“It’s All about Who You Know”: Investigating the Involvement Process in Regard to Organised Criminal Groups within Australia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is an attempt to systematise some knowledge around OCGs involvement in Australia, thanks to interviews with hard to reach police units. The article is clear and well written and albeit not exceedingly original nor pathbreaking can be a good contribution to literature. In my view it necessitates of some tightening up. First, I understand the confidentiality issue, but police forces in Australia are very diverse, so it would be a good idea to indicate better not only the teams and what kind of access was negotiated, but also the reach of the teams - are we talking national, federal, local? A critique considering Mann (2017) could be important to, about their resources and focus. That said, it would also be good to learn a bit more about the range of questions, as the authors mention a semi-structured interview style - thus would be good to know to what extent the framework had been already conceptualised before the interviews in some form. 

Also, whilst the literature cited is appropriate, there are some notable absence. Sergi (2016) is hardly the best source to cite for this text, considering that there are publications from the same author about Australia specifically - see Sergi (2022) Chasing the Mafia, but perhaps much more importantly Sergi (2019) Polycephalous 'ndrangheta and (2024) Familiness Diversification. In the latest, she dwells on the involvement by family ties but also on the disengagement thanks to migration. Indeed, the issue of migration and the critique to "ethnic" organised crime is hardly touched upon in this paper, and this needs to be rectified as it is prominent in Australia (Leiva and Bright, 2015, among others, also Masters, 2018). Critiquing ethnic organised crime also means rethinking the family ties paradigm and the forced involvement mentioned, so that needs some extra thought in my view.
Also missing is research on drug networks, specifically related to cases cited in this paper, - see Bright Hughes and Chalmers (a couple of papers by same authors) who engage in research about the composition of drug networks in high level trafficking. Overall engaging with these sources should tighten up the analysis. 

Author Response

Comment 1: This article is an attempt to systematise some knowledge around OCGs involvement in Australia, thanks to interviews with hard-to-reach police units. The article is clear and well written and albeit not exceedingly original nor pathbreaking can be a good contribution to literature.

Response 1: Thank you, Reviewer 1. It is lovely to receive helpful and positive feedback, and your review is extremely helpful.

Comment 2: In my view it necessitates of some tightening up. First, I understand the confidentiality issue, but police forces in Australia are very diverse, so it would be a good idea to indicate better not only the teams and what kind of access was negotiated, but also the reach of the teams - are we talking national, federal, local? A critique considering Mann (2017) could be important to, about their resources and focus.

Response 2:  Thank you for your comment, Reviewer 1. With consideration to the confidentiality requested by the participating policing agencies, I have noted that the police officers interviewed were from state policing agencies, who work within specialised units (drugs and firearms squads, homicide squads, and organised crime squads). Please refer to lines 263, 264, and 269 in the manuscript. With regard to Mann (2017), the focus on Australian Federal law enforcement agencies does not align with the use of state policing agencies in the article. While I attempted to locate a similar article on the policing of organised crime by Australian state police agencies, one could not be located. However, I do highlight some of the limitations regarding the use of police data in the Limitations section of the article.  

Comment 3: That said, it would also be good to learn a bit more about the range of questions, as the authors mention a semi-structured interview style - thus would be good to know to what extent the framework had been already conceptualised before the interviews in some form.

Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion, Reviewer 1. I agree with the recommended changes, and as such I have included the base questions of the semi-structured interviews in the Methods section of the article. Please refer to lines to 276 in the manuscript.

Comment 4:  Also, whilst the literature cited is appropriate, there are some notable absences. Sergi (2016) is hardly the best source to cite for this text, considering that there are publications from the same author about Australia specifically - see Sergi (2022) Chasing the Mafia, but perhaps much more importantly Sergi (2019) Polycephalous 'ndrangheta and (2024) Familiness Diversification. In the latest, she dwells on the involvement by family ties but also on the disengagement thanks to migration.

Response 4: Thank you for your comment, Reviewer 1. I have removed Sergi (2016) from the article and include Sergi (2019), (2022) and (2024) into the literature review and discussion sections.

Comment 5: Indeed, the issue of migration and the critique to "ethnic" organised crime is hardly touched upon in this paper, and this needs to be rectified as it is prominent in Australia (Leiva and Bright, 2015, among others, also Masters, 2018). Critiquing ethnic organised crime also means rethinking the family ties paradigm and the forced involvement mentioned, so that needs some extra thought in my view.

Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion, Reviewer 1, however I believe a critique of “ethnic” organised crime is beyond the scope of this article. Although this article discusses the notion of ethnic ties within organised criminal groups, it does not assume that all organised crime is “ethnic” in nature. Existing literature, albeit limited in Australia, highlights the role and importance of ethnic ties within organised criminal groups. The articles you have mentioned (Leiva and Bright 2015 and Masters 2018) examine media and public perception of ethnicity in organised crime and critique the focus on “ethnic” organised crime. The results from this article align with existing literature on organised crime, especially in regard to prominence of ethnic ties within criminal groups, while also noting that criminal groups not bound “ethnic” are also active within Australia.

Comment 6: Also missing is research on drug networks, specifically related to cases cited in this paper, - see Bright Hughes and Chalmers (a couple of papers by same authors) who engage in research about the composition of drug networks in high level trafficking. Overall engaging with these sources should tighten up the analysis.

Response 6: Thank you for your comment, Reviewer 1. I have included several additional sources on drug networks (Bright et al. 2012; Hughes et al. 2016; Hughes et al. 2017; Morgan and Dowling 2023)

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript covers a very important, yet under-researched (and difficult to research) topic - and it does so very well.

There are several main strengths of this manuscript. These include:

- The paper does an excellent job capturing and building on the existing scholarship.  This alone is an important contribution as this paper can serve as a gateway to other sources.

- Setting the scene/stating the problem, explaining the approach taken by this paper, and presenting the results are all very clear and coherent.

- The paper is very well written and very readable, not only for expert readers.  The quality of language and expression is exceptionally high.  There is a certain caution and lack of exaggeration in the language which is rarely seen in papers on the topic of organised crime.

- The introduction and 'setting of the scene' are short and clear and the paper get quickly and easily to the main issues.

- Composition and structure of the paper are clear and the reader is guided well from one part/topic to the next.  Purpose and goals of the paper as well as research gaps are clearly stated at the start.

- Method and findings of this research make a neat fit into the existing literature; they both built on and add to the existing scholarship.

This author is less qualified to comment on the methods set out in part 3 and the analysis explained in part 4 of the paper.  A sample of 15 interviews may seem quite small, but is probably a good number in the Australian context.  This reviewer sees great value in the analysis of reported cases.  What is not immediately clear is whether the 100 cases were a capped number or whether this is the total number of cases containing sufficient information.  The limitations discussed in part 5 further explain the authors' approach.

There are, in the opinion of this reviewer, not any (major) issues that need to be addressed before this manuscript can be published. This reviewer recommends that this manuscript can be published in its present form, but the authors may nevertheless wish to consider the following points:

Unless this reviewer missed something, it may be useful to stress in the introduction and in part 2 to what extent this content (and the purpose of the paper) is focussing on/limited to Australia.  In this context it may be helpful to add a paragraph outlining the types of organised criminal groups operating in this country.

The findings and future directions presented in parts 7 and 8 almost seem a little modest.  Where possible and feasible, it would be useful to (cautiously) articulate observations and maybe even suggestions aimed at legislators and law enforcement (though it is acknowledged that this may not fit the overall objectives of the authors).

For additional clarity, it may be helpful to insert subheadings in long sections such as 2.1, 2.2, 6.3, and 7.

Personally, this reviewer finds that not much is gained by shortening 'organised criminal group' to OCG; using the full words makes the paper even more readable.

In summing up, this reviewer genuinely enjoyed reading this manuscript (he rarely does) and looks forward to seeing this manuscript published as he (and others) will use it widely!

Author Response

Comment 1: This manuscript covers a very important, yet under-researched (and difficult to research) topic - and it does so very well. There are several main strengths of this manuscript... In summing up, this reviewer genuinely enjoyed reading this manuscript (he rarely does) and looks forward to seeing this manuscript published as he (and others) will use it widely!

Response 1: Thank you, Reviewer 2. It is lovely to receive helpful and positive feedback. I'm so glad to hear that you enjoyed the article and will use it once published.

Comment 2: Unless this reviewer missed something, it may be useful to stress in the introduction and in part 2 to what extent this content (and the purpose of the paper) is focussing on/limited to Australia.  In this context, it may be helpful to add a paragraph outlining the types of organised criminal groups operating in this country.

Response 2: Thank you for your comment, Reviewer 2. In the Introduction section of the article, I note that the focus of the study is to examine the involvement process into organised criminal groups within Australia. While the literature review contains both international and Australian studies, the data (as noted in the Methodology section) was collected within an Australian context. Due to limited Australian literature on organised crime, the author opted not to discuss the types of groups operating in Australia, instead letting the results highlight the groups that were in operation. This prevented focusing on particular groups and provide a broad conceptual framework on organised crime in Australia.

Comment 3: The findings and future directions presented in parts 7 and 8 almost seem a little modest.  Where possible and feasible, it would be useful to (cautiously) articulate observations and maybe even suggestions aimed at legislators and law enforcement (though it is acknowledged that this may not fit the overall objectives of the authors).

Response 3: Thank you for your suggestion, Reviewer 2. While I agree that observations and suggestions aimed at legislators and law enforcement would be beneficial, it is beyond the scope and overall objectives of the article. Perhaps a future article could implement this suggestion.

Comment 4: For additional clarity, it may be helpful to insert subheadings in long sections such as 2.1, 2.2, 6.3, and 7.

Response 4: Thank you for your comment, Reviewer 2. While I also considered inserting subheadings into the longer sections, I found that it detracted from the flow of the sections, especially those crucial to the conceptual framework.  

Comment 5: Personally, this reviewer finds that not much is gained by shortening 'organised criminal group' to OCG; using the full words makes the paper even more readable.

Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion, Reviewer 2. While I agree that shortening organised criminal group to OCG does not improve the article, the acronym was used due to the article’s already extensive word count.