[For votes to count, referees must reasonably explain why they voted as they did. Thus, please explain your vote. If you voted to publish pending minor changes, specify each change, why it is needed, and, possibly, how it should/could be done.]
Overall, the article provides good insight into the role of SROs in Virginia. It provides an understanding of SRO roles as diverse (traditional law enforcement, educator, mentor).
Although the paper provides insight into the role of SROs in Virginia, the papers contribution beyond existing research into the diversity of SROs roles. Furthermore, there are several issues in the paper that require amendment, specifically:
Presentation of arguments requires revisions (see specific notes below). For example, the authors present several arguments in long sentences that are awkwardly constructed.
Issues with punctuation and spelling require revision (see specific examples below).
Ethical issues in the research require discussion, specifically around participant recruitment, right to withdraw, issues with virtual conferencing, third-party transcription service etc.
Authors discuss the percentage of schools with SROs, but the number of SROs would have been useful, particularly, in understanding the adequacy of the sample.
Author(s) theoretical/conception findings require revision to improve the findings/discussion section – specifically in illustrating the originality of the research.
The paper would benefit from a stronger discussion on the need for articulating expected SRO roles and recommendations for improvement – How could this be done? What would the benefits be?
[Please put additional info below, as/if you see fit.]
Other areas for revision:
Page 1 – Assumption the reader is familiar with research on school resource officers.
Page 1 – Number of SROs in U.S schools could be added to the abstract.
Page 1 – Missing punctuation in on mixed-findings in research.
Page 2 – The following sentence is awkward to read with missing citations “Despite a lack of consistent evidence that SROs have been effective or a clear consensus that SRO programs have been created with the best intentions, the number of SROs in schools is likely to continue to grow.”
Page 2 – Numbers of SROs in U.S. schools mentioned again without any numbers on the “rise”.
Page 2 – Punctuation errors in ‘SROs in the United States’ section.
Page 3 – Final sentence in ‘SROs in the United States’ section is awkward to read.
Page 4 – The following sentence should be reviewed for clarity/punctuation “ring information (relationship building) vs. using information (credibility building). However, the identification of SRO roles facilitates discussions of SRO programs, such as discussions occurring when schools and law enforcement agencies are working together to develop, implement, evaluate, and revise SRO programs or when schools and law enforcement agencies share information about SRO programs with local communities.”
Page 4 – Presentation of percentages could be improved.
Page 5 – Table 1 crosses two pages (repeat headings or move table to single page).
Page 7/8 – formatting in the findings section requires some revision to improve the clarity of the discussion section (for example, use of italics and bold text).
Page 16 – The following sentence could use some revision “This omission as a formalized, named role is likely a result of liaison activities being folded into other named roles, not a result of a devaluing of SROs as a liaison between law enforcement agencies and communities.”