| name | crim-topic-selection |
| description | Use when deciding whether a project fits Criminology (ASC / Wiley) and whether to target a full Article or a Research Note. Criminology is the discipline's interdisciplinary flagship, so the test is a general criminological contribution about the etiology, patterning, or control of crime — not a dataset-specific correlation. Helps frame the question; it does not collect data. |
Topic Selection & Fit (crim-topic-selection)
Criminology is the general flagship of the field, not a regional or specialty outlet. The bar is
not "new to my dataset" — it is "advances how criminology understands crime, deviance, or its
control." Use this skill to pressure-test fit before you invest.
When to trigger
- Choosing among possible projects or framings for a Criminology submission
- A reviewer/colleague said the paper feels "descriptive," "atheoretical," or "a policy memo"
- Deciding between a full Article and a Research Note
- Considering a replication/reappraisal of an influential published finding
The Criminology fit test
A strong Criminology paper usually clears all four:
- General criminological significance. It speaks to a core question of the field — etiology of
offending, the age–crime curve, criminal careers and desistance, victimization, deterrence,
neighborhoods and crime, or the legitimacy/effects of the criminal-legal system — not just one
jurisdiction's numbers.
- A theoretical contribution, not just a finding. It tests, extends, adjudicates, or revises a
theory (strain, control, social learning, life-course, routine activity, labeling, procedural
justice), or it advances measurement.
- Credible on its own methodological terms. Quantitative, qualitative, or mixed — each is welcome,
but each must be rigorous (see
crim-research-design).
- A clean, answerable scope. Sharp enough to answer convincingly; a Research Note carries one
crisp point, an Article carries a full argument.
Distinguish from a policy paper (and from sociology-generic)
| Looks like… | Reframe toward Criminology by… |
|---|
| A program evaluation | foregrounding the criminological mechanism the program reveals (sister journal CPP is the policy outlet) |
| A sociology paper that happens to use crime | tying it to a criminological theory and to the field's debates |
| A descriptive crime-trend report | asking what it tells us about why offending varies, not just that it does |
| A pure methods demo | showing the substantive criminological question the method newly answers |
Article vs. Research Note
- Article — full study, full theoretical argument, complete evidentiary load.
- Research Note — one focused, self-contained contribution (a decisive test, a measurement advance,
a targeted reappraisal). Do not pad it into an Article; check the live Wiley Research Note description
for the current numeric cap before committing to the format.
Anti-patterns
- "It hasn't been studied in city X" as the whole contribution (descriptive, local-only)
- A crime correlation with no theory and no mechanism
- A policy-effectiveness question better suited to Criminology & Public Policy
- Choosing Article length out of habit when a Research Note would land harder
What an ASC-flagship editor screens for (desk-reject grid)
Criminology is the official journal of the American Society of Criminology, published by Wiley, and
its editorial team triages hard at the desk. The disposition column is the common pattern, not a rule —
editor discretion governs, so confirm scope wording against the journal's current submission guidelines.
| Manuscript signal at the desk | Likely editor read | Typical disposition |
|---|
| New crime correlation, theory only named | "invoked, not tested" | desk-return |
| Single-agency program evaluation | belongs at Criminology & Public Policy | redirect to sister journal |
| Strong design, weak mechanism link | sound but generic | review, low enthusiasm |
| Theory test + within-person ID + measured offending | flagship-shaped | expert review |
Diagnostic the desk applies: would a criminologist studying a different offense, cohort, or place
change how they think after reading this? A "no" predicts a return; a "yes" predicts review.
Worked vignette: fit for a desistance study (illustrative)
A researcher has 15 waves of offender data (illustrative) and finds men who marry between waves report
about 40% fewer self-reported offenses. The between-person 40% gap is weak fit; reframed as "does
entering marriage produce within-person desistance net of selection" it tests Sampson and Laub's
age-graded informal social control against a self-selection rival, and becomes a flagship-level Article.
Referee-pushback patterns at the fit stage (Criminology fix)
- "Theory invoked, not tested." Fix: pre-commit to one prediction your theory makes that a rival does not.
- "Selection into offending, not an effect." Fix: state how within-person variation separates the turning point from the people who select in.
- "Reads like a policy memo." Fix: foreground the mechanism; route effectiveness questions to Criminology & Public Policy.
Output format
【Question】one sentence
【Criminological significance】which core debate it advances, and why it travels
【Contribution type】theory test / extension / adjudication / measurement / reappraisal
【Type】Article / Research Note
【Fit verdict】strong / needs reframing / better at a sister journal (why)
【Next】crim-literature-positioning
Supplementary resources
