Peer Review
1. Purpose and ethical foundations
Current Criminology is committed to editorial independence, research integrity, and fair, constructive peer review. The journal follows the COPE Core Practices and expects editors, reviewers, and authors to adhere to COPE-aligned standards on confidentiality, conflicts of interest, ethical oversight, and the handling of complaints, appeals, and misconduct.
2. Peer review model
Current Criminology uses double-anonymized peer review for all research articles: reviewers do not know author identities, and authors do not know reviewer identities.
Authors must submit an anonymized manuscript and anonymized files where feasible (for example, remove author names and affiliations, acknowledgements, and other self-identifying details). Editors may request de-anonymized documentation only when necessary for ethical, legal, or permissions verification.
3. Editorial workflow
3.1 Initial editorial assessment
All submissions receive an initial editorial assessment for scope fit, minimum methodological and reporting standards, ethical oversight expectations, and the likelihood that the work can meet the journal’s publication criteria. Manuscripts may be rejected without external review when they clearly fall outside scope or do not meet baseline standards.
3.2 External review
Typically, 2–3 independent reviewers are invited. The editors may also seek specialist review (for example, methods/statistics, qualitative rigor, ethics, and data protection) when needed.
3.3 Editorial decisions
Possible editorial decisions include:
- Reject;
- Reject with invitation to resubmit;
- Major revision;
- Minor revision;
- Accept.
Final decisions are made by the handling editor and/or Editor-in-Chief, informed by reviewer reports but not determined by vote counting.
4. Criteria for publication
Reviewers are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript meets the following publication criteria, adapted to criminology and criminal justice scholarship:
- Contribution and significance;
- Originality and scholarly value;
- Technical soundness and methodological rigor;
- Ethical oversight and harm minimization;
- Clarity, reproducibility, and verifiability.
5. Reviewer standards
Reviewers for Current Criminology must follow COPE ethical expectations.
6. Editors’ responsibilities
Editors are expected to act in accordance with COPE guidance.
7. Conflicts of interest
All parties must disclose relevant competing interests.
8. Use of generative AI tools in peer review
Peer review materials must not be uploaded into third-party generative AI systems.
9. Peer-review integrity and manipulation safeguards
The journal follows COPE-recommended processes.
10. Complaints and appeals
The journal maintains a clear process for complaints and appeals.
11. Allegations of misconduct and post-publication actions
The journal follows COPE-aligned procedures.
Appendix A. Recommended reviewer report structure
Reviewers are encouraged to structure reports clearly.