8/2/2019 Terrorism Review Protocol
1/32
CAMBPELL SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL
COVER SHEET
TITLE:
Strategies Related to the Prevention, Detection, Management and Response to Terrorism: ACampbell Systematic Review.
AUTHORS:
Dr. Cynthia Lum, Assistant Professor
Northeastern University
College of Criminal Justice415 Churchill Hall
Boston, MA 02115(617) 373-4076
Dr. Leslie W. Kennedy, Dean
Rutgers University
School of Criminal Justice
8/2/2019 Terrorism Review Protocol
2/32
BACKGROUND FOR THE REVIEW
INTRODUCTION
Social scientists have often responded to events, crises and public concerns through
research. In crime and justice, for example, the increase in crime rates and imprisonment in the
1970s and 80s (see Blumstein and Wallman, 2000) and the debate over the effectiveness of
rehabilitation (Lipton, Martinson and Wilks, 1975; MacKenzie, 1997) led to a large amount of
research on imprisonment, sentencing schemes and alternative corrections (Blumstein, 1988).
Similarly, heightened awareness of domestic violence and outrage towards police responses to
these incidents resulted in increased attention to the issue by criminologists and later to policy
responses reflecting research (Sherman, 1992). This same policy focus and attempts to influence
current policies can be seen in research on high-profile concerns about gangs and drugs (Lane
8/2/2019 Terrorism Review Protocol
3/32
these endeavors. This movement has served important functions in improving both the quality of
research as well as properly informed practice in areas such as police patrol, corrections-based
schemes, juvenile diversion, treatment of sex offenders, and sentencing practices. Evidence-
based perspectives can also provide a moderating effect on policy-responses to crises that have
become more influenced by moral panics (Cohen, 1972) than by reason or facts. For example,
the use of boot camps to control the juvenile superpredator has been widely discounted by
much research evaluating the effective ness of these programs (see Gover, MacKenzie and Styve,
2000) counter-balancing the popular movement towards utilizing these approaches in controlling
juvenile crime.
The current public concern over terrorism also presents similar controversies and
research challenges. While counter-terrorism and terrorism prevention programs have
blossomed considerably since September 11th
, there has been little evaluation of either the
8/2/2019 Terrorism Review Protocol
4/32
as terrorism (including ethnic conflict) then we might also have to include strategies such as
war, government suppression, laws that manipulate boundaries or peace treaties as possible
strategies to evaluate. Even more problematic may be political goals and biases that underlie
terrorism research. For example, one might argue that anti-terrorism effectiveness is measured
when there is political suppression of opposition parties, which may not be valued in democratic
societies. Other strategies may seem effective but may be in gross violation of human rights
norms, such as the inhumane treatment of prisoners or other corrective policies that may not be
acceptable in many societies.
Additionally, like much of crime, political violence involves multiple points at which
interventions may be effective and where outcomes might be measured. For example, ant i-
terrorism strategies may include prevention and alleviation of early risk factors, situational
prevention of actual events, or post-event responses. Furthermore, because of the rare nature of
8/2/2019 Terrorism Review Protocol
5/32
know what works, doesnt work or is promising (see Sherman et al., 1997) in terms of the
most optimal use of resources. This review will function as a mechanism to systematically
collect and comprehend the scattered research on terrorism that takes place across multiple
disciplines and countries. Secondly, a systematic review may also expose what little we really
know about the effects and effectiveness of anti-terrorism strategies and areas of possible future
research. This may not only shape research agendas but may also shape more thoughtful policy
development as well. Currently, the state of terrorism research, although vast in many respects,
does little to critically evaluate the effectiveness and effects of programs designed to combat
terrorism and we have already seen harmful effects of policies which we know little about.
A PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF TERRORISM LITERATURE
Before approaching a review of anti-terrorism strategies, a preliminary and general
8/2/2019 Terrorism Review Protocol
6/32
article located, the author, year, title, citation, abstract and keywords were recorded.
Because of the volume of the initial literature search, publications were first divided
according to the review status of their sources and only abstracts from peer-reviewed sources
were individually read. Again, it should be emphasized that the filters used for this preliminary
review will be re-evaluated when searching only for research on the evaluation of anti-terrorism
strategies. The focus on peer-reviewed sources was not only practically necessary due to the
volume of the literature, but served as a preliminary filter for understanding the quality and
substance of academic research on terrorism and political violence. Many of the articles from
non peer-reviewed sources were either news reports, opinion-editorials, advertisements,
announcements or bulletins that would not normally be considered research. To separate
articles from peer-reviewed sources, a list of peer-reviewed journals was generated using peer-
review lists compiled by EBSCO,4
OCLC,5
the American Medical Association,6
and the
8/2/2019 Terrorism Review Protocol
7/32
bombing in 1995 nor any other significant terrorist event, including the World Trade Center
bombing in 1993, has ever generated this much research interest.
[FIGURE 1 HERE]
This exponential growth of research reflects not only the response to September 11th by
researchers, but also increases in federal funding for research and development related to
terrorism over the fiscal years following the attacks (Guinnessy and Dawson, 2002; Issues in
Science and Technology, 2002; Macilwain, 2002; Silke, 2004, generally). Although time will
tell whether this substantial increase is a fad, this trend is indeed currently significant, pointing
to the relevance of terrorism research generally. Furthermore, this increase in research has also
been matched by the massive build-up of anti-terrorism efforts and bureaucracy, much of which
we have little or no understanding as to their effectiveness or consequences. Thus, not only is
interest and concern of terrorism real, but substantive and institutionalized changes have made
8/2/2019 Terrorism Review Protocol
8/32
for each study, the volume of studies did not allow us to individually read every article for this
preliminary review. However, we anticipate that this limitation is a minor source of error that
does not largely impact our general findings (and for the Campbell review articles will be
scrutinized in-full). Three basic categorizations were preliminarily developed to facilitate further
identification of articles that may be useful to a Campbell Review: thought pieces, case
studies, and empirically-based research. Briefly, thought pieces were classified as
publications that were philosophical, theoretical or opinion-based without any indication that a
case study or empirical analysis of a topic was undertaken. For example, articles discussing
problems with defining terrorism, legal issues surrounding 9-11, historical accounts of a
particular conflict, descriptions of a particular emergency response or opinions about the
governments policy towards counter-terrorism would be categorized as thought pieces. Case
studies became a somewhat confusing category (as some case studies could be thought pieces
8/2/2019 Terrorism Review Protocol
9/32
of terrorism, attitudes towards the U.S. after September 11th, and multivariate analysis on factors
contributing to the development of terrorist groups.
Figure 2 shows the distribution of the type of methodology for all articles in peer -
reviewed publications where an abstract was available. Although thought pieces certainly have
their own value in furthering the understanding of any topic, the research on terrorism has been
bereft of empirical research, a problem which has been endemic in terrorism research since
Schmid and Jongmans review in 1988. This problem has not improved after September 11th
;
when only examining the research conducted in 2001 and 2002, the proportion of empirical or
case studies was similar.
[FIGURE 2 HERE]
The dearth of empirical analysis in peer-reviewed sources suggests a number of possible
concerns. First, practical problems in either qualitatively or quantitatively studying terrorism are
8/2/2019 Terrorism Review Protocol
10/32
in this research (and specifically how much of the general research reflected evaluation studies).
To understand the distribution of subjects researched regarding terrorism, a coding schema was
developed by initially taking a random sample of 200 articles from the peer-reviewed journals
which were then individually examined to develop a preliminary list of topics. This was done so
as not to force subjects into pre-defined categories. Then, each of the citations from peer-
reviewed sources that had abstracts were individually read and matched to this preliminary list,
which was actively modified during this process. Thirty-five general categories initially
emerged which were collapsed into seventeen categories shown in Table 1. Table 1 also reports
the distribution of these categorizations for just those articles which were deemed empirical
studies.
[TABLE 1 HERE]
A number of interesting findings emerged. Generally, issues related to weapons of mass
8/2/2019 Terrorism Review Protocol
11/32
that are also under-researched. This may include, for example, violations of civil rights,
increases in law enforcement powers with questionable constitutionality, or post-traumatic
psychological effects on victims. Little is known generally about the effectiveness of law
enforcement and other non-political responses to terrorist events. Although legal issues have
been more researched, they still represent only a small percentage of terrorism-related research.
This is also true for issues related to coping with terrorism events and the general victimology of
terrorism. Additionally, when thinking about future threats, such correlations between terrorism
and religion, socio-economic factors and political responses have yet to be made.
When examining those articles preliminarily deemed to be empirical, the findings are
both encouraging and discouraging. While a quarter of the empirical work has been conducted
on victimology, a subject relevant to our search for evaluation studies, and while it is anticipated
that within the literature on weapons of mass destruction there may be empirical tests, we also
8/2/2019 Terrorism Review Protocol
12/32
provided important pressures to study a wide variety of terrorism-related issues. Government
agencies, law enforcement and other first responders in major cities have changed their
organizations to accommodate these concerns, for example, focusing on the possibility of
responding to biological agents or to mass casualties. Both the social environment after
September 11th as well as the Patriot Act8 have affected and changed police perceptions of
equity, due process, racial profiling and definitions of suspiciousness. Our court systems are
now faced with individuals charged with a number of newly passed or recently revived anti-
terrorism laws. And, the mass mobilization of federal agencies pushes us to ask about their
effectiveness, appropriateness and their relationship to our multi-cultural society. Many of these
concerns have been matched by increased funding from granting agencies for terrorism research
and anti-terrorism policy options (Guinnesy and Dawson, 2002; Macilwain, 2002) as well as
calls to service by policy makers (Arlacchi, 2001; Parachini, 1999).
8/2/2019 Terrorism Review Protocol
13/32
informed, evidence-based terrorism policies, a mandate which has become an important part of
research agendas (Sherman et al., 2002; Weisburd, Petrosino and Lum, 2003).
This review suggests that social scientists can contribute through the evaluation of the
effectiveness and effects of anti-terrorism policy towards more meaningful evidence-based
approaches. In informing the public discourse about terrorism, particularly in the context of the
major shift in discussions about security that impact on all parts of society, there needs to be a
push for more quality research. Policy-makers need thoughtful, evidence-based, information
utilizing available databases, as well as the continued search for and acquisition of further
sources of data. The next sections outline the protocol for a Campbell systematic review of anti-
terrorism strategies.
METHODOLOGY
8/2/2019 Terrorism Review Protocol
14/32
institution (e.g., the police, courts or corrections) are still crime-relevant (such as those strategies
implemented in schools or by businesses or communities). Thus, we feel that a broad approach
is warranted in creating the initial base of literature to examine. We propose to include
evaluations of any strategy that involves the prevention, detection, management or response to
terrorism events and incidents. While this may seem to be a difficult and disadvantaging task,
our preliminary analysis shows that only 3% of our peer reviewed literature is empirically
based, suggesting that the there may only be a couple of hundred empirically-based studies to
begin with. While we will have to extend our search to 2003 and 2004 as well as look at all
publication mediums (books, non-peer review materials, unpublished papers, government
reports), we anticipate that the number of evaluations will be manageable despite our broad
inclusion criteria.
However, as already discussed, one main obstacle when seeking out evaluations of
8/2/2019 Terrorism Review Protocol
15/32
Following from these broad criteria, our search will encompass the aforementioned four
categories of anti-terrorism strategies (although if another relevant category arises, we will be
open to creating new categories): preventative, detection-oriented, managerial and response-
oriented. We take this approach as we recognize that there are a number of points before, during
and after a terrorist event in which strategies may be implemented (see Schmid, 1983; Walter,
1969). Prevention strategies are strategies designed to deter future events and might include
airport security measures or target hardening evaluations. Studies on the preventative effects of
legal measures (such as the Patriot Act) would also be included, for example. Research on
detection strategies may include interventions related to, for example, airport security, but also
might include evaluations of measures used to look into containers, border-related strategies,
immigration policy or other tactics used to detect people, places, things or situations involved in
terror-related activity. Managing strategies point to tactics after the fact and can include
8/2/2019 Terrorism Review Protocol
16/32
inclusion criteria above. Thus, the identification of any study based on empirical data will
initially be considered. However, because this review will also have policy implications, we
intend to specify our sample, within this group of empirical studies, to those studies that would
satisfy moderate methodological requirements as described below. While we will use the
Maryland Report Scientific Methods Score (see Sherman et al., 1997) of 3 as a general
guideline, each study will be evaluated on its own. However, when reporting our results, we
will remain extremely sensitive to the way we present our findings, emphasizing continuously
that lower methodological rigor may lead to incorrect conclusions. Studies that will be excluded
from this review will be thought pieces which have no empirical analysis of the effects or
effectiveness of anti-terrorism strategies or that do not have any outcome measured for programs
discussed.
8/2/2019 Terrorism Review Protocol
17/32
sources. Additionally, Alex Piquero, of the University of Florida, Gainesville and Gary LaFree,
of the University of Maryland, College Park, have also conducted a review of hijacking which
we will seek to add to our study with their permission. Other terrorism literature will also be
searched, including evaluations from books and non-article mediums , government publications
and unpublished material. We will also seek the assistance of a number of international scholars,
who may be of assistance in locating research not present in these databases or that may not
initially be in the English language. Finally, we will conduct an internet search to capture any
other evaluations that may have been missed and that satisfy our me thodological criteria.
In accordance with our broad definitions as mentioned above, we will conduct a
widespread search of multiple terms related to terrorism and their derivatives (which may be
added to or adjusted as required). Some examples of these terms include : terrorism, political
violence, political crime, emergency response, riots, anti-Semitic, white supremacist,
8/2/2019 Terrorism Review Protocol
18/32
Sherman et al., 1997; Sherman et al., 2002) in terms of the studys rating on the Sc ientific
Methods Scale (SMS). Moderately rigorous studies will be those who could be rated a 3 on
the SMS scale, although we will evaluate each study on its own merits. Furthermore, we found
Farringtons (2003) criteria to also be helpful in determining the scientific validity of studies and
will use both guidance form the Sherman et al.s SMS and Farringtons discussion of validity.
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINATION OF INDEPENDENT FINDINGS
We anticipate that an evaluation research study may include multiple findings on a
variety of different types of strategies or on different study samples. Each research work will be
reviewed in terms of whether outcomes arise from different samples, or if different outcomes
arise from the same study samples. For those arising from independent samples but reported in
one article or book, we will treat as separate findings. For multiple findings from the same
8/2/2019 Terrorism Review Protocol
19/32
conclusions made by authors will also be recorded. Because the number of studies finally used
in the systematic review is anticipated to be small, multiple authors of this review will separately
analyze each study and come to a consensus about the coding of the data.
STATISTICAL PROCEDURES AND CONVENTIONS
The results of each study will be summarized and presented in table format listing
relevant variables such as findings, effect sizes, statistical significance, type of intervention and
type of methodology used. If possible, meta-analytic approaches to combining data from studies
will be used (see Lipsey and Wilson, 2001). When possible, the authors will calculate effect
sizes if enough data is present in the study results to do so. We plan to use commonly accepted
standardized measures of effect sizes (see Lipsey and Wilson, 2001; Rosenthal, 1991) to
calculate and compare effect sizes. Furthermore, a general assessment will be made as to
8/2/2019 Terrorism Review Protocol
20/32
March 2005 April 2005: Preliminary analysis of data and possible preparation for
presentation at professional conferences.
April 2005 December 2005: Final completion of data analysis, write up and presentation for
review.
PLANS FOR UPDATING THE REVIEW
It is anticipated the in January of 2007, the primary investigator will initiate the process
for updating this review.
ACKNOWLDEGMENTS
We would like to acknowledge the invaluable assistance of Louise Stanton and Michele
Grillo who assisted in the general review described in the Background section of this protocol.
8/2/2019 Terrorism Review Protocol
21/32
University of Chicago Press.
Blumstein, A. and Wallman, J. (eds.). (2000). The crime drop in America. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, Stan. (1972). Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers .
Oxford: Blackwell.
Farrall, S., Bannister, J., Ditton, J., and Gilchrist, E. (1997). Open and closed question. Social
research update 17. University of Surrey. [On-line]. Available:
http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/SRU17.html.
Farrington, David. (2003). Methodological Quality Standards for Evaluation Research. The
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 587(1) , 49-68.
Gover, A., D. MacKenzie, G. Styve. (2000). Boot Camps and Traditional Correctional Facilitiesfor Juveniles: A Comparison of the Participants, Daily Activities, and Environments.
Journal of Criminal Justice 28(1): 53-68.
Guinnessy, J., and Dawson. P. (2002). Terrorism drives Bush R&D money to defense and NIJ;
The science funding flat in fiscal 2003. Physics Today, 55, 30.
Halkides, M. (1995). How not to study terrorism. Peace Review, 7, 253-260.
8/2/2019 Terrorism Review Protocol
22/32
Macilwain, C. (2002). Bush goes to war as budget boosts R&D. Nature, 415, 564.
MacKenzie, D. (1997). Criminal justice and crime prevention. In Sherman, Lawrence, DeniseGottfredson, Doris MacKenzie, John Eck, Peter Reuter and Shawn Bushway (eds.)
Preventing crime: What works, what doesnt, whats promising. Washington, DC:
National Institute of Justice.
MacKenzie, D. (2000). Evidence-Based Corrections: Identifying What Works. Crime and
Delinquency 46:457-71.
Miller, R. (1988). The literature of terrorism. Terrorism, 11, 63-87.
Parachini, J. (1999). Combating terrorism: Assessing the threat. Testimony to the HouseSubcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs and International Relations
(October 20, 1999). [On-line]. Available:http://lxmi.mi.infn.it/~landnet/Biosec/parachini.pdf.
Reuter, P. (2001). Why does research have so little impact on drug policy? Addiction, 96, 373-376.
Romano, T. (1984). Terrorism: An analysis of the literature. Dissertation. Fordham
University, Department of Sociology, Criminology and Penology.
8/2/2019 Terrorism Review Protocol
23/32
Silke, Andrew (ed.). (2004). Research on Terrorism: Trends, Achievements and Failures. New
York: Taylor and Francis.
Walter, E.V. (1969). Terror and Resistance: A Study of Political Violence with Case Studies of
Some Primitive African Communities. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Weisburd, David, Cynthia M. Lum, and Anthony Petrosino. (2001). Does Research Design
Affect Study Outcomes in Criminal Justice? Annals of the American Academy ofPolitical and Social Science 578:50-70.
Weisburd, David, Anthony Petrosino and Cynthia Lum (eds.). (2003). Assessing systematic
evidence in crime and justice: Methodological concerns and empirical outcomes(Preface). The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587, 6-
14.
8/2/2019 Terrorism Review Protocol
24/32
TABLES AND FIGURES
Figure 1. Yearly Distribution of Terrorism Publications (as a percentage of total N)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Year
All articles (N=14,006) Peer-reviewed, non criminal justice (N=5,797)
8/2/2019 Terrorism Review Protocol
25/32
Table 1. Distribution of Subject Matter in Terrorism Research (Percentages)
Peer-reviewed
sources
Empirical
only
Subject Matter (N=4,458a) (N=156
a)
Weapons of mass destruction (biological, chemical, nuclear) 18.1% 10.3%
Article on a specific issue such as the IRA, Al Qaeda or incidentb 12.2% 5.1%Political responses to terrorism (war, politics, international
relations) 9.5% 1.9%
Causes, motivations, psychology, trends of terrorism 8.7% 18.1%
Impacts of terrorism (political, social, economic) 7.7% 5.2%
Non-political responses to terrorism(medical, social, economic) 5.5% 3.9%
Victimology, coping mechanisms, psychological effects ofterrorism 5.4% 25.8%
Other (nationalism, intelligence issues, democracy andvulnerability) 5.4% 3.9%
Legal issues surrounding terrorism 5.2% 0.6%
The media and public attitudes towards terrorism 4.6% 18.7%
How to define terrorism 4.2% 1.3%
8/2/2019 Terrorism Review Protocol
26/32
25
APPENDIX A: Organizations Conducting Terrorism Research
ORGANIZATION URL
Adolescents in Political Violence Project (Universi ty of Tennessee) http://cfs.utk.edu/f_s/barber.html
ANSER Institute for Homeland Security http://www.homelandsecurity.org
Aon Corporat ion http://www.aon.com/
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs (Harvard University) http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/
Bioterrorism Preparedness Office (Center for Disease Control) http://www.cdc.gov/
Board of Neuroscience and Behavioral Health (National Academy of Science) http://www.iom.edu
Homeland Security Project (Brookings Inst.)
http://www.brookings.edu/fp/research/projects/homeland/homeland.htm
Canadian Security Intelligence Service (Canadian Government) http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/eng/menu/welcome_e.html
Center for Defense and International Security Studies http://www.cdiss.org/terror.htm
Center for Biosecurity and Public Health Preparedness (University of Texas Houston) http://www.sph.uth.tmc.edu/cbphp
Center for Civilian Biodefense Strategies (Johns Hopkins University ) http://www.hopkins -biodefense.org
Center for Contemporary Conflict (US Navy) http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/
Center for Defense Information - Terrorism Project http://www.cdi.org
Center for Democracy and Technology http://www.cdt.org/
Center for International Security and Cooperation (Stanford University) http://cisac.stanford.edu
Center for Non-Proliferation Studies (Monterey Institute of International Studies) http://cns.miis.edu/
Center for Peace and Security (Georgetown University) http://cpass.georgetown.edu/
Center for Public Health and Disasters (UCLA) http://www.cphd.ucla.edu
Center for Technology and National Security Policy (US Department of Defense) http://www.ndu.edu/ctnsp/index.html
Center for Terrorism Preparednes s (University of Findlay) http://www.nceem.org/terrorism/default.asp
Center for the Prevention of Genocide (Improve the World International) http://www.genocideprevention.org/index.htm
Center for the Study of Bioterrorism and Emerging Infections (St. Louis University) http://bioterrorism.slu.edu/
Center for the Study of Public Security (Rutgers University) http://www.andromeda.rutgers.edu/~rcst/home.html
8/2/2019 Terrorism Review Protocol
27/32
26
Center for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence (University of St. Andrews) http://www.st-andrews.ac .uk/academic/ intrel/research /cstpv/
Center on Terrorism and Irregular Warfare (US Navy) http://www.nps.navy.mil/ctiw/
Center on Terrorism and Public Health (Florida State College of Medicine) http://www.med.fsu.edu/healthaffairs/ctph/default.asp
Center on Terrorism and Public Safety (John Jay College of Criminal Justice) http://www.centeronterrorism.org
Centers for Public Health Preparedness (Center for Disease Control) http://www.phppo.cdc.gov/owpp/CPHPLocations.asp
CERT Coordinat ion Center (Carnegie Mellon University ) http://www.cert.org/Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute http://www.cbaci. org/
Chemical and Biological Arms Control Program (Federation of American Scientists) http://www.fas.org/bwc/index.htm
Chemical and Biological Defense Information Analysis Center (Battelle Memorial
Institute) http://www.cbiac.apgea.army.mil/
Columbia University World Trade Center
Archive Project
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/news/libraries/2001-10-
30.wtc_archives.html
Command and Control Research Program (Department of Defense) http://www .dodccrp.org/
Conflict Archive on the Internet (University of Ulster) http://cain.ulst er.ac.uk/
Congressional Research Service (Library of Congress) http://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/whatscrs.html#about
Council on Foreign Relations http://www.cfr.org/
Counterterrorism Office (Department of State)http://www.state.gov/s/ct/
Critical Incident Analysis Group (University of Virginia) http://www.healthsystem.v irginia.edu/ciag
Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma (University of Washington) http://www.dartcenter.org/
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Department of Defense) http://www.darpa.mil/
Defense Information Systems Agency (Department of Defense) http://www.disa.mil/
Defense Intelligence Agency (Department of Defense) http://www.dia.mil/
Emergency Response and Research Institute http://www.emergency.com
Facts on File, Inc (Ferguson Publishing Co.) http ://www.factsonfile.com/Federal Research Division-Te rrorism and Crime Studies (Library of Congress) http://lcweb.loc.gov/rr/frd/
Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering http://www1.oecd.org/fatf/index.htm
Foreign Policy Research Institute
http://www.fpri.org/
Foundation for the Defense of Democracies http://www.defenddemocracy.org/
8/2/2019 Terrorism Review Protocol
28/32
27
National Security Archive - George Washington Universityhttp://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/
Gov ern ment Accounting Office- S pecial C ollections- Ter ro ris m http://www.gao.gov/terrorism.html
Henry L. Stimson Center http://www.stimson.org
Human Rights Watch http://www.hrw.org/
Institute for Security Technology Studies (Dartmouth College) http://www.ists.dartmouth.edu/
International Center for Terrorism Studies (Potomac Institute for Policy Studies) http://www.potomacinstitute.org/academic/icts.cfm
International Critical Incident Stress Foundation http://www.icisf.org/
International Policy Institu te for Counter-Terrorism http://www.ict.org.il/
International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies www.istss.org
Jaffe Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/about.html
Library of Congress September 11 Archive http://september11.archive.org/
The Mackenzie Institute http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/
Matthew B. Ridgway Center for International Security Studies (University of
Pittsburgh) http://www.gspia.pitt.edu/ridgway/
Mitretek Systems http://www.mitretek.org/home.nsf
Narcoterror.org http://www.narcoterror.org/
National Association of Insurance Commissioners http://www.naic.org/
National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (formerly National Imagery and Mapping
Agency, Department of Defense) http://www.nima.mil/
National Security Agency http://www.nsa.gov/
National Technical Information Service (Department of Commerce) http://www.ntis.gov
Nuclear Control Institute http://www.nci.org/
US Customs & Border Protection (DHS) http://www.customs.ustreas.gov/
Office of Domestic FinanceTerrorism Risk Insurance Program (Department ofTreasury)
http://www.treasury.gov/offices/domestic-finance/financial-institution /terrorism-insurance/
Office of Foreign Asset Control (Department of Treasury) http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/Oklahoma City National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism http://www.mipt.org/
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (Department of Energy) http://www.pnl.gov/
PILOTS catalog Dartmouth College Library http://www.dartmouth.edu
Pinkerton Global Intelligence Services http:/ /pgis.pinkertons.com/
8/2/2019 Terrorism Review Protocol
29/32
28
Political Risk and Trade Credit Group (MMC Enterprise Risk Group) http://www.mmcer.com/
Public Health Practice Program (Center for Disease Control) http://www.phppo.cdc.gov
RAND http://www.rand.org/
SAPRA India http://www.subcontinent.com/sapra.html
South Asia Terrorism Portal (Institu te for Conflict Management) http://www.satp.org/
SSAF International Ltd. http://www.ssafprotection.com/Technical Support Working Group (Department of State) http://tswg.gov
Technology and Public Policy Program (Center for Strategic and International Studies) http://www.csis.org/tech/index.htm
Global Programme Against Terrorism (United Nations) http://www.odccp.org/odccp/terrori sm.html
Terrorism Research Center http://www.homelandsecurity.com/
The Cato Institute http://www.cato.org/
The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/
The Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Transnational Threats Initiative (Center for Strategic and International Studie s) http://www.csis.org /tnt/
United States Institu te of Peace http://www.usip .org/US Department of Agriculture Food Safety & Inspection Service; Agricultural
Research Service http://www.fsis.usda.gov/; http://www.ars.usda.gov/
US Food and Drug AdministrationCenter for Biologics Evaluation & Research; andCenter for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
http://www.fda.gov/cber/index.html;http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/list.html
US Secret Service http://www.secretservice.gov/index.sh tml
US Air Force Counter Proliferation Center
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-cps.htm
http://c21.maxwell.af.mil/
Versar Inc. http://www.versar.com/
Wade Financial Group http://www.terrorism-insurance -risk-management.com/
William R. Nelson Institute for Public Affairs (James Madison Univers ity) http://www.jmu.edu/orgs/wrni/
8/2/2019 Terrorism Review Protocol
30/32
29
APPENDIX B: Data Sources Available
ORGANIZATION DATA DESCRIPTION
Avalon Project, Yale Law School
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/terrorism/terror.htm
documents pre-18th
century
CDISS Terrorism Program - Center for Defense and International Security Studies Terrorist incidents 1945 to 1998
Center for the Prevention of Genocide Country reports online
Center for Non-Proliferation Studies Weapons of mass destruction database
Center for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence- University of St.Andrews Terrorism incident database
Center on Terrorism and Irregular WarfareGovernment databases. Suicide bombers.
Chemical and Biological Defense Information Analysis Center CBIAC Bibliographic Database
Columbia University World Trade Center Archive Project Archive data on September 11th
Conflict Archive on the Internet Databases on Northern Ireland conflict
Counterterrorism Office- US Department of State Patterns and trends of terrorism, chronology online
Department of Psychology-Political Violence Program- Tel Aviv University Ariel Merari database on terrorism incidents
Emergency Response and Research Institute
Privately-held databases on terrorist personnel, terrorism methods,
terrorist incidents, and the implications thereof
Federal Research Division-Terrorism Studies Terrorism databases
Federation of American Scientists (FAS), Intelligence Resource Program ,
Liberation Movements, Terrorist Organizations, Substance Cartels, and other
Para-State Organizations.
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/index.html
This directory of para-states is not a list of terrorist organizations,
and is not constructed to supplement or complement the list of
terrorist organizations of the US Department of State. The guide
intentionally casts a wide net, and includes both the nasty and nice.
George Washington University September 11 Source Books
8/2/2019 Terrorism Review Protocol
31/32
30
Henry L. Stimson Center Unconventional weapons, chemical and biological terrorism
International Center for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR) http://www.ntu.edu.sg/idss/research_03a.htm
The ICPVTR database focuses on the Asia Pacific region, especially
Southeast Asia. No other details are available and it is not yetavailable to the public.
International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT) Israel Houses six databases on terrorists groups, incidents, activity
Library of Congress Archive of digital materials up after 9/11
University of Michigan Documents CenterAmericas War Against TerrorismWorld Trade Center/Pentagon Terrorism and
the Aftermath http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/usterror.html
National Association of Insurance CommissionersInsurance related databases such as claims from attacks and othercriminal liabilities
The New York Times News archives
Oklahoma City National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of TerrorismRAND Terrorism Chronology Database, RAND-MIPT TerrorismIncident Database, and MIPT Indictment Database
PILOTS catalog Publi shed International Literature On Traumatic Stress
Pinkerton Global Intelligence Services
Incident Database (currently housed and researched at the University
of Maryland, Department of Criminology under Professor Gary
LaFree)
RAND RAND Terrorism Incident Database
SSAF International Ltd Multiple databases
Technical Support Working Group (US Department of State)
Terrorism Prevention Branch- Center for International Crime Prevention (CICP) of
the UN 10 databases described in Forum on Crime and Society
Center for Non-Proliferation Studies Terrorist Group Profiles
Terrorism Research CenterTerrorist group profiles, significant events, terrorist attacks, counter-
terrorism group profiles, and country profiles.
Wade Financial Group Insurance related informat ion
8/2/2019 Terrorism Review Protocol
32/32
31
The Washington Post News archives
ENDNOTES
1 We also conducted a search from approximately twenty different university libraries for books related to terrorism. However, because of the inconsistent
availability of an abstract for each citation, an analysis of the books was not undertaken at this time. However, the systematic review will include evaluationsfrom all known mediums and sources.2
The databases used were Academic Search Premier, ArticleFirst (OCLC), Contemporary Womens Issues, Criminal Justice Abstracts, EbscoHost, EconLit,Educational Abstracts, Electronic Collections Online, ERIC(OCLC), GEOBASE, Humanities Abstracts, Ingenta, ISI Web of Science, MEDLINE, National
Criminal Justice Reference Service, PAIS International Articles Only, PUBMEDLINE, Social Science Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts. The time periods
covered by each of these databases can be obtained at http://www.lib.neu.edu/gateway/databasestrifold.pdf .3
Although an attempt was made to eliminate duplicates using database manipulation software, it is possible that not all duplicates were initially eliminated.
Because this review later focused on peer-reviewed literature only, each of these were individually checked by hand for the existence of duplicates which were
then excluded. The 14,006 articles represent the final universe of articles after this check was made on the peer-reviewed articles only.4
See http://www.epnet.com/titlelists.asp .5
See http://www.pais.org/journalslist/peer-reviewed.stm.6
We used, at the time, http://www.ama-assn.org/med_link/peer.htm, which is now an inactive link.7
See http://www.eurekalert.org/links.php?jrnl=A .8
H.R. 3162, 107th
Congress, 1st
Session, October 24, 2001.9
This search was conducted by Louise Stanton at Rutgers University.