Vote: Publish pending minor changes.
The current study details the process by which community based participatory research (CBPR) may be applied in the context of prosecution research. Specifically, the author describes the process by which those with lived experiences (i.e., justice-involved individuals) may be recruited and embedded in the research process. Findings from the study highlight the utility of CBPR in expanding the scope of research. Moreover, the current study also offers practical insights for conducting future CBPR projects in the context of prosecution. In general, the study is promising and well written with practical implications for future research. However, I have several concerns I believe should be addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication.
Introduction
The introduction to the paper is very brief (3 paragraphs total). As such, it lacks the substance needed to set the stage for your study. I suggest spending some time situating the project in the broader literature. For example, discuss the state of prosecution literature, what has changed in prosecution (i.e., progressive prosecution reform efforts) that would allow this type of research to be conducted, why CBPR is useful in the context of prosecution research, etc. Doing so would help to situate this study not only in prior CBPR literature but in prosecution research more broadly.
Literature Review
Similar to my critique of the introduction, the literature also requires some expansion. Specifically, the author’s discussion of racially biased practices and racial disparities is very limited (see CBPR in Criminal Justice Research, paragraph 2). A significant amount of research has been produced in this area and yet the author only cites a handful of sources. If one purpose of CBPR is to increase involvement of marginalized populations in the research process, then a more thorough discussion of race and its relationship to prosecution outcomes is needed.
Moreover, the author should further develop current study section. Use this area to drive home why this type of research/methodology is important, particularly in the context of prosecution. It is not enough to say it’s important because it hasn’t been done before.
Methodology
Overall, I was very impressed with the methodology employed and description of the research process. What was the overall response rate for the focus groups? You report this information for your supplemental focus groups, but not the original group.
Results
I do have some concerns regarding the discussion of participant attrition. You describe the importance of “circling back” to participants in CBPR and your attempt to do so for the current study. However, does it count as “circling back” if the original participants aren’t involved. If it does, you should offer a justification. Additionally, were there other ways to share results wit the original participants? If so, were these considered. Why or why not?
I’m not totally sure if this section should be included here or moved to the practical considerations section. You don’t talk about the themes/outcomes from focus group pt. 2 so it may be a better fit elsewhere.