crim-review-process

Review Process (crim-review-process)

Knowing how Criminology screens and decides lets you pre-empt failure modes before submitting. The

journal uses double-anonymized review (anonymized main document + separate title page) and is

handled by the ASC/Wiley editorial team for an interdisciplinary, theory-forward field. As of

2026-06-22, Chris Sullivan is Interim Editor (leadership changed Sept 12, 2025; permanent

2027-2031 editor search ongoing) — re-check the live ASC/Wiley masthead before submission, since the

interim status is in flux.

When to trigger

• Before submitting, to stress-test against likely rejection grounds
• Interpreting a decision letter and setting expectations
• Understanding what expert reviewers in criminology weigh
• Deciding whether to revise-and-resubmit or send elsewhere

How Criminology review works

1. Double-anonymized review. Reviewers assess an anonymized main document; a **separate title

page** carries author identities. Anonymize accordingly (see crim-submission).

1. Editorial screening first. Editors screen for fit and quality before sending out for review.

Papers that are out of scope, atheoretical, better suited to a sister journal (*Criminology & Public

Policy* for policy evaluation), or methodologically unsound can be returned without full review.

1. Expert external review. Papers passing screening go to reviewers chosen for theory and method;

criminology reviewers probe identification, the dark figure, model choice, and theoretical payoff.

1. Decision categories. Typically reject, revise and resubmit (major/minor), or accept;

a strong paper usually goes through at least one major revision. Treat labels as editor-governed and

interpret them from the decision letter.

1. One submission at a time. Submission is treated as a commitment to publish in Criminology;

simultaneous submission elsewhere is not allowed.

What criminology reviewers reward (shape the paper to pass)

• A clear theoretical contribution and an explicit mechanism (avoids "descriptive / atheoretical").
• Correct handling of crime measurement (dark figure, UCR vs. NIBRS vs. NCVS vs. self-report).
• Within- vs. between-person discipline in life-course claims; appropriate count/survival/trajectory models.
• Engagement with the relevant theoretical literature across the field's disciplines.
• A reproducible analysis and a credible data-availability path (see crim-data-and-transparency).

Anti-patterns

• Sending a program-evaluation/policy paper better fit for Criminology & Public Policy
• A bare crime correlation with no theory (screening risk)
• Ignoring measurement validity or the dark figure
• Simultaneous submission to another journal (prohibited)
• Expecting acceptance without a revision round

Decision-letter decoder (set realistic expectations)

The exact category labels are set by the editors, but the common reads map as follows. A first major

revision is the modal good outcome at the ASC flagship, not a near-miss.

| Letter signal | What it usually means | Your move |

|---------------|-----------------------|-----------|

| Reject after review | one fatal flaw (ID, theory, or measurement) | reframe or re-route, do not re-submit unchanged |

| Major revision | promising, but identification or theory needs work | accept the load; see crim-rebuttal |

| Minor revision | contribution accepted, polish remaining | tighten exhibits and prose |

| Desk return | scope/fit or atheoretical | back to crim-topic-selection |

Review-risk pass for Criminology

Treat this skill as an executable review pass, not a prose hint. First lock the crime/justice process, measurement validity, research design, and policy consequence; then judge whether the current manuscript answers the venue's real reader: criminology reviewers who expect theory-linked crime, justice, or harm mechanisms plus transparent measurement.

• Do the pass: Turn probable reviewer objections into a ledger with response evidence, manuscript location, and the decision-maker who must be convinced first.
• Return a ledger: give claim / evidence / risk / manuscript location rows, so the next agent can edit rather than rediscover the issue.
• Sibling guard: compare against Justice Quarterly for applied justice, Journal of Quantitative Criminology for methods focus, Social Problems for broader sociological framing; if a sibling owns the contribution, recommend re-routing before polishing format.
• Stop condition: do not give submission-ready advice until the pack's resources/official-source-map.md has been checked for volatile rules and the manuscript has one concrete fix for the largest venue-specific risk.

Output format

【Screening check】scope / theory / right-journal / method — any red flags?
【Theoretical payoff】clear contribution? [Y/N]
【Measurement】crime construct + dark figure handled? [Y/N]
【Literature engaged】incl. cross-discipline theory? [Y/N]
【Realistic outcome】reject / R&R (major|minor) / (rare) accept
【Next】crim-submission (or crim-rebuttal if decided)

Supplementary resources

• [../../resources/official-source-map.md](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — review model, editor sources, decision norms, sister-journal distinction