Reviewers' Views on Reviewing: An Examination of the Peer Review Process in Criminal Justice

Abstract

The peer review process is at the heart of the scientific process. When peer review is used, it is usually for the purpose of providing quality control on the advancement of scientific ideas. In this manuscript we examine the experiences and perspectives of a sample of criminal justice scholars regarding their roles as reviewers for manuscripts submitted to scholarly journals. In general, we find that reviewers expect to review, feel it is a professional responsibility, and enjoy doing reviews. A majority of reviewers perceive peer review as fair and editors seriously consider reviews. Regarding patterns of writing reviews, respondents of higher rank and published more frequently complete more reviews. However, most receive no credit at their institutions for doing reviews, although many claim to derive importance for their own research from reviewing.The peer review process is at the heart of the modern scientific process. The use of expert peer reviewers to read, assess, comment on and make recommendations regarding whether a particular piece of research should be published (or otherwise publicly disseminated) is the norm in contemporary social (and other) sciences. When peer review (especially the double-blind process) is used, it is ostensibly for the purpose of providing quality control on the advancement of scientific ideas. Peer review is designed and practiced so as to ensure that science is done correctly and shows an understanding of the current state of knowledge, methods and theoretical perspectives that are the foundation for the direction of new investigations.Peer review is contingent on the work of two sets of individuals: journal editors and reviewers/referees who read, critique and make recommendations to editors. Editors typically are responsible for an initial screening of submitted manuscripts, identifying and inviting experts in the topic, method and theoretical perspective of a manuscript to review the work, and then reading, critiquing and 352 MUSTAINE AND TEWKSBURY using reviewers' reviews to inform decisions about publication.

How to Write a Literature Review

“…In a survey of criminal justice and criminology journal manuscript, reviewers Mustaine and Tewksbury (2008) reported that more than three-quarters (76.9%) of manuscript reviewers say that the quality of a manuscript's literature review is an important influence on their review. Similarly, surveyed criminal justice and sociology journal editors report that the literature review in a manuscript is a highly important aspect of a manuscript (Mustaine & Tewksbury, in press).…”

Reading Peer Review

“…That said, in spite of these difficulties, a substantial number of studies have examined peer review (for just a selection, consider Bonjean and Hullum 1978;Mustaine and Tewksbury 2008;Smigel and Ross 1970;Tewksbury and Mustaine 2012), and it would be a mistake to call the field under-researched, although the methods used are diverse and disaggregated (Grimaldo, Marušić, and Squazzoni 2018;Meruane, González Vergara, and Pina-Stranger 2016, 181). Indeed, Meruane, González Vergara, and Pina-Stranger (2016, 183) provide a good history of the disciplinary specialisations of the study of peer-review processes (PRP) since the 1960s noting that while 'PRP has been a prominent object of study, empirical research on PRP has not been addressed in a comprehensive way.…”

Why the American Journal of Criminal Justice is a Great Place to Publish: A Research Note Examining Frequent Authors’ Experiences

“…However, while CCJ scholars have focused their attention on what is produced and where and by whom in the discipline, little attention has been devoted to understanding the process by which research is brought to publication. Although there are a few autobiographical reflections on individual careers (Pogrebin, 2010), assessments of the manuscript review process (Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2008;Tewksbury & Mustaine, in press), and evaluations of the number and composition of author teams for published articles (Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2011), there remains no systematic examination of how and why CCJ scholars seek to publish their work in particular outlets. Surely considerations of prestige (as measured by characteristics such as a journal's impact factor or informal ranking in the eyes of one's peers) are important, as may be placing one's work in outlets where it is most likely to be read by one's target audience.…”