Peer Review

If you are interested in becoming a peer reviewer for the IJPS, please contact the managing editor at

Peer review process

  • Peer reviews are double-anonymous; submissions are anonymized prior to being sent to peer reviewers, and peer reviewers remain anonymous to authors prior to and following publication.
  • In most cases, reviews are conducted by at least two independent reviewers; editorial board members are only asked to participate in a peer review when they are the best qualified to assess a particular topic or research method.
  • Feedback and recommendations provided by all peer reviewers for a submission are consolidated by the managing editor prior to being provided to authors. Anonymized consolidated reviews may be shared with other relevant peer reviewers to ensure they are accurate, coherent, and complete.
  • Prior to being provided to an author, the managing editor may edit or provide parenthetical comments within a review to add clarity or provide an author with guidance on how to respond to unprofessional reviewer feedback.
  • When there is a conflict between reviewer recommendations, the managing editor may seek input from an additional peer reviewer, an associate editor, a member of the editorial board, or the editor in chief.
  • The editor in chief makes the final decision regarding whether to publish a submission.
  • Peer review reports are not published.
  • Peer reviewers for a particular submission are selected based on their verifiable subject matter expertise, publication history, experience performing peer reviews, and availability.
  • Authors may provide the names of individuals who they believe are qualified to review their submission; authors must disclose their relationships (if any) with recommended reviewers, including current or former familial, academic, financial, business, legal, or political relationships.
  • Authors may request that certain individuals not be selected to review their submission; authors must provide a valid reason for their request.
  • Peer reviews are assessed by the IJPS for quality, objectivity, accuracy, responsiveness, timeliness, and professionalism to ensure only those individuals who provide high-quality reviews are approached to peer review future submissions.

Instructions for reviewers

  • Reviewers are asked to respond to an invitation to review a submission within 2 weeks of receiving the invitation.
  • Reviewers who accept an invitation are asked to return their review within 3 weeks of receiving a copy of the submission.
  • Reviewers must complete the Peer Review Report by answering each question, providing the author with constructive feedback, and providing the managing editor with a recommendation on whether the submission should be published.
  • Reviewers must adhere to all ethical responsibilities, including but not limited to those defined in the peer review agreement below.

Peer Review Report

[Peer reviewers are asked to complete a review by answering each of the below questions.]

Please respond to each question below. If an item is not relevant to the submission you are reviewing, please respond “not applicable.” If you do not have enough information to answer a question, the item is outside of your area of expertise, or the response options do not fit your desired response, please respond "other" and provide an explanation in your comments.

When you make your recommendation on how to proceed with the submission (the final question of the review) your choices will include the following:

Accept Submission with No Revisions: The submission meets all relevant IJPS requirements and does not need any revisions by the author prior to being published.

Accept Submission with Minor Revisions: The submission meets all relevant IJPS requirements but needs minor revisions by the author prior to being published.

Accept Submission with Major Revisions: The submission meets basic IJPS requirements but needs major revisions by the author prior to being published.

Decline Submission but Invite to Resubmit: The submission does not meet basic IJPS requirements but has potential; after making major revisions, the author may resubmit to the IJPS.

Decline Submission: The submission does not meet basic IJPS requirements and, even with major revisions, would not be suitable for the IJPS.

Peer review agreement

I affirm the following:

  • I have the requisite expertise to analyze the submission. If I am not qualified to assess a submission, I will immediately notify the IJPS managing editor; if I am not qualified to assess a specific portion of a submission, I will note that in my reviewer report.
  • I do not know who authored the submission. If I discover or suspect the author’s identity, I will immediately notify the IJPS managing editor.
  • I have declared all potential conflicts of interest—due to current or former familial, academic, financial, business, legal, political, religious, ethical, or other circumstances or relationships—that could create a conflict between my personal interests and the journal’s interests or the objectivity of my review. If I discover a potential conflict of interest, I will immediately notify the IJPS managing editor.
  • I am willing and able to provide an unbiased review of the submission. If at any point I believe I cannot be completely objective (e.g., due to strong personal feelings about a person, place, policy, incident, culture, etc. addressed in the submission), I will immediately notify the IJPS managing editor.
  • I am available to dedicate the requisite time and attention to complete a thorough review and return my review by the requested deadline. If I realize I cannot complete a quality review by the deadline, I will immediately notify the IJPS managing editor.
  • I will not use any information obtained during the review process for my benefit or for the detriment of others, nor will I make indefensible recommendations for the author to use my prior publications as source material.
  • I am not currently working on a research project or publication that is similar to the submission that I have been asked to review.
  • I will conduct the review in confidence and will not share any part of the submission, or any information regarding the submission with anyone without first obtaining permission from the IJPS managing editor.

1. Title: Does the title reflect the contents of the submission?

2. Abstract: Is the abstract clear, accurate, and intriguing?

3. Keywords: Are the keywords accurate and appropriate?

4. Topic: Is the research topic timely and relevant for policing, law enforcement, or security students, researchers, practitioners, or policymakers?

5. Novelty: Is the research innovative and interesting?

6. Research questions: Are the research questions well defined?

7. Literature reviewed: Does the author provide a sufficient review of relevant and respected literature?

8. Contribution to literature: Does the research/review challenge or address gaps in existing literature?

9. Hypotheses: Are the hypotheses clear, relevant, and testable?

10. Method description: Does the author provide sufficient information on their research methods to enable the research to be replicated?

11. Method selection: Are the research methods appropriate for answering the research questions?

12. Research ethics: Does the author provide evidence of their compliance with ethical research standards (if relevant)?

13. Data provided: Does the author provide an appropriate amount or description of data collected?

14. Data suitability: Are the data appropriate and sufficient to produce results (quantity, quality, variability, etc.)?

15. Data weaknesses: Are potential sources of bias or error in the data highlighted?

16. Tables and figures: Are data tables or figures discussed in the text and do they contribute to understanding the research?

17. Analyses: Are analyses of the data appropriate and accurate?

18. Results: Does the author provide clear answers to their research questions and address whether each of their hypotheses was validated or refuted?

19. Conclusions: Are the research conclusions supported by evidence?

20. Limitations: Are limitations of the research stated and accurate?

21. Significance: Does the author accurately state the significance of their findings?

22. Author's recommendations: Does the author provide relevant and practical recommendations for students, researchers, practitioners, and/or policymakers (based on the findings of their research)?

23. Writing quality: Is the writing logically organized and is the language clear and easy to understand?

24. Compliance with guidelines and standards: Does the submission comply with all IJPS author guidelines and writing standards?

25. Ethical concerns: Is the submission void of publication ethics or research misconduct concerns?

26. Comments for the author: Please provide the author with constructive feedback regarding their submission. Comments should be objective, relevant, focused, practical, professional, and designed to help the author improve the quality of their current submission.

27. Confidential comments for the managing editor: Please provide any additional comments, questions, or concerns you wish to share with the managing editor; these comments will not be shared with the author. If you wish to provide comments separately, you may email the managing editor at

28. Second review: If the author is asked to revise and resubmit their submission, and they choose to submit a revised version, would you be willing to review the submission again?