both authors and those working
as journal editors. Some of the recipients may not have considered issues that rise from
these questions before and therefore may go forth beyond the occasion of the survey to
pursue further knowledge in these areas, thus enriching their own knowledge and
understanding of the issues. It is the hope of the authors that the interconnected
community of researchers, students, practitioners, scholarly writers, and those working
in the publishing and distribution areas related to the disciplines of criminal justice and
criminology will also benefit from the findings of this study. The time has come for all
members of the scholarly community to grapple with the issues related to authors of
scholarship and their publishers. The academic community in criminal justice and
criminology can only benefit from a clearer understanding of how journal editors—who
are in most cases scholars in the disciplines themselves—regard issues such as
author‘s rights to archive and distribute their intellectual content and the value of
maximizing distribution of scholarship vs. protecting profits of publishers.
LIMITATIONS
This study is limited in several important ways. First, although we made an effort
to include editors of all relevant journals in our fields of criminal justice and criminology,
it was simply not possible to survey editors of all journals in criminal justice and
criminology. Further, to some degree, the process of identifying ―relevant‖ journals is a
matter of opinion. We chose our journals from the leading indexing sources, eliminating
journals that were not directly related to criminal justice and criminology. This process
35
conceivably could have introduced some bias into the findings, although we did not
know who edited any of the journals we considered for inclusion in our population.
Second, our response rate of 45% is acceptable for a study of this kind. Yet, we
cannot confidently say that the findings of our study are generalizable to all editors of
criminal justice and criminology journals. Further, the low sample size makes certain
types of analyses impossible, even basic chi-square tests in many cases. Yet, our
findings are interesting and tell us a good deal about how the journal editors we
surveyed feel about open access publishing in theory and practice. We also hope we‘ve
identified some important unanswered questions that will lead to further research in the
area of open access publishing in criminal justice and criminology, as well as in other
related disciplines. We envision further study in this area through surveys and
interviews with many more journal editors in various fields.
REFERENCES
Blaaij, C. (2006). Public funded research and open access: Perspectives and policies.
Grey Journal, 2(1), 7-16.
Brown, S., & R. Monastersky (2007). Publishers hire PR firm to counter open-access
publishing movement: Former board of ―Topology‖ starts a rival journal. Chronicle of
Higher Education, 53(23), A18.
Cornwell, R., & P. Suber (2008). Perspective on open-access publishing: An interview
with Peter Suber. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 4(4).
36
Directory of Open Access Repositories. Retrieved March 17, 2010 from:
http://www.opendoar.org/countrylist.php?cContinent=North%20America#United%20Stat
es
Harnad, S. (2004) The access/impact problem and the green and gold roads to open
access. Serials Review, 30, 310-314.
Harnad, S., & T. Brody (2004). Comparing the impact of open access (OA) vs. non-OA
articles in the same journal. D-Lib Magazine, 10 (6, June). Retrieved February 16 2007
from: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june04/harnad/06harnad.html
Kelty, C., Fischer, M., Golub, A., Jackson, J., Christen, K., Brown, M., & Boellstorff, T.
(2008). Anthropology of/in circulation: The future of open access and scholarly
societies. Cultural Anthropology, 23 (3), 559-588.
McCabe, M. (2002). ARL Bimonthly Report 207.
Miller, D. (2003). Principles of Social Justice. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
Morrison, H. (2009). Dramatic growth of open access. The Imaginary Journal of Poetic
Economics. Retrieved March 19, 2010 from
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com/2009/12/dramatic-growth-of-open-access-
december.html
Punch, K. (2003). Survey Research: The Basics. London: Sage.
Rawls, J. (2003). Justice as Fairness: A Restatement (2nd rev. ed.). Boston, MA:
Belknap Press.
Registry of Open Access Repository Material Archiving Policies. ROARMAP. Retrieved
January 19, 2010 from: http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup
37
Scherlen, A., & M. Robinson (2008). Open access to criminal justice scholarship: A
matter of social justice. Journal of Criminal Justice Education. 19(1), 54-74.
Sherp-Romeo (2010). Journal policies—Summary statistics so far. Retrieved January
19, 2010 from: http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php10
Tenopir, C. (2004). Open access alternatives. Library Journal, 129(12), 33.
U.S News and World Report (2009). Best graduate schools rankings criminology.
Retrieved February 24, 2010 from: http://grad-
schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-criminology-
schools/rankings.
Watkinson, A. (2006) Open access: a publisher‘s view. LOGOS, 17(1), 12-21.
Willinsky, J. (2006). The access principle; the case for open access to research and
scholarship MIT Press , Cambridge, MA
Willinsky, J. (2002). Democracy and education: The missing link may be ours. Harvard
Educational Review, 72(3), 367-392.
NOTES
i The CJ journal titles found in DOAJ include: Acta Universitatis Danubius : Juridica
(Romania), African Journal of Criminology and Justice Studies (US), AGORA International
Journal of Juridical Sciences (Romania 2007), Boletín Criminológico (Spain), Capítulo
Criminológico (Venezuela), Champ Penal (France), Crimes and Misdemeanours : Deviance and
the Law in Historical Perspective (UK 2007), ERCES : Online Quarterly Review (France),
Hoechstrichterliche Rechtsprechung im Strafrecht (Germany), InDret (Spain), International
Journal of Cyber Criminology (India 2007), International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences
38
(India), Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture (US), Law, Social Justice & Global
Development (UK), Open Criminology Journal (US 2007), Open Forensic Science Journal (US
2008), Política Criminal (Chile), Public Space: The Journal of Law and Social Justice (Australia
2007), Revista CENIPEC (Venezuela), Revista Española de Investigación Criminológica (Spain)
Rivista di Criminologia, Vittimologia e Sicurezza (Italy 2007), Social Justice in Context (US)
Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice (US), Studies in Social Justice (Canada), Unbound :
Harvard Journal of the Legal Left (US), War Crimes, Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity
(US), Western Criminology Review (US), Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik
(Germany). Those added in 2007 are noted above with a date.
ii The authors’ open access institutional repository, NC-DOCKS, according to the librarians
involved with adding articles to the archive, has made numerous requests to journals on behalf of
its authors for permission to include articles in the IR and has to date received only one denial.
iii Search of Criminal Justice Periodical Index, hosted by Proquest.umi.com June 24, 2010
