Reviewer Guidelines

Peer review is a critical element of scholarly publication, and one of the major cornerstones of the scientific process. Pre-publication review and assessment of articles submitted for publication is crucial to ensuring that only good quality articles appear in Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice. It ensures that published research is sound and properly verified and improves the quality of policing scholarship, policy and practice.

Reviewers are selected by the editors on the basis of their knowledge of the field. Reviewer names are anonymised so authors will not be informed of the identity of the reviewers. You must therefore take care not to identify yourself or your institution in your comments. Note also that the material you will be reviewing is confidential and must not be used for your own work or shared with others.

Peer review should ensure rigour of assessment and constructive feedback to authors, and ultimately enable editors to make a judgement about whether to publish or not. However, reviewers are asked to be aware that Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice is not an exclusively academic journal — it is also practitioner-facing. Hence, the manuscript that reviewers receive may not be written by academics, or at least solely by academics. Practitioners may not be familiar with the conventions of academic publishing, but an article might still contain sound arguments based on firm evidence. The style and content of feedback should be helpful and constructive, even when a manuscript appears weak; we want authors to be encouraged to improve their outputs in order that the knowledge base of policing is developed. Even in the case of strong papers, it is exceptionally rare to have a manuscript that is not in need of some further work. For these reasons reviewers should respond to all criteria, either positively or negatively. Even when a manuscript is judged to be strong, good reasons have to be given which underpin the judgement of the reviewer.

Before agreeing to review

We usually ask our reviewers to submit their comments within four weeks of agreeing to review a paper, although extensions can be granted. If you do not have time to review the article, please let the editor know. Suggestions for alternative reviewers are always welcome.

Reviewing an article takes time. A thorough review can take three to five hours. The prospective reviewer should consider whether or not they have sufficient time before the deadline stipulated in the invitation. If the review cannot be completed in time, the prospective reviewer should notify the journal as soon as possible. It is much better to decline an invitation rather than ignore it so other reviewers may be expeditiously sought. We strive to minimize the time from submission to the first decision letter and appreciate it if an invitation is answered promptly, even if it is to decline.

An 'anonymous' reviewing process is used where reviewers are not known to each other, and reviewers are asked to declare a conflict of interest if they know or feel that they might know the authors. Acceptance of an invitation to review is taken as signifying that the reviewers consider themselves qualified to assess the submission and know of no reason why it would be inappropriate for them to comment on its quality and make a recommendation as to whether or not it should be published in Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice. If, as reviewers read a submission, they realise that for any reason it is inappropriate for them to review that article, they are asked to return it to the Managing Editor forthwith and another reviewer will be assigned.

Conflicts of interest

As a reviewer, your task is to critically and constructively judge the content of a manuscript. You should also be objective and independent, which will of course be compromised should you feel there is a conflict of interest in your being asked to review the paper. A conflict of interest could be you believe the author(s) to be:

• your PhD student or PhD advisor/committee member;
• family relations;
• people at your current institution;
• people whose research you fund or who fund you;
• collaborators in the past two years.

Reviewing a paper

As a reviewer, it is important that you remain objective in your critical appraisal. You should not allow your personal prejudice about research topics or researchers to influence your judgment. Your comments should be professional and courteous and should help the author to improve their paper and present their research as clearly and concisely as possible. It is not necessary to repeat information from the paper, such as the title, because this already appears elsewhere in the review form. It is also not necessary to summarize the paper.

If you have reasons to believe that the material is not original or has been plagiarised, please alert the editor.

When reviewing a paper, you should take into consideration the following:

• Originality and quality: Is the paper of sufficient interest for publication in the journal? Does it contribute significantly to the current state of the research field? Is the topic handled substantively and accurately in appropriate detail and scope?
• Structure: Is the paper logically laid out? Abstract, introduction, method, results, conclusion.
• Engagement: Does this paper engage with previous research and results (e.g., does the author engage with current/ relevant research in the field).
• Language: You do not need to correct the English - however, if a paper is difficult to understand due to grammatical errors, please mention this in your review.

For the typical manuscript describing research, a systematic approach to the review is summarized below. This paradigm is the most complete type of review and may be helpful and adaptable to other types of manuscripts.

Title: Does it clearly and accurately describe the article?

Abstract: Does it accurately summarize and reflect the content of the article?

Introduction: Does it clearly and concisely describe the context for the study and explain what other authors' findings, if any, are being challenged or extended? Does it accurately describe what the author hoped to achieve, and clearly state the problem being investigated? Does it appropriately describe the experiment, the hypotheses and the general experimental design or method?

Methods: Do the authors accurately explain their approach to the empirical research, including the experimental design and how the data were collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for the research to be replicated? Does the paper identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate? Does the paper make it clear what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements? Does the statistical analysis make sense?

Results: Do the authors clearly explain what they discovered in the research. Is it laid out in a logical sequence? Has the appropriate analysis been conducted and are the statistics correct? If the reviewer is not sure, the editor should be advised and separate statistical review can be obtained.

Conclusions/Discussion: Are the comments in this section supported by the results? Do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of police policy and practice forward? Is there unnecessary or unsupported conjecture or unfounded conclusions that are not based on the evidence presented. Are limitations adequately described?

Figures/Tables: Do the figures and tables inform the reader, are they an important part of the story? Do the figures describe the data accurately? Are they consistent (e.g., bars in charts are the same width, the scales on the axis are logical). Examine tables and figures to see if the legends are clear and if the tables and figures demonstrate the same thing that is stated in the text. Frequently, material placed in a table or figure does not have to be reported in detail in the Results section of the manuscript.

References: Are the references appropriate, complete, and timely?

Language and style: If a paper is poorly written due to grammatical or other errors, making it difficult to understand, the reviewer does not need to copyedit the article. While this is appreciated (and actually saves the journal money) this may be brought to the attention of the editor. If the paper contains typographical errors and/or mistakes in references that suggest a disorganised approach to authoring the paper, this should be commented upon. Some papers involve excellent work and interesting observations, but they are so poorly written that it is difficult to understand what the authors are saying. This is a common problem with authors whose native language is not English. If the work reported in the manuscript looks interesting and/or valuable, the manuscript could be sent back for editing by a native English speaker or professional translator.

Ethical issues: Is there any reason to suspect plagiarism, redundant publication, fabrication, fraud, or other misconduct of any kind? Is there any reason to suspect a conflict of interest on the part of the authors?

It is also vitally important that all reviews are written in a respectful manner. The purpose of this journal is to encourage reflective policing and that is likely to be hindered by the use of hyperbolic language of rejection. An article may be so fundamentally flawed as to be unpublishable but communicating this to the author should not add insult to disappointment. Submissions are normally reviewed anonymously and separately by at least two reviewers, ideally an academic expert in the field and a suitable practitioner. With regard to comments to the authors, the reviewer should imagine themselves in the place of the author and provide feedback accordingly. Whenever possible, comments should be actionable. The best reviews do not just critique but suggest specific ways for the authors to address the concerns raised. There is an expectation that the review will be completed within an agreed timescale to enable the process to continue towards publication or non-publication.

Your review will comprise two sections and a recommendation in regard to publication.

The first section comprises: ‘Confidential Comments to the Editors’.

The purpose of this section is to provide the reviewer a vehicle to transmit additional information or comments directly and confidentially to the editor (these comments do not go to the author) that the reviewer believes will be of use in adjudicating the manuscript. Elaborating on the manuscript or providing summary comments regarding suitability for publication are welcome. The reviewer may comment in this section on issues of appropriate clearances, suspected conflicts of interest, misconduct, plagiarism, or any other concerns. Comments to the author do not need to be placed in this section and they are already visible to the editor.

The second section comprises: ‘Comments to the Author’.

The purpose of this section is to provide critical but constructive criticism back to the authors so they not only understand the reviewer’s concerns, but also have a way to address the issues raised. We provide a great deal of latitude to the reviewers in how exactly they complete this section. Different reviewers use very different approaches and have quite different styles, however we do encourage reviewers to carefully consider the guidance provided above. Comments to authors should be presented in a systematic fashion. For example, some reviewers proceed through the introduction, methods, results, discussion, and tables and figures, and comment on each of these parts of the paper in a structured fashion. Some reviewers cite page and line numbers (when possible) starting with the beginning of the paper and moving through to the end. Many reviewers today annotate the paper using embedded electronic notes and return these as an attachment. This is also perfectly acceptable. Comments should be numbered so that the authors can easily refer to them in their response to the journal.

The recommendations reviewers are asked to make comprise:

Accept – the paper is of sufficient quality to be published without any revisions.

Minor Revisions – the paper is not yet of sufficient quality to be published and requires some minor revisions.

Major Revisions –the paper requires significant and major revisions.

Reject – the paper contains significant and irredeemable flaws and is unpublishable.

Confidentiality

Reviews must be undertaken in strict confidence. Manuscripts under review may not be disclosed to a third party. If a reviewer wishes to solicit an opinion from colleagues, they should let the editorial staff know beforehand. We generally welcome additional reviews and comments, but permission should be sought first. The primary reviewer must be aware that whoever else is involved through them will also need to keep the review process completely confidential. Also, reviewers must not use any information in the article they review to their advantage without proper disclosure and citation. Reviewers should contact the journal if they would like to contact the authors or if they are interested in using any of the material they have reviewed.

What happens after I have sent my review?

The paper, your review, and related documents must be kept confidential. The editors will use your review to decide on the next stage of the process and you may be asked to comment on any revised versions of the paper. If you have recommended minor or major revision, you will be asked to look at the revised manuscript to comment on whether your concerns have been addressed.

To ensure the anonymity of reviewers, you will not be credited if the paper is published. The journal is extremely grateful for the time of reviewers, who are an invaluable asset to policing scholarship, policy and practice.