Advancing Corrections Journal: Peer Review Policy

Advancing Corrections Journal (Print) ISSN: 2517-9233
Advancing Corrections Journal (Digital) ISSN: 2789-5246

Manuscripts that are submitted for publication in Advancing Corrections are evaluated through a double-blind review process with referees who are either on the Editorial Board of the journal or selected by the editor for their particular field of expertise. The ‘refereeing’ process is intended to remain completely anonymous and the identity of referees to remain confidential. Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two referees. Manuscripts may be initially altered or amended by the editor in the interests of stylistic consistency, grammatical correctness or coherence. All manuscripts should be reviewed as quickly as possible so that an initial editorial decision can be generally reached within (e.g.) 6 weeks of submission. Revised manuscripts are often re-submitted to reviewers for final recommendations to publish or reject. It remains the prerogative of the editor to accept or reject for publication any submission and decisions are final. The editor will not enter into any debate or correspondence regarding any decision made. However, author/s are provided with a detailed explanation should their manuscript be rejected.

Evaluators agreeing to referee articles are requested to provide relevant and constructive feedback on the work of their peers according to the guidelines for reviewers set out below. The intent of the review process is to provide some helpful feedback on the scholarly work of peers, but while recognizing that ICPA wishes to publish a practitioner-oriented journal that can be read and absorbed easily by all corrections professionals. Papers should be research oriented and 'scholarly', including the usual practice of referencing the relevant literature – but they should also be written in a style that appeals to practitioners.

Reviewer feedback is typically requested within 14-to-21 days (or sooner) of receipt of the request from the editor. A reminder is sent after three weeks if a review is not received.

To referee the paper, the process is as follows:

The refereeing process is confidential (i.e., ‘blind review’). Comments are only shared with authors without attribution to reviewers.
The manuscript should be read carefully and any substantial changes, comments, edits/revisions etc. can be indicated on the electronic article file. However, if comments are being inserted using the feature in ‘WORD’, reviewers are asked to ensure that they anonymize these comments by changing their settings (see https://ucanr.edu/sites/anrpeerreview/For_Associate_Editors/Instructions_for_online_peer_system/Anonymizing_a_Word_document/).
A brief referee evaluation should be completed (using the General Guidelines for Reviewers format below).
A clear recommendation for publication should be made.
The completed evaluation report and any edits/revisions of the manuscript are forwarded back to the Editor: [email protected].

GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS

Reviewers are asked to carefully review the article in question with reference to the following criteria:

1. Comments on the substantive quality of the article under review. For example, comments could address whether the article:

-   Is well informed and of interest to a broad segment of corrections professionals.
-   Themes or arguments are generally logical and/or convincing.
-   It is commenting on or reviewing something original or of topical interest.
-   It does not miss any obvious points or fail to consider any obvious information or evidence in the field (e.g., the research or available literature on the topic by other authors is generally well referenced).

2. Comments on the organization and writing of the paper (but while respecting the fact that for many of the authors wishing to publish in ICPA Advancing Corrections, English may not be their primary language).

- Could expanding or editing certain sections or re-arranging them improve the article?
- Is the quality of writing, sentence construction, language used etc. at least acceptable?

3. Comments regarding how well the article generally addresses the theme of the issue – i.e., how well it ‘fits’ with the theme.

4. In consideration of the above, please provide an opinion as to whether the article is generally worthy of publication as it is; or with specified changes; or whether it should be rejected.

In the course of reading, reviewers may identify mistakes and or weak points in the article being reviewed. It would be useful to note these so that they can be provided to the author(s) as part of the editor’s feedback on the submitted article. Comments can also be made (in red or by using the ‘insert comment’ or ‘track changes’ function) in the attached article itself.

Finally, please make your recommendation as to whether the article should be:

(a)   Published essentially as is;
(b)   Published with minor revisions;
(c)   Returned to the Author(s) for major revisions, or
(d)   Not published in its current form (In this instance, please provide a summary of the reasons why not).