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.

中文翻译：

---

犯罪学和刑事司法领域的顶级国际期刊有多国际化？

本文的目的是评估国际非英裔美国人参与主要国际犯罪学和刑法期刊的编辑委员会和内容的程度，以调查报告的对非英裔美国人材料的偏见。该研究使用了十个犯罪学和刑法领域的主要期刊的编辑委员会和内容分析，这些期刊是根据自己的目标和范围的描述选择的，因为它们具有国际参与度。发现这十种期刊中的大多数都具有较低的国际参与度，英美作者和数据的比例很高，并且编辑委员会中的英美成员比例很高。编辑委员会的分析还揭示了与期刊委员会的机构联系以及编辑委员会之间成员重叠的网络。这表明存在英美学者网络，他们自然倾向于支持符合他们世界观的研究。这样的网络创造了一个知识层次，有利于美国和英国产生的知识，并促进英美学者和内容的科学成功。然而，尽管英美主导的阴影继续笼罩着这两个领域，但也有证据表明研究和作者的多样性正在增加。也许，我们正在进入研究国际主义的新时代。尽管英美主导的阴影继续笼罩着这两个领域，但也有证据表明研究和作者的多样性正在增加。也许，我们正在进入研究国际主义的新时代。尽管英美主导的阴影继续笼罩着这两个领域，但也有证据表明研究和作者的多样性正在增加。也许，我们正在进入研究国际主义的新时代。