l I - National Criminal Justice Reference Service

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table I summarizes the conclusions of the peers and reviewers:
Table I.
Summary of Recommendations of Peers and OJJDP Reviewers
On Publishing One or Both Versions of a Report Prepared by
American University and Dr. Judith Relsman
"Should the research be published?"
OJJDP Anonymous Reviewers
OJJDP Reviewer #I
OJJDP Reviewer #2
OJJDP Reviewer #3
A.U. Peer Review Board
George Comstock
Robert H. Figllo
Jane F. Huntington
Emanuel Landau
Laura J. Lederer
Richard D. Zakia
American University Version
no
no
no
Reisman Version
not submitte~
not submitted
not submitted
not submitted; yes
no
recommendation unclear
yes
yes
yes
no reply
yes
not submitted
yes
yes
Regarding Relsman's version, therefore, we have praise from four of the six
peers. (Copies of letters from these four are enclosed; copies were also given
to you in my office.) Two of the peers (Comstock and Huntington) switched from
disapproval or ambiguity to approval. I suppose that Professor Landau's
remarks on the original version would continue to apply to the Reisman
version. In short, the overwhelming sentiment amo~ the peers is that the
Relsman version should be published. No peer or reviewer has recommended
against publishing Relsman's own version. The OJJDP reviewers did not say
whether her version should be published because they never saw it. Professor
Figllo has not spoken on the matter.
Third, the American University version, which no one wants to olalm, was
accepted by OJJDP as the final report and is available through your office.
The Reisman version, which the peers -- and the principal investigator .- say
is an improvement on the original, is not available from OJJDP or any other
IThe American University version was not formally submitted to Professor
Comstock. However, he did review the A.U. version and concluded that it was
not of publishable quality. In Comstock's letter to Relsman of March 2q, 1987
he wrote, "The document is of sufficient comprehensibility and completeness for
submission to a sponsoring agency as the draft of a final technical version.
This was not true of the version prepared by American University,, (Emphasis
added.) Comstock can be said to have voted "no" on the A.U. version.
2Representatlve statements of reviewers and peers on both the American
University version and the Reisman revision may be found in the appendix to
this letter.
P