We appreciate Editor Miller’s invitation to provide some remarks on a recent commentary submitted by Gonzalez et al. We reflected for some time on whether to dedicate our effort and time to countering the inaccuracies in the commentary but feel that the errors, contradictions, inconsistencies, and tone of the commentary, unfortunately demand our attention. Accordingly, and because journal space is precious, we take a brief moment to provide our thoughts on their work and highlight some key differences – doing so in a constructive way—the way the community of scholars is meant to operate. The authors raise several points regarding our study: (1) the design itself was flawed and did not include more than 1 year of data for comparison; (2) the analytical methodology was non-conventional and appeared to be biased in favor of detecting a significant association; and (3) the authors’ conclusions in the manuscript are contradictory and inaccurate findings were disseminated. We address each of them in turn. American Journal of Criminal Justice https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09575-9

中文翻译：

---

回复冈萨雷斯等人。

我们感谢米勒编辑邀请对 Gonzalez 等人最近提交的评论发表评论。我们思考了一段时间是否要花费我们的精力和时间来反驳评论中的不准确之处，但遗憾的是，评论的错误、矛盾、不一致和语气需要我们注意。因此，由于期刊空间很宝贵，我们花一点时间来介绍我们对他们工作的看法，并强调一些关键差异——以建设性的方式——学者社区的运作方式。作者就我们的研究提出了几点：（1）设计本身存在缺陷，没有包含超过 1 年的数据进行比较；(2) 分析方法是非常规的，似乎偏向于检测显着关联；（3）作者在手稿中的结论相互矛盾，传播了不准确的发现。我们依次解决每个问题。美国刑事司法杂志 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09575-9