Skip to main content

Publishing law and society research from outside North America: Reflections from an Eastern European Perspective


By Mihaela Serban

Associate Professor of Law & Society, Ramapo College of New Jersey

Together, the Law & Society Review (LSR) and Law & Social Inquiry (LSI), the main law and society journals in the United States, have published 603 research articles in the past ten years (excluding symposia and book reviews). Only 15 articles had as their geographical focus Central and Eastern Europe, Balkans, Russia, and Eurasia (CEE), and almost half of these were on Russia. This is a remarkably low number (2.5-percent), despite a significant increase in the number of articles not focused on the United States published since 2000. Overall, there is unequal representation of various regions and countries, reflecting the global economy of power, the range of national and regional law and society traditions, and their geographic and political closeness to the United States (China, India, Canada, and Israel, for example, are all well represented).

Why so few articles from a region that has been a veritable law and society laboratory since at least 1989? Major impediments, perhaps also applicable to other regions, include: the low number of submissions from and on the region, lack of awareness of law and society as an autonomous research and publication space, a hyper-positivist legal tradition in many of the countries of the region that discourages interdisciplinary research, and distinctive academic traditions, contexts, and networks.

As a graduate student and early career academic originally from Romania, I gradually became aware of the effects of implicit academic socialization that privileges North American law and society research for these journals (the overly US focused and Eurocentric tradition has been noted before). I hope these reflections will be helpful to other students and scholars from the region. I learned that top journals like the LSR value the theoretical contribution of articles, their sound empirical basis (regardless of methodology), and their reach to a relatively broad scholarly audience. The theoretical contribution as understood by the journal’s North American readers and editors requires authors to engage with US law and society scholarship, signaling that the author belongs to a specific scholarship community. Western-based authors already know this is expected, but it is less transparent to non-North American authors. Knowing that there is a law and society “canon” in the first place, and having access to it, are significant obstacles. Language, of course, is a separate and more general obstacle for non-native speakers.

As an author, it has been challenging to reach a broad scholarly audience as I have to situate regionally-specific topics in a particular North American sub-field, and separately to justify why a regional/national study has general appeal. Practically, this means addressing multiple scholarly literatures (North American and context-specific), which raises the bar while posing unique “word limit” challenges. Other structural barriers include the low number of peer reviewers, and the very competitive publication market (LSR’s acceptance rate is around 7-10 percent).

As a peer reviewer, I noticed some common challenges for authors from the region. Some, like descriptiveness, are partially intrinsic to writing about a non-US locale. Others, like weak theoretical frameworks and not addressing the relevant North American law and society literature, arise from a lack of awareness of the structural requirements for these journals. As an author interested in publishing sociolegal work in the US, but whose specific focus is CEE, I think carefully about my audience and always try to understand the field and what the journal publishes. Past issues of the LSR and LSI and the presidential addresses and responses offer a good sense of “the pulse” of law and society. I also pay close attention to the structure of articles published and the motivations of their authors for writing them, and consequently try to have a clear organizational structure. The first time I received a “revise and resubmit” response (the result of the peer-review process), I did not immediately know it was a good outcome. I addressed, however, every point raised by the reviewers in revision, even those I eventually rejected. I work and rework my argument until it becomes as clear as possible, and pay special attention to addressing the theoretical “value added” of my research (the “so-what” question). Ultimately, however, this is a two-way street, and hopefully the North American law and society community, and implicitly its flagship journals, will be increasingly more open to other scholarly traditions.

Popular posts from this blog

How do text messages complicate contemporary sexual assault adjudication?

By Heather Hlavka and Sameena Mulla 
Department of Social and Cultural Sciences, Marquette University


“There’s no video, no injury. It’s purely one hundred percent ‘he said, she said.’ They had a terrible relationship. They were nasty to each other and they don’t get along well, probably never will. But there is no evidence to support the state’s case, other than their words.” Our article, “’That’s How She Talks’: Animating Text Message Evidence in the Sexual Assault Trial,” begins with these familiar words offered by a defense attorney during a sexual assault trial in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The oft-invoked trope of “he said, she said” in cases of sexual violence suggests that without third-party eye witness testimony or material evidence, sexual assault allegations rest on conflicting reports provided by victims, the accused, and other witnesses. But how do trial attorneys reinvent this trope when the words of the witnesses are preserved as text messages?

Text messages are recorded co…

Submit Your Papers to Law & Society Review!

Rebecca L. Sandefur

 The Law and Society Association and the whole field of law and society research owe an enormous debt of gratitude to Jeannine Bell, Susan Sterett, and Margot Young, for their work as Editors of Law & Society Review.As incoming Editor, I am grateful to them for their stewardship of the journal, their generous support of authors and aspiring authors, and their innovations to the Review, including this blog.
The incoming Editorial Board has begun receiving new manuscripts as they are submitted. Jon Gould, Robert Lawless, Elizabeth Mertz, Jennifer Robbennolt and Nicole Gonzalez Van Cleve have generously agreed to serve in this role. Together with participation from the Editorial Advisory Board -- a group deeply appreciated and too numerous to list here -- these scholars’ contributions expand the expertise of the journal’s editorial office across disciplines, methods, theoretical traditions, and regions of the world. Danielle McClellan continues to steady the ship …

TASER Technology and Police Officers’ Understanding and Use of Force

Michael Sierra-Arévalo
Rutgers University-Newark

The TASER--a weapon that uses electric current to incapacitate a subject by causing complete neuromuscular incapacitation--is ubiquitous among U.S. police officers. Spurred by pressure to reduce the lethality of police force, this force technology it is now used by more than 17,000 U.S. law enforcement agencies.

Proponents of TASERs are quick to point out that research shows that most TASER deployments do not result in serious injury or death, and that TASERs provide officers with a useful, less-than-lethal alternative to their firearms. TASER critics, in turn, emphasize that even if TASERs are rarely lethal, 50,000 volts cause excruciating pain, fear, and psychological distress. They further emphasize that the TASER, like any weapon, can still be misused by police officers.

Though a large body of research examines police force, little is known about how officers make their use-of-force decisions in light of this new, less-than-lethal t…