Text Box: editors provide a list of articles submitted for review by title, subject, reviewers, and authors, indicating the outcome for each submission. But, the world isn't perfect. Most editors do not have the interest or time to prepare this kind of information and, since reviews are anonymous, it is unlikely that editors would release the names of reviewers or authors. Besides, in conducting such a study, knowing what happens to articles at one or more mainstream journals would not necessarily provide enough information to reach solid conclusions concerning publication bias. Confirming this kind of bias counters similar difficulties to those found in studying cases of institutionalized racism or sexism, which are devoid of explicitly racist or sexist utterances by managers or organizational policy statements. Causal interpretations of bias have focused on how unjust consequences can flow from seemingly unbiased practices, because the consequences, in these cases, speak louder than words. To critical criminologists, the consequences themselves are readily apparent. Articles published in Criminology, for instance, are overwhelmingly restricted to individual treatment or control strategies or technocratically oriented theories like social control and strain. Sophisticated inquiries into the social construction of identities the analysis of texts, or macro-economic causation or social policies, stimulated by ecologists, post-modernists, feminists, anarchists, humanists and Marxists in other fields, for instance, are hardly ever found in Criminology. Its articles by and large operate in the service of an abstract empiricism -- the endless reproduction of long known but now-a-days trivial findings that takes the place of genuinely new discoveries and innovative theories and methods for studying the causes, characteristics and control of crime. Even in regard to delinquency, a major topic in mainstream journals, the avoidance of long-standing critical theories, fruitful methods and empirical research is astonishing. Virtually none of the people who have published delinquency articles in Criminology are participant observers, conduct field experiments or actually engage in network analysis. And most of them subscribe to reductionist paradigms. To capture the biased character of leading mainstream journals, Bruce Arrigo has recommended a content analysis of several leading mainstream journals. Text Box: The Critical Criminologist Text Box: Page # Text Box: A Question of Method and Meaning Michael J. Lynch, Julia Schwendinger and Herman Schwendinger Department of Criminology University of South Florida, Tampa Are critical criminologists being published in mainstream journals? The Division has been debating this issue.1 Underlying this debate, of course, is a disturbing awareness of the inexcusable influence that politically biased fashions have on editorial policies. Some time ago, for example, Michael Levi (1995:141) noted a similar condition when he contended that editorial bias explained why some Americans did not cite British criminologists. British work is less well known because ‘American journals,’ he declared, ‘will not take articles about phenomena outside the US unless they deal with crime surveys, models of juvenile delinquency, and quantitative studies of criminal careers which, with rare exception, exclude the careers of white-collar criminals such as the Watergate conspirators, convicted corporate recidivists, and ‘foreign imports’ such as ex-President Noriega.’2 Unfortunately, the exclusion of critical scholarship from mainstream publications hasn’t been studied even though designing such a study would, at first, not seem difficult. In a perfect world, one would merely request that journal