The Journal of Prison Education and Reentry (JPER) relies on the expertise and professional judgment of reviewers to maintain the quality, relevance, and integrity of the work it publishes. Reviewers play an important role in helping authors strengthen their manuscripts and in assisting the editorial team in making fair and well-informed publication decisions.
JPER publishes scholarship and practice-based work related to prison education, incarceration, rehabilitation, and the reentry process. The journal welcomes interdisciplinary contributions from education, criminology, psychology, arts and humanities, linguistics, law, anthropology, sociology, philosophy, cultural studies, public policy, spirituality and religion, mental and behavioral health, and other relevant fields.
Review of Research Papers
Research manuscripts submitted to JPER undergo a blind peer-review process. Each research manuscript is normally evaluated by three reviewers whose expertise is relevant to the subject, methodology, or disciplinary orientation of the submission.
Before a manuscript is sent for review, identifying information is removed to support an impartial assessment. Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript solely on its scholarly quality, relevance, methodological rigor, clarity, originality, and contribution to the field.
The purpose of peer review is not simply to determine whether a manuscript should be accepted or rejected. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, specific, and academically useful feedback that can help authors improve their work.
Scope and Relevance
Reviewers should first consider whether the manuscript is appropriate for JPER. The central focus should relate meaningfully to prison education, correctional learning, rehabilitation, reentry, or associated social, educational, legal, psychological, cultural, health, or policy issues.
Interdisciplinary approaches are encouraged. A manuscript should not be judged negatively merely because it uses theories or methods from a discipline different from the reviewer’s own, provided that the approach is appropriate, clearly explained, and relevant to the research question.
Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript addresses an important issue and whether its findings, arguments, or theoretical contributions are likely to be useful to researchers, practitioners, educators, policymakers, correctional professionals, or communities involved in prison education and reentry.
Originality and Contribution
Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript makes a meaningful contribution to existing knowledge or practice.
A strong manuscript should clearly explain the problem being investigated, identify its relationship to previous scholarship, and demonstrate what is new or significant about the study.
Originality does not necessarily require the introduction of an entirely new theory. Valuable contributions may include new empirical evidence, application of established theories to previously understudied populations, innovative educational practices, comparative perspectives, methodological developments, policy analysis, or new interpretations of existing evidence.
Reviewers should identify where the contribution is unclear and recommend how the authors might better articulate the significance of their work.
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework
Research papers should be supported by an appropriate theoretical or conceptual framework where relevant.
Reviewers should consider whether the framework is clearly described, appropriately connected to the research questions, and adequately supported by relevant literature. Theoretical concepts should not simply appear in the introduction but should contribute meaningfully to the design, analysis, interpretation, or discussion of the study.
Where a theoretical framework is unnecessary for a particular research design, reviewers should assess whether the manuscript nevertheless provides sufficient conceptual grounding for the research.
Literature and Context
The literature review should provide an appropriate foundation for the study without becoming unnecessarily extensive.
Reviewers should consider whether relevant scholarship has been adequately represented, whether important perspectives have been omitted, and whether the literature is used critically rather than simply summarized.
Because JPER is an international journal, reviewers should also consider whether manuscripts appropriately acknowledge relevant international or cross-national scholarship when the subject warrants it. Authors should not be expected to cite literature simply to increase the number of references, but significant relevant research should not be overlooked.
Research Questions and Objectives
The research problem, objectives, and research questions should be clearly stated and logically related to one another.
Reviewers should determine whether the methods, results, discussion, and conclusions actually address the stated objectives. If the manuscript introduces claims or conclusions that extend beyond the original research questions or the available evidence, reviewers should identify these concerns clearly.
Methodological Rigor
JPER welcomes a wide variety of research methodologies. Reviewers should therefore evaluate each manuscript according to the standards appropriate to the method actually used rather than expecting all studies to follow the same design.
Qualitative, quantitative, mixed-methods, theoretical, comparative, historical, action-research, and other appropriate methodologies may all be suitable for publication.
Reviewers should assess whether the research design is appropriate for the stated objectives, whether participants or data sources are adequately described, whether sampling and data-collection procedures are sufficiently explained, and whether the analytical methods are appropriate and transparent.
For quantitative studies, reviewers should consider the appropriateness of statistical procedures, sample size, measurement methods, assumptions, uncertainty, and interpretation of results.
For qualitative studies, reviewers should consider the appropriateness of participant selection, data collection, analytical procedures, reflexivity, credibility, transparency, and support for interpretations.
For mixed-methods research, reviewers should assess both components and whether their integration meaningfully contributes to the conclusions.
The reviewer should not require a preferred method simply because it is personally familiar. The relevant question is whether the chosen method is appropriate, adequately implemented, and sufficiently described.
Research Ethics
Ethical scrutiny is particularly important for research involving incarcerated or formerly incarcerated individuals.
Reviewers should consider whether the study has been conducted in accordance with internationally recognized ethical standards and whether appropriate safeguards are described.
Particular attention should be given to voluntary participation, informed consent, confidentiality, privacy, potential coercion, power imbalances, vulnerability of participants, and possible risks resulting from participation.
Where institutional ethics or research review approval would normally be required, the manuscript should indicate that appropriate approval was obtained.
Reviewers should raise concerns when ethical procedures are unclear, when potentially identifiable information is unnecessarily disclosed, or when the relationship between researchers and incarcerated participants could create undue influence.
Ethical concerns that could place participants at risk should be communicated clearly to the editor.
Results and Evidence
The results or findings should be presented clearly and accurately.
Reviewers should determine whether the evidence supports the claims made by the authors. Tables, figures, quotations, statistical results, and other forms of evidence should be consistent with the accompanying text.
Reviewers should identify unsupported causal claims, exaggerated interpretations, contradictions between sections, or conclusions that extend beyond the data.
Negative, unexpected, or non-significant findings should not be treated as weaknesses merely because they do not support the authors’ expectations. Their value should be judged according to the quality of the research and their contribution to understanding the subject.
Discussion and Interpretation
The discussion should explain the meaning and significance of the findings rather than simply repeat the results.
Reviewers should consider whether the authors engage appropriately with previous literature, consider alternative explanations, acknowledge limitations, and discuss implications for research, policy, practice, or prison education and reentry.
Interpretations should remain proportional to the evidence. Reviewers should draw attention to generalizations that exceed the study population, setting, research design, or data.
Writing and Organization
Manuscripts should be clearly organized and written in a professional academic style.
Reviewers may identify problems of clarity, organization, terminology, repetition, or presentation. However, reviewers are not expected to rewrite the manuscript or provide detailed copyediting.
Comments about language should focus on problems that interfere with understanding, precision, or scholarly communication. Reviewers should distinguish between genuine language problems and differences in personal writing style.
International authors should be assessed fairly. Minor language imperfections should not overshadow the scientific or scholarly quality of an otherwise valuable manuscript.
Tables, Figures, and Supplementary Material
Tables and figures should contribute meaningfully to the manuscript and should be understandable without unnecessary duplication of information already presented in the text.
Reviewers should consider whether captions are clear, whether data presentation is accurate, and whether figures or tables support the arguments made in the manuscript.
Any apparent inconsistencies between tables, figures, results, and textual statements should be noted.
References
Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript engages sufficiently with relevant literature and whether cited sources appear appropriate to the claims being made.
Reviewers are not responsible for verifying every bibliographic detail. However, apparent citation problems, important omissions, excessive reliance on outdated or inappropriate sources, or unsupported attribution should be identified when relevant.
Reviewers should never require authors to cite the reviewer’s own work unless that work is genuinely necessary to understanding the subject.
Confidentiality
All manuscripts submitted for review must be treated as confidential documents.
Reviewers should not share, distribute, reproduce, discuss, or disclose manuscript content to others without authorization from the editorial office. Unpublished data, arguments, interpretations, or ideas obtained through peer review must not be used for the reviewer’s own research, teaching, publication, professional advantage, or any other purpose before publication.
If a reviewer believes that consultation with another specialist is necessary, the reviewer should contact the editor rather than sharing the manuscript independently.
Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers should disclose any conflict of interest that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their impartiality.
Potential conflicts may arise from professional relationships, institutional connections, personal relationships, financial interests, direct competition, recent collaboration, or other circumstances that could influence the review.
If a reviewer believes that a conflict prevents an impartial evaluation, the reviewer should decline the invitation or inform the editor promptly.
Respectful and Constructive Review
JPER expects reviewers to communicate professionally and respectfully.
Review reports should evaluate the manuscript rather than the authors. Personal criticism, dismissive language, hostile remarks, or comments concerning an author’s nationality, institution, background, identity, or presumed level of experience are inappropriate.
Criticism should be specific and constructive. Rather than stating that a section is “weak,” reviewers should explain what is missing, why the issue matters, and what type of revision could strengthen the manuscript.
Reviewers should also acknowledge important strengths when relevant. A balanced report helps both the author and the editor understand the manuscript’s potential as well as its limitations.
Preparing the Review Report
A useful review should normally address the manuscript’s overall contribution as well as its most important substantive concerns. Reviewers are encouraged to focus particularly on the following matters:
- relevance to the scope of JPER; originality and significance; theoretical or conceptual grounding; appropriateness and rigor of the research design; ethical safeguards; clarity and reliability of the results; relationship between evidence and conclusions; engagement with relevant literature; implications for prison education and reentry; organization and quality of writing; and specific revisions required before the manuscript could be suitable for publication.
Reviewers should distinguish between major issues that affect the validity or contribution of the manuscript and minor matters involving presentation, terminology, formatting, or clarification.
Whenever possible, comments should identify the relevant section, paragraph, table, figure, or passage so that authors can respond efficiently.
Editorial Recommendations
At the end of the review, reviewers should provide a clear recommendation to the editor. Depending on the journal’s editorial decision categories, this may indicate that the manuscript is suitable for acceptance, requires minor revision, requires substantial or major revision, or should not be accepted for publication.
The recommendation should be consistent with the concerns raised in the written report. A recommendation for rejection should be supported by substantive reasons such as fundamental methodological problems, insufficient evidence, serious ethical concerns, lack of relevance, or a contribution that cannot reasonably be strengthened through revision.
The reviewer’s recommendation is advisory. The final publication decision is made by the appropriate JPER editor after considering all reviewer reports and the overall merits of the submission.
Reviewing Revised Manuscripts
When a revised manuscript is returned for further review, reviewers should focus on whether the authors have adequately responded to the substantive concerns raised during the previous round.
Authors are not necessarily required to accept every suggestion from reviewers, but where they choose not to make a requested change, they should provide a reasonable scholarly explanation.
Reviewers should avoid introducing entirely new requirements during later review rounds unless a new issue has emerged as a consequence of the revision or a serious concern was previously overlooked.
Practitioner Papers
Practitioner papers follow a different process from formal research manuscripts. They are designed as a forum for educators and other professionals working directly in prison education and reentry.
Practitioner contributions may include reflections on teaching, case studies, instructional approaches, ethical challenges, policy experiences, action research, visual or written arts, and other forms of practice-based knowledge.
These papers are generally shorter and less formal than research articles and are reviewed by one designated reviewer or editor rather than undergoing the journal’s full three-reviewer blind peer-review process.
The reviewer should focus primarily on the quality and clarity of the writing, coherence of ideas, authenticity and usefulness of the experience described, significance to prison education or reentry, and potential value to practitioners and the broader field.
Practitioner papers should not be judged according to the methodological requirements expected of formal empirical research unless the submission itself presents research claims that require such standards.
Reviewers should help practitioner-authors communicate their experience clearly while preserving the practical and reflective character of their contributions.
Features and Invited Contributions
Recurring JPER features, including editorial communications, historical vignettes, book reviews, and other invited material, are selected or commissioned by the journal’s editorial team. These contributions are not normally processed through the standard research peer-review procedure unless the editors determine that specialist review is appropriate.
Reviewer Ethics and Recognition
By accepting a review assignment, reviewers agree to provide an independent, confidential, fair, and professionally responsible evaluation of the manuscript.
Reviewers should accept assignments only when they possess sufficient expertise to assess the manuscript and can complete the evaluation within the period requested by the editorial office. If circumstances prevent completion of the review, the editor should be informed as soon as possible so that alternative arrangements can be made.
The quality of JPER depends substantially on the voluntary scholarly contribution of its reviewers. The journal therefore values reviews that are rigorous, thoughtful, constructive, and respectful and that contribute both to sound editorial decisions and to the improvement of scholarship and practice in prison education and reentry.