Applied criminology research

Peer Review and Article Acceptance Process in the Journal of Applied Criminology Research

Key Points

• You are kindly requested to carefully review the publication ethics and guide for author, prepare your article in accordance with these sections, and submit it thereafter.
• The peer review process in the Journal of Applied Criminology Research is double-blind. In this type of review, the authors are not informed of the reviewers’ identities, and the reviewers are unaware of the names and affiliations of the authors. This ensures that the evaluation is conducted purely on scientific merit, free from any bias or prejudice.
• Submitted articles will be considered for peer review only if they align with the thematic scope and objectives of the journal and adhere to the established submission standards. Publication is contingent upon final approval by the Scientific Committee.
• articles submitted via email or through channels other than the journal’s official submission system will not be included in the review process.

General Overview of the Article Review Process

• Stage 1: Initial Evaluation: preliminary assessment and evaluation (maximum of 7 days after submission) through the journal’s online system
• Stage 2: Peer Review: If the article passes the initial evaluation, it will be forwarded to designated reviewers for formal peer review.
• Stage 3: Revision and Acceptance: Should the article be accepted by the reviewers after completing the first two stages, the authors will receive the reviewers’ comments and suggested revisions for implementation.

Detailed Process of article Review and Acceptance

1. In the initial stage, following submission by the author(s), the journal’s editorial officer reviews the article to ensure compliance with the journal’s formatting guidelines and ethical standards.

2. Upon approval in the initial stage, the article proceeds to the second phase, which involves a quality control assessment focusing on content integrity and alignment with the journal’s thematic scope. This evaluation is conducted by the journal’s Scientific and Technical Committee. Any preliminary revisions required to ensure the article’s academic and topical quality will be communicated to the author(s) during this stage.

Note 1: The aforementioned stages are collectively completed within a maximum of 7 days.

          Note 2: If the article fails to meet the required criteria during the second stage, it will be rejected at this point. The decision, along with the rationale for rejection, will be communicated to the author(s).

3. The third stage involves submission of the article to two reviewers under a double-blind peer review process (this stage is conditional upon the article’s acceptance in stages 1 and 2). The procedural steps of this stage are as follows:

1-3. Full Rejection: If both reviewers reject the article, it will be considered fully rejected.

2-3. Major/Minor Revision: If both reviewers agree that the article requires revision, it will be returned to the author(s) for comprehensive modifications.

3-3. Referral to a Third Reviewer: If one reviewer conditionally accepts the article (subject to revision) while the other rejects it, the article will be referred to a third reviewer. The final decision will be made based on the third reviewer’s evaluation and the considerations outlined in sections 1-3 and 2-3.

4-3. Comparative Evaluation: Following the completion of revisions by the author(s), the article will be resubmitted to the reviewers for comparative evaluation.

5-3. Reminder Emails to Reviewers: Reminder emails will be sent to reviewers at six-day intervals to prompt timely feedback.

6-3. Reassignment to a New Reviewer: If the review is not completed within 14 days, the manuscript will be withdrawn from the assigned reviewer and forwarded to a new reviewer.

7-3. Final Acceptance Notification: At this stage, the final decision regarding acceptance will be communicated to the author(s). The duration of this phase—depending on the extent of required revisions in stages 1-3 through 3-4, the authors’ responsiveness and accuracy in implementing changes, and the reviewers’ feedback during comparative evaluation—shall be, on average, 20 weeks.