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
1---2name: crim-review-process3description: 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.4---56# Review Process (crim-review-process)78Knowing how *Criminology* screens and decides lets you pre-empt failure modes before submitting. The9journal uses **double-anonymized** review (anonymized main document + separate title page) and is10handled by the ASC/Wiley editorial team for an interdisciplinary, theory-forward field. As of112026-06-22, **Chris Sullivan is Interim Editor** (leadership changed Sept 12, 2025; permanent122027-2031 editor search ongoing) — re-check the live ASC/Wiley masthead before submission, since the13interim status is in flux.1415## When to trigger1617- Before submitting, to stress-test against likely rejection grounds18- Interpreting a decision letter and setting expectations19- Understanding what expert reviewers in criminology weigh20- Deciding whether to revise-and-resubmit or send elsewhere2122## How Criminology review works23241. **Double-anonymized review.** Reviewers assess an **anonymized main document**; a **separate title25 page** carries author identities. Anonymize accordingly (see `crim-submission`).262. **Editorial screening first.** Editors screen for fit and quality before sending out for review.27 Papers that are out of scope, atheoretical, better suited to a sister journal (*Criminology & Public28 Policy* for policy evaluation), or methodologically unsound can be returned without full review.293. **Expert external review.** Papers passing screening go to reviewers chosen for theory and method;30 criminology reviewers probe identification, the dark figure, model choice, and theoretical payoff.314. **Decision categories.** Typically **reject**, **revise and resubmit** (major/minor), or **accept**;32 a strong paper usually goes through at least one major revision. Treat labels as editor-governed and33 interpret them from the decision letter.345. **One submission at a time.** Submission is treated as a commitment to publish in *Criminology*;35 simultaneous submission elsewhere is not allowed.3637## What criminology reviewers reward (shape the paper to pass)3839- A clear **theoretical contribution** and an explicit mechanism (avoids "descriptive / atheoretical").40- Correct handling of **crime measurement** (dark figure, UCR vs. NIBRS vs. NCVS vs. self-report).41- **Within- vs. between-person** discipline in life-course claims; appropriate count/survival/trajectory models.42- Engagement with the **relevant theoretical literature** across the field's disciplines.43- A reproducible analysis and a credible data-availability path (see `crim-data-and-transparency`).4445## Anti-patterns4647- Sending a program-evaluation/policy paper better fit for *Criminology & Public Policy*48- A bare crime correlation with no theory (screening risk)49- Ignoring measurement validity or the dark figure50- Simultaneous submission to another journal (prohibited)51- Expecting acceptance without a revision round5253## Decision-letter decoder (set realistic expectations)5455The exact category labels are set by the editors, but the common reads map as follows. A first major56revision is the modal good outcome at the ASC flagship, not a near-miss.5758| Letter signal | What it usually means | Your move |59|---------------|-----------------------|-----------|60| Reject after review | one fatal flaw (ID, theory, or measurement) | reframe or re-route, do not re-submit unchanged |61| Major revision | promising, but identification or theory needs work | accept the load; see crim-rebuttal |62| Minor revision | contribution accepted, polish remaining | tighten exhibits and prose |63| Desk return | scope/fit or atheoretical | back to crim-topic-selection |6465## Review-risk pass for Criminology6667Treat 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.6869- **Do the pass:** Turn probable reviewer objections into a ledger with response evidence, manuscript location, and the decision-maker who must be convinced first.70- **Return a ledger:** give `claim / evidence / risk / manuscript location` rows, so the next agent can edit rather than rediscover the issue.71- **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.72- **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.7374## Output format7576```77【Screening check】scope / theory / right-journal / method — any red flags?78【Theoretical payoff】clear contribution? [Y/N]79【Measurement】crime construct + dark figure handled? [Y/N]80【Literature engaged】incl. cross-discipline theory? [Y/N]81【Realistic outcome】reject / R&R (major|minor) / (rare) accept82【Next】crim-submission (or crim-rebuttal if decided)83```8485## Supplementary resources8687- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — review model, editor sources, decision norms, sister-journal distinction
brycewang-stanford