Next Article in Journal / Special Issue
Children’s Developmental (Im)maturity: Aligning Conflicting Decisional Capacity Assessment Approaches in Australia
Previous Article in Journal
Design of Equity Crowdfunding in the Digital Age
Previous Article in Special Issue
Adolescent Capacity to Consent to Participate in Research: A Review and Analysis Informed by Law, Human Rights, Ethics, and Developmental Science
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Claiming Justice: An Analysis of Child Sexual Abuse Complainants’ Justice Goals Reported during Investigative Interviews

by Robyn L. Holder *, Dirkje Gerryts, Francisco Garcia and Martine Powell
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Submission received: 22 November 2022 / Revised: 5 January 2023 / Accepted: 10 January 2023 / Published: 12 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Law and Children’s Decision-Making)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

-Opening line, "Supporting children’s disclosures of sexual victimisation presumes that adults understand why children tell" should be reworded.

-Why not report the exact p-values in the analysis so that the reader can evaluate the level of significance?

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review the article entitled, “Claiming justice: An analysis of child sexual assault complaints’ justice goals reported during investigative interviews".

 

The paper was very well-written and presented a novel examination regarding the motivations children have in reporting sexual abuse. The authors use “justice” as the interpretive lens. 

 

I would suggest a minor change to the title to use the word “abuse” rather than “assault” as “abuse” tends to be used more often when discussing children. 

 

The study followed well from previous research.

 

The authors had a very large sample size for this type of analysis adding to the strength of their manuscript. 

 

The descriptive results were appropriate as were the chi-square statistics given the categorical nature of the data.

 

The conclusions were well-founded. I wonder if the authors wish to note any limitations in the discussion portion of their paper and provide some future directions for further research.

 

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop