1. Scope of the policy

The policy covers concerns relating to:

• editorial procedures and application of journal rules;
• the organisation and quality of peer review;
• unjustified delays and inadequate communication;
• communication and conduct of editors, reviewers, editorial body members and staff;
• editorial independence and competing interests;
• confidentiality and protection of research data;
• author charges, waivers and administrative operations;
• technical problems affecting submission, assessment or publication;
• decisions on manuscripts;
• published content, corrections, retractions and other post-publication actions.

Reports of plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate authorship, peer review manipulation and other misconduct follow the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement and related rules. A complaint about how such a report was handled falls under this policy. A separate policy on handling allegations of misconduct applies once approved and published.

2. Definitions

A complaint is a report of a perceived deficiency in a policy, procedure, service, participant’s conduct, publishing practice or published content that calls for examination and a reasoned response.

An editorial appeal is a formal request by an author or authors to reconsider a particular manuscript decision, identifying a material factual, scientific or methodological, procedural or ethical error.

An appeal is not an ordinary response to revision comments, does not automatically overturn a decision and does not guarantee another review round. A status enquiry may be handled as routine correspondence; where it identifies a material concern, the editorial office registers it under the appropriate procedure regardless of the email’s heading.

3. Who may submit a complaint or appeal

Complaints are accepted from authors, reviewers, readers, editors, the Chair, Deputy Chair and other members of the Editorial Board, institutions, funders, research participants and others reporting a specific issue relevant to the journal. Substantiated scholarly criticism does not require proof of personal harm.

A manuscript appeal is normally submitted by the corresponding author with the knowledge and agreement of co-authors. Individual confirmation may be requested. Any disagreement among authors must be disclosed; an individual author’s report about misconduct or their rights is not blocked by other authors’ lack of agreement and is handled as the relevant complaint.

Anonymous reports are assessed where they contain specific, verifiable information. A representative identifies whom they act for; authority is checked proportionately without excessive document collection.

4. Fairness and independence

A complaint or appeal is assessed by a qualified person who was not involved in the contested decision or conduct and has no relevant competing interest. A shortage of internal personnel does not justify assigning final consideration to the person complained about: an independent external specialist is engaged where necessary.

Checks cover personal, financial, professional and institutional relationships, reporting dependencies and research involvement. The original editor or another participant may provide explanations but does not determine the outcome of a review of their own actions. Under the Conflicts of Interest Policy, an editor at the same institution as any author is recused from handling a complaint or appeal relating to the manuscript.

Appointment, authority, access restrictions and the final decision are documented under the Editorial Governance and Editorial Independence Policy. Organisational assistance from the publisher does not authorise it to replace independent scholarly assessment. An interested person does not choose the assessor of their own case.

5. Good-faith concerns and protection from retaliation

The journal prohibits retaliation for an honest complaint, appeal or research integrity report. Raising a concern does not affect impartial assessment of current or future manuscripts, the person’s reviewing activity or their professional interaction with the journal.

Insufficient evidence, an unconfirmed suspicion, a critical position or persistent status enquiries do not themselves establish bad faith. Particular regard is given to the vulnerability of doctoral candidates, subordinate staff, interview participants, victims and people in custody.

Threats, harassment, deliberate falsehoods, discriminatory language and fabricated evidence are addressed separately from the substance of a report. Restricting an unacceptable form of communication does not remove the obligation to assess a specific, substantiated concern under section 24.

6. Confidentiality

Information is available only to those who need it to assess, investigate and resolve the case. The identities of complainants, informants, anonymous reviewers and research participants are protected as far as reasonably possible. Complete anonymity is not promised where disclosure is necessary for a fair response, appropriate investigation, protection of the scholarly record or compliance with applicable binding requirements.

Before disclosure, its necessity, extent and risks are assessed; where possible, the complainant is informed and an anonymised account of the substance is used. Institutional or competent authority involvement does not automatically entail transfer of the entire file. The person whose actions are challenged receives enough information to respond without excessive personal disclosure or identification of reviewers.

Criminological cases require particular protection of criminal case materials and information about informants, victims, minors and convicted persons. Restricted materials must not be included in the initial email. A secure channel is agreed separately for necessary evidence; a complaint does not authorise breaches of access conditions or participant consent.

7. Timeframes

The following communication targets apply:

• acknowledgement within 10 working days of receipt;
• initial assessment and a substantive response or explanation of the next steps, where possible, within 30 calendar days of receipt;
• during ongoing consideration, progress information normally at least once every 30 calendar days;
• the ordinary period for submitting an editorial appeal or requesting a further review of a complaint is 30 calendar days after receipt of the relevant decision, subject to sections 14 and 17.

Response timeframes are operational targets, not guarantees of completed investigations. Complex cases, external opinions and institutional investigations may take longer. The complainant is informed of the reason for delay, the next stage and an estimated update date. Requests for clarification do not remove the obligation to provide progress information.

No fixed time limit applies to reporting serious ethical breaches, unreliable published work or risks to participants. Urgent risks of data exposure or harm are assessed without waiting for the ordinary response cycle.

8. Submitting a complaint

Complaints are submitted through the current editorial contacts on the journal website. The general founder and publisher address for forwarding a concern to the editorial office is info@uzkti.uz. Suggested subject line:

Complaint — Criminological Activity: [brief description, manuscript ID or DOI]

Where possible, include:

• the complainant’s name and a safe contact method, except for anonymous reports;
• the manuscript or article title and number, DOI or link;
• a clear description of the issue and relevant dates;
• names or roles of affected participants, where known;
• relevant correspondence and available supporting evidence;
• the requested action or outcome;
• any interests the complainant has in the matter;
• any need for confidential or urgent handling.

Missing individual details do not automatically prevent consideration where the issue can be identified. The existence of restricted evidence may initially be described without transferring it. Anonymity or the absence of a safe return contact may limit clarification and communication of the outcome, but does not preclude examination of available information.

9. Preliminary assessment of a complaint

The editorial office registers the concern and determines:

• whether the matter falls within the journal’s responsibility;
• which manuscripts, publications and procedures are affected;
• whether information is sufficient and what clarification is needed;
• whether another ethics procedure applies;
• whether urgent risks affect people, data or the scholarly record;
• who can independently assess the case;
• whether records must be preserved, access restricted or publication paused.

Where information is insufficient, clarification is requested with a reasonable response period. A concern may be closed if it is outside the journal’s remit, remains unidentifiable after clarification or entirely repeats a completed case without new circumstances. Scientific disagreement may be directed to a commentary and author response format where no procedural or ethical problem is identified.

The reason for closure and available review route are communicated where a contact is available. A harsh tone is not used as the sole reason to ignore a verifiable report of serious misconduct.

10. Investigating a complaint

An investigation may involve examining manuscript history, decisions, reports, correspondence, policies applicable at the relevant stage and access logs; requesting explanations; assessing research materials; consulting independent subject, methodological, statistical, technical or ethics specialists; and approaching a competent organisation.

Affected individuals receive the substance of the concerns and a reasonable opportunity to respond. Failure to reply is not an admission of guilt, although a decision may be made on sufficient available evidence. The editorial office distinguishes established facts, inconsistencies and unconfirmed assumptions.

Consideration or publication may be paused, the handling editor changed or access to protected material restricted where necessary. An interim measure does not establish misconduct. Investigation aims to repair processes and protect the scholarly record; measures must be proportionate to established circumstances.

11. Complaints about the Editor-in-Chief

The Editor-in-Chief does not investigate or determine a complaint about their own actions. Transfer is arranged by an unconflicted person authorised under the journal’s governance documents. The case is assigned to an independent qualified editor, an Editorial Board member without relevant dependence or conflict, or an external specialist. The position of Chair or Deputy Chair of the Editorial Board does not in itself confer authority to make the final scholarly decision on such a complaint.

The Editor-in-Chief may provide explanations but does not appoint the assessor of their own case, obtain privileged access to confidential materials or control the outcome. Authority to make the final decision is expressly assigned to an independent responsible person. The Editor-in-Chief’s general oversight role does not override this recusal.

12. Complaints about the founder and publisher

The Criminological Research Institute of the Republic of Uzbekistan serves as both founder and publisher. A complaint about the Institute or a person acting on its behalf is referred to a qualified person or body uninvolved in the contested actions and free of relevant dependence or conflict.

Because founder and publisher functions are combined, formal transfer between Institute departments does not itself establish independence. An independent external specialist or competent body is engaged where independence cannot be secured within the editorial bodies.

An Institute representative may provide documents and explanations, but the person complained about does not choose the investigator or determine the outcome. Scholarly decisions remain within the authority of an independent authorised editor. Property and other legal disputes beyond editorial competence follow applicable external procedures.

13. Complaint outcomes

Where a safe contact is available, a written response sets out the issue, procedure, principal findings, reasons, measures taken or planned and the opportunity for further review. Confidential information about others is disclosed only as necessary.

An outcome may include:

• no grounds for further action, with reasons;
• clarification, an apology or correction of a factual or administrative error;
• improved communication or changes to an internal procedure;
• reassignment to another editor, reviewer replacement or additional independent assessment;
• a publication correction, expression of concern or retraction where sufficiently justified;
• handling through another ethics procedure or referral to a competent organisation;
• staff training and other proportionate measures.

A responsible person and expected implementation timeframe are assigned to measures, and completion is recorded. Failure to substantiate a complaint does not establish bad faith. Upholding an administrative or financial complaint does not guarantee article acceptance.

14. Further review of a complaint

A complainant who considers the initial handling unfair or materially incorrect may request one further internal review within 30 calendar days of receiving the response. The request identifies a factual or procedural error, its significance and any new supporting evidence.

An independent responsible person may accept a later request where there is a valid reason for delay or material new information. Reports of serious ethical risks are not excluded solely because this period has passed.

The review is conducted by someone uninvolved in the original investigation and without a competing interest; an external specialist is engaged where needed. The outcome normally concludes the internal process for that issue but does not prevent consideration of material new circumstances or recourse to competent external bodies.

15. Grounds for an editorial appeal

Grounds may include:

• a material factual, scientific or methodological error;
• serious misunderstanding of the original manuscript;
• failure to follow the published review or decision procedure;
• an undisclosed competing interest capable of affecting the outcome;
• specific indications of bias, pressure or misconduct;
• reliance on a clearly incorrect fact or omission of a material part of the submitted work;
• a substantial discrepancy between the decision and the reasons communicated to authors.

The appeal must explain how the alleged error could have changed the outcome. In criminological work, this might concern misunderstanding of a sample, statistical source, method or data access restriction. A scientifically reasoned objection is assessed on its merits rather than dismissed solely because it concerns expert judgement.

16. Matters not normally sufficient for an appeal

The following are not normally sufficient on their own:

• dissatisfaction with rejection without a specific explanation of error;
• preference for another reviewer;
• a desire to change the journal’s established aims and scope;
• an entirely new study, new data or analysis completed after the decision;
• previously unsubmitted arguments that do not demonstrate an error in the original handling;
• an author’s position, reputation, institutional affiliation or publication needs;
• an approaching defence, reporting deadline, payment or financial support for the journal.

Substantially revised work is normally treated as a new submission where the journal permits it. New evidence of procedural or ethical misconduct differs from new research findings and may justify reconsideration under sections 15 and 21.

17. Submitting an appeal

Appeals are sent through the editorial contacts; the general forwarding address is info@uzkti.uz. Suggested subject line:

Appeal — Criminological Activity: [manuscript ID]

The ordinary period is 30 calendar days after receiving the editorial decision. Reasons for delay must be explained; a justified late appeal may be accepted by an independent responsible person. Material ethical information is considered irrespective of this period.

The request includes:

• the manuscript title and identifier;
• the date, type and a copy of the contested decision;
• a concise statement of the grounds;
• a point-by-point explanation of specific errors;
• references to the relevant passages in the original manuscript, reports or decision letter;
• available supporting evidence;
• confirmation that co-authors have been informed and agree, or a description of any disagreement;
• competing interests relevant to the matter.

A fully revised manuscript is not required unless specifically requested: the original submission and decision grounds are assessed. Confidential materials are transferred securely. Authors maintain a respectful tone and make their scholarly objections specific.

18. Preliminary assessment of an appeal

An independent authorised person assesses admissibility. The Editor-in-Chief may perform this role only if uninvolved in the contested decision and free of competing interests. Checks cover timeliness and reasons for delay, relevance to a journal decision, specificity of grounds and sufficiency of information.

Clarification is requested where a deficiency can be remedied. Where a request merely repeats dissatisfaction without identifying a material factual, scientific or methodological, procedural or ethical concern, further consideration may be declined with reasons.

Admissibility is not determined solely by the person who made the contested decision. Where a substantiated issue exists, the independent review procedure, necessary materials and responsible person are identified and communicated to authors to the extent permissible.

19. Independent consideration of an appeal

Consideration may include:

• re-examination of the original manuscript and supplementary material;
• analysis of the decision letter, reports and authors’ point-by-point response;
• checking applicable procedures and processing history;
• requesting factual explanations from the original editor and reviewers;
• appointing an independent editor and, where necessary, a new external reviewer;
• obtaining subject, methodological, statistical, technical or ethics advice.

Assessment and the final appeal decision are undertaken by a person uninvolved in the original decision and without a competing interest. The original reviewers are not assigned final authority to determine whether their own reports were correct.

Additional advice is obtained where necessary, not automatically. Review confidentiality is maintained; material new objections that could affect an adverse outcome are communicated to authors with an opportunity to respond. Authority and findings from independent consideration are recorded.

20. Appeal outcomes

Possible outcomes include:

• maintaining the original decision;
• clarifying its grounds without changing the outcome;
• overturning the decision and returning the manuscript to the editorial process;
• appointing a different editor or new reviewers;
• inviting revision;
• permitting a substantially changed work to be submitted as new;
• replacing the original decision with another reasoned decision.

A successful appeal does not guarantee acceptance. It establishes a need to correct the decision or process. Acceptance of a research article still requires compliance with the Peer Review Policy, including at least two substantive reports from independent external experts. A compromised report does not count towards this requirement.

The corresponding author receives a written explanation of the outcome, next actions and manuscript status. Where consideration resumes, the stage and handling editor are explicitly identified.

21. Finality and number of appeals

Normally, one ordinary appeal is permitted against a particular editorial decision. Its outcome concludes that cycle. A new substantive decision following resumed consideration does not remove the right to challenge a new material error.

A completed matter may be reopened where material circumstances or evidence of a serious problem emerge that could not reasonably have been provided earlier. Repeating previous arguments without new information does not require indefinite correspondence; closure of repeated requests is communicated with reasons. This does not prevent examination of new research integrity reports.

Authors may withdraw an appeal in writing. While seeking resumed consideration, they must not simultaneously submit the same manuscript elsewhere. To submit a previously rejected work to another journal, authors notify withdrawal of the appeal; if the manuscript has already returned to consideration, withdrawal from the editorial process is also required. The editorial office confirms the status. Investigation of an independent ethical concern may continue after withdrawal.

22. Research and publication misconduct

Reports of plagiarism, fabrication or falsification, data or image manipulation, duplicate publication, inappropriate authorship, review or citation manipulation, unethical research or concealed competing interests follow the relevant ethics policies.

In criminology, additional concerns include missing required consent, participant coercion, dangerous identification of individuals, improper use of restricted materials and distortion of material research information. Specific allegations are assessed irrespective of the complainant’s status or authors’ institutional affiliation.

A related appeal may be paused while ethical circumstances are clarified, with reasons and periodic updates. An external investigation does not remove the need for timely protection of participants and the scholarly record. The journal does not replace competent bodies in determining matters beyond its own records and authority.

23. Complaints about published content

A report should, where possible, identify the article, authors, DOI or link, the specific disputed statement, data, table, image, method or conclusion and the grounds for concern. A correction may be proposed where feasible. Complainants are not required to complete their own investigation: specific information sufficient to begin checking is enough.

The editorial office requests an author response and, where necessary, independent expert assessment. Scientific disagreement may be addressed through commentary and an author response. A confirmed error or serious risk may warrant a correction, editorial notice, expression of concern or retraction.

The correction and retraction provisions of the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement apply; a separate detailed policy applies once approved and published. Notices are linked to the article and the scholarly record is preserved. Urgent restriction of access to material dangerously identifying individuals may be undertaken with documentation and an appropriate explanation; this does not mean removing a publication without a trace.

24. Unsubstantiated, abusive or repetitive communications

Correspondence may be restricted in cases of threats, harassment, discriminatory abuse, fabricated evidence, deliberate falsehood or repeated resubmission of a fully resolved issue without new information. Restrictions must be proportionate, such as using one contact channel or ceasing replies to identical messages.

Persistent good-faith concerns are distinguished from abuse before any restriction. Unwelcome criticism, limited language proficiency, emotional expression or lack of professional legal drafting are not independent grounds for refusal.

If a message contains both unacceptable language and a verifiable material concern, the integrity issue is referred for appropriate assessment. Reasons for restrictions and a means of submitting material new information are communicated where possible. Communication restrictions are not used to conceal a journal error.

25. Recordkeeping

The editorial office retains protected records of concerns, evidence, correspondence, investigators, conflicts and recusals, applicable policy versions, decisions and reasons, measures, dates and implementation stages. Access follows role and necessity; changes in responsible persons and permissions are recorded.

Retention follows documented data protection rules and periods applicable to the purpose and nature of the material. Relevant records are not destroyed during an ongoing investigation. Once it ends, the extent and need for continued retention are reviewed; excessive personal data are not kept indefinitely.

Anonymised findings may support identification of recurring problems, training and procedural improvement. Public reporting must not identify participants or allow their identities to be reconstructed from case details.

26. External standards

The policy draws on:

• COPE Core Practices, including Complaints and Appeals — transparent procedures and handling concerns about journals.
• Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing — joint principles of COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME, including public explanation of complaints and appeals procedures.
• Scopus: Content Policy and Selection — public ethics statements and adherence to declared procedures.

These resources are applied alongside the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement, Peer Review Policy, Editorial Board Policy, Editorial Governance and Editorial Independence Policy, Conflicts of Interest Policy and Authorship Principles. Separate new policies apply after their formal introduction.

The timeframes and number of ordinary reviews specified here are journal rules, not universal requirements of Scopus, Web of Science or COPE. References do not imply membership, indexing or delegation of authority to an external organisation to automatically overturn journal decisions.

27. Policy administration

The Editor-in-Chief organises the procedure except in cases involving their own participation or competing interests. An independent authorised person acts in those circumstances under the established arrangements. As founder and publisher, the Criminological Research Institute of the Republic of Uzbekistan provides organisational support, secure retention and implementation of appropriate decisions while preserving scholarly independence.

The policy takes effect following approval and posting on the website. Actual approval, effective and subsequent revision dates are recorded in the published version. Language versions are updated consistently; assessment of earlier actions considers the procedure applicable at that time, while serious integrity concerns remain subject to investigation.

Contact for complaints, appeals and further review: use the current editorial contacts on the journal website; the general founder and publisher address for forwarding concerns is info@uzkti.uz. Where a concern involves Institute leadership or a representative, request independent transfer under sections 11–12 without sending sensitive evidence until a safe contact has been agreed.

The journal informs the complainant of the procedure and communication contact. Independence must be secured in practice: a general address or formal forwarding is insufficient if the person complained about retains control of the case.