| name | crim-review-process |
| description | Use to understand how Criminology (ASC / Wiley) evaluates a manuscript — blinded/anonymized peer review, editorial screening, the typical reject / major-revision / minor-revision / accept outcomes, and what expert reviewers weigh in this interdisciplinary, theory-forward field. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors. |
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
- Double-anonymized review. Reviewers assess an anonymized main document; a separate title
page carries author identities. Anonymize accordingly (see
crim-submission).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
