Skip to main content
SearchLoginLogin or Signup
Reviews + Comments
Published on Jan 07, 2021DOI

Review of "An open and reproducible analysis of a controversial criminal law decision: Mission IMM-possible?" as submitted to the International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy

Published onJan 07, 2021
Review of "An open and reproducible analysis of a controversial criminal law decision: Mission IMM-possible?" as submitted to the International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy

It’s an important article that I hope to see published, if not in this journal then elsewhere. It provides concrete inspiration for researchers to follow, and, thus, should have an impact. I’m not a legal scholar per se, so will focus my comments on open issues. The goal of the comments is to provide ideas for improving the paper.

Need to be careful about this statement: “to provide, what, according to my knowledge, is the first fully open and reproducible quantitative analysis of judicial decisions” (p. 3). These terms – open and reproducible – are defined differently by people. My suggestion is to just delete the claim to originality. It’s done by doing, not by claiming, after all.

Is this referring to law or legal studies?: “I will now briefly discuss the need for reproducible legal analysis in law, and especially criminal law” (p. 8).

Not to be pedantic, but an “app” is short for “application software.” Fine to refer to apps, but I think the full, formal name should be used first. Also, given the importance of the app to the article, it is probably worth saying a little more about what apps are and their place in research (reproducibility); a sentence or two is all I have in mind.

The author somewhat gets at this (p. 13, p. 28), but there is an argument that for research to be fully reproducible, it can’t rely on paywalled tools like Lexis Advance. Some discussion of this would be interesting, I think. (At the extreme, the argument is you should only cite/references works that are open access, as otherwise people are paywalled from checking your claims and application of those works.)

Not a fan of one sentence paragraphs. See page 15.

Less is more, but an idea (and maybe a bad one) is to say more about how exactly researchers can learn to engage in open science. That assumes readers will be motivated by your article, but unsure what exactly to do next to learn more.

License
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0)
Comments
1
?
Login to discuss
Timothy Hogan:

I’ve always been cautious with my finances, but the promise of high returns in the crypto world drew me in. I invested $390,000 into what I believed was a legitimate Bitcoin investment platform. Initially, everything seemed promising—the returns looked incredible, and the dashboard showed my portfolio growing daily. However, when I attempted to withdraw my earnings, the site became unresponsive. Emails went unanswered, and my funds appeared to vanish without a trace. I was devastated. My trust in digital finance was shattered, and countless sleepless nights followed as I researched recovery options. That’s when I discovered SANTOSHI HACKERS INTELLIGENCE (SHI) through an online forum. Many others shared similar stories of loss but spoke highly of SHI’s ability to recover their stolen assets. Though skeptical, I reached out to them, clinging to hope. From my very first interaction with the SHI team, I was struck by their professionalism and genuine empathy. They took the time to understand my situation, asking detailed questions about my transactions and communications with the scam site. Their approach was meticulous and transparent, explaining step-by-step how they would trace blockchain transactions to uncover the trail left by the scammers. The process wasn’t instantaneous, but SHI regular updates and clear communication gave me confidence. Using advanced blockchain analytics, they traced my $390,000 through multiple disguised addresses used by the scammers. Weeks of effort culminated in incredible news: SHI had located a significant portion of my funds. Through their expertise and collaboration with legal teams and cryptocurrency exchanges, SHI recovered 75% of my initial investment. This outcome was beyond what I had dared to hope for. More importantly, SHI didn’t just recover my funds—they provided invaluable education on securing digital assets. They taught me about wallet security, the importance of due diligence in investments, and recognizing red flags in too-good-to-be-true platforms. What could have been a devastating financial loss became a powerful lesson in resilience and cybersecurity, thanks to the exceptional team at SANTOSHI HACKERS INTELLIGENCE. I am immensely grateful for their support and expertise. For anyone seeking trusted cryptocurrency recovery services, I wholeheartedly recommend SHI.

Contact Information

ISSN 2766-7170
ISSN 2766-7170
Published with