crim-review-process — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited crim-review-process (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Knowing how Criminology screens and decides lets you pre-empt failure modes before submitting. The journal uses double-anonymized review (anonymized main document + separate title page) and is handled by the ASC/Wiley editorial team for an interdisciplinary, theory-forward field. As of 2026-06-22, Chris Sullivan is Interim Editor (leadership changed Sept 12, 2025; permanent 2027-2031 editor search ongoing) — re-check the live ASC/Wiley masthead before submission, since the interim status is in flux.
page** carries author identities. Anonymize accordingly (see crim-submission).
Papers that are out of scope, atheoretical, better suited to a sister journal (Criminology & Public Policy for policy evaluation), or methodologically unsound can be returned without full review.
criminology reviewers probe identification, the dark figure, model choice, and theoretical payoff.
a strong paper usually goes through at least one major revision. Treat labels as editor-governed and interpret them from the decision letter.
simultaneous submission elsewhere is not allowed.
crim-data-and-transparency).The exact category labels are set by the editors, but the common reads map as follows. A first major revision is the modal good outcome at the ASC flagship, not a near-miss.
| Letter signal | What it usually means | Your move |
|---|---|---|
| Reject after review | one fatal flaw (ID, theory, or measurement) | reframe or re-route, do not re-submit unchanged |
| Major revision | promising, but identification or theory needs work | accept the load; see crim-rebuttal |
| Minor revision | contribution accepted, polish remaining | tighten exhibits and prose |
| Desk return | scope/fit or atheoretical | back to crim-topic-selection |
Treat this skill as an executable review pass, not a prose hint. First lock the crime/justice process, measurement validity, research design, and policy consequence; then judge whether the current manuscript answers the venue's real reader: criminology reviewers who expect theory-linked crime, justice, or harm mechanisms plus transparent measurement.
claim / evidence / risk / manuscript location rows, so the next agent can edit rather than rediscover the issue.resources/official-source-map.md has been checked for volatile rules and the manuscript has one concrete fix for the largest venue-specific risk.【Screening check】scope / theory / right-journal / method — any red flags?
【Theoretical payoff】clear contribution? [Y/N]
【Measurement】crime construct + dark figure handled? [Y/N]
【Literature engaged】incl. cross-discipline theory? [Y/N]
【Realistic outcome】reject / R&R (major|minor) / (rare) accept
【Next】crim-submission (or crim-rebuttal if decided)../../resources/official-source-map.md — review model, editor sources, decision norms, sister-journal distinction~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.