Skip to main content
Log in

Editor’s introduction

  • Published:
Journal of Experimental Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Boruch, R., Petrosino, A. & Chalmers, I. (1999). The Campbell collaboration: A proposal for systematic, multi-national, and continuous reviews of evidence. Background paper for the meeting at University College-London, School of Public Policy, July.

  • Boruch, R., Snyder, B. & DeMoya, D. (2000). The importance of randomized field trials. Crime and Delinquency 46, 156–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, I. & Altman, D. (1995). Systematic reviews. London: British Medicial Journal Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, F. & Gendreau, P. (2000). Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy, practice, and prospects. In J. Horney (Ed.), Policies, processes, and decisions of the criminal justice system: Criminal justice 3. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, P. (1999). What Is evidence-based education? British Journal of Educational Studies 47, 108–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, H. T. O., Sandra, N. & Smith, P. (2000). What works: Evidence-based policy and practice in public services. London: Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egger, M. & Smith, G. D. (1998). Bias in location and selection of studies. British Medical Journal 316, 61–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrington, D. P. & Petrosino, A. (2000). Systematic reviews of criminological interventions: The Campbell Collaboration Crime & Justice Group. International Annals of Criminology 38(1/2), 49–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrington, D. & A. Petrosino. (2001). The Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 58, 35–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrington, D., Welsh, B. (2005). Randomized experiments in criminology: What have we learned in the last two decades? Journal of Experimental Criminology 1(1), 9–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feder, L., Jolin, A. & Feyerherm, W. (2000). Lessons from two randomized experiments in criminal justice settings. Crime and Delinquency 46(3), 380–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flay & Best. (1982). Overcoming design problems in evaluating health behavior programs. Evaluation and the Health Professions 5(1), 43–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, J. & Smith, J. A. (1995). Assessing the case for social experiments. Journal of Economic Perspectives 9(2), 85–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lum, C., Yang, S.-M. (2004). Why do evaluation researchers in crime and justice choose non-experimental methods? Journal of Experimental Criminology (forthcoming).

  • MacKenzie, D. (2000). Evidence-based corrections: Identifying what works. Crime and Delinquency 46, 457–471.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millenson, M. L. (1997). Demanding medical excellence: Doctors and accountability in the information age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nutley, S. & Davies, H. T. O. (1999). The fall and rise of evidence in criminal justice. Public Money and Management 19, 47–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrosino, A., Boruch, R., Soydan, H., Duggan, L. & Sanchez-Meca, J. (2001). Meeting the challenges of evidence-based policy: The Campbell Collaboration. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 578, 14–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrosino, A., Boruch, R., Farrington, D., Sherman, L. & Weisburd, D. (2003). Towards evidence-based criminology and criminal justice: Systematic reviews and the Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group. The International Journal of Comparative Criminology 3(1), 18–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shadish, W., Cook, T. & Campbell, D. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, L. (1998). Evidence-based policing. Ideas in american policing, July. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, L., Farrington, D., Welsh, B. & MacKenzie, D. (Eds.). (2002). Evidence based crime prevention. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visher, C. A. & Weisburd, D. (1998). Identifying what works: Recent trends in crime prevention. Crime, Law and Social Change 28, 223–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisburd, D. (2003). Ethical practice and evaluation of interventions in crime and justice. Evaluation Review 27, 336–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisburd, D., Lum, C. & Petrosino, A. (2001). Does research design affect study outcomes in criminal justice? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 578, 50–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, L. & Task Force on Statistical Inference. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist 54, 594–604.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuger, A. (1997). New Way of doctoring: By the book. New York Times, 16 December.

Download references

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Editor’s introduction. J Exp Criminol 1, 1–8 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-005-0573-y

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-005-0573-y

Keywords

Navigation