---
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 a **blinded/anonymized** workflow (anonymized main document + separate title page) and is
edited by a team of Co-Editors handling an interdisciplinary, theory-forward field. Verify the exact
review-model wording and current masthead on the official pages (待核实).

## 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. **Blinded / anonymized review.** Reviewers assess an **anonymized main document**; a **separate
   title page** carries author identities. Anonymize accordingly (see `crim-submission`). The precise
   term (single- vs. double-blind / masked) is 待核实 — confirm on the live page.
2. **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.
3. **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.
4. **Decision categories.** Typically **reject**, **revise and resubmit** (major/minor), or **accept**;
   a strong paper usually goes through at least one major revision. Exact category labels and norms are
   set by the editors (待核实).
5. **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 (待核实), 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, editors, decision norms, sister-journal distinction (待核实)