1. Purpose of the policy

This policy defines the governance structure, allocation of authority, responsibility for decisions and safeguards for editorial independence of Criminological Activity. It governs the relationships between the Institute as founder, responsible scholarly institution and publisher, the Editor-in-Chief, the editorial office, and the leadership and members of the Editorial Board. Its purpose is to ensure fair, transparent and independent scholarly and editorial decisions consistent with the journal’s aims and scope, peer review requirements and publication ethics policies.

2. Scope of application

This policy applies to:

• the founder;
• the scholarly institution responsible for the journal’s activities;
• the publisher;
• the Editor-in-Chief;
• the Deputy Editor-in-Chief, where this position has been established;
• Section and Associate Editors, where appointed;
• the Coordinating Editor, where this position has been established;
• the Chair, Deputy Chair and members of the Editorial Board;
• guest editors;
• editorial, technical and administrative staff;
• all persons involved in editorial decision-making.

The policy applies to regular and special issues, thematic collections, content managed by guest editors, corrections, retractions, editorial expressions of concern, appeals, complaints and other editorial activities.

3. Principles of editorial governance

The journal’s editorial governance is based on the following principles:

1. editorial independence;
2. scholarly impartiality;
3. academic freedom;
4. accountability and a clear allocation of authority;
5. confidentiality;
6. transparency;
7. identification and management of conflicts of interest;
8. fair and consistent application of journal policies;
9. protection of the integrity of the scholarly literature;
10. separation of scholarly decisions from financial, institutional, administrative, political and commercial interests.

4. Founder and responsible scholarly institution

The journal’s founder, responsible scholarly institution and publisher is the Criminological Research Institute of the Republic of Uzbekistan (the Institute). Combining these functions does not merge administrative authority with the right to make scholarly decisions on individual manuscripts. In its founding and organisational capacity, the Institute may:

• support the journal’s institutional and scholarly development;
• provide the necessary organisational and academic support;
• contribute to the journal’s strategic development;
• nominate candidates or approve editorial appointments in accordance with applicable institutional procedures;
• support continuity of operations and the journal’s scholarly reputation.

In this capacity, the Institute and its representatives must not:

• require the acceptance or rejection of an individual manuscript;
• select reviewers with the intention of influencing an editorial decision;
• interfere with confidential peer review materials;
• prevent the publication of scientifically substantiated findings for non-scholarly reasons;
• influence editorial decisions on the basis of institutional, political, financial or personal interests.

5. Publisher

The Institute performs the publishing functions and provides the resources required to prepare, disseminate and preserve publications. The Institute’s Editorial and Publishing Centre prepares and produces the journal. These functions are allocated to authorised staff or service providers without transferring to them the authority to select manuscripts on scholarly grounds. The publisher is responsible for:

• supporting the electronic publishing platform and journal website;
• preparing material for publication, digital publishing and dissemination;
• arranging DOI registration and maintaining metadata in accordance with the journal’s current agreements;
• technical communication and platform support;
• implementing the technical aspects of approved open access, copyright, licensing and digital archiving policies;
• ensuring the accuracy and accessibility of information about the journal;
• providing technical support to the editorial office in implementing ethical and post-publication decisions;
• separating the administration of payments, advertising, sponsorship and marketing from scholarly decision-making.

The publisher does not accept, reject, substantively alter or require publication of an individual manuscript for non-scholarly reasons. Payment, non-payment or waiver of article processing charges, funding from the Institute’s budget, sponsorship, advertising and other financial interests do not influence peer review or scholarly decisions. Payment and waiver conditions are stated openly on the Author Fees page; financial administration does not replace assessment of manuscript quality. Engaging a technical service provider does not relieve the Institute of responsibility for its publishing activities.

6. Editor-in-Chief

The Editor-in-Chief has overall responsibility for the journal’s scholarly and editorial integrity. The Editor-in-Chief:

• leads the journal’s scholarly and editorial activities;
• determines its scholarly focus and development priorities;
• protects editorial independence;
• monitors adherence to the journal’s aims and scope;
• oversees peer review and editorial decision-making;
• assigns qualified editors to handle manuscripts;
• approves or appoints independent reviewers and editors when necessary;
• assesses conflicting review reports and may request additional expert assessment;
• decides on complex scholarly, ethical, procedural and post-publication matters;
• oversees corrections, retractions, editorial expressions of concern and other updates;
• holds final editorial authority to accept or reject a manuscript;
• is responsible for the final editorial decision in cases from which the Editor-in-Chief has not been recused.

Recommendations from reviewers and editors are advisory. The Editor-in-Chief considers them impartially but may reach a decision that differs from the majority recommendation where justified by scholarly, methodological, ethical or procedural grounds. The reasons are documented; the author receives a substantive explanation of the decision without disclosure of confidential information.

Where a conflict of interest exists, the Editor-in-Chief neither handles the manuscript nor makes the decision on it. Final authority in that case is transferred to an independent editor under sections 7, 13 and 14.

7. Delegation of authority and temporary absence

The Editor-in-Chief may delegate manuscript handling to the Deputy Editor-in-Chief, a Section Editor, an Associate Editor or another qualified independent editor. The appointment is recorded, identifying the person, assigned task, scope of authority and period of service. Authority to organise peer review and authority to make the final decision are specified separately. The Deputy Chair of the Editorial Board and the Deputy Editor-in-Chief have distinct functions; combining these roles requires a separate formal assignment of authority.

Delegation does not remove overall responsibility for the journal’s integrity. However, an Editor-in-Chief who has been recused because of a conflict of interest must not use the general supervisory role to access confidential discussions or change the decision in that case.

During the Editor-in-Chief’s temporary absence, the designated duties are performed by an authorised deputy or, if no deputy is available or a conflict of interest exists, by another qualified independent editor. Authority is formalised under the journal’s governance documents; participants in the process are informed of the change in the responsible person.

Where a conflict of interest prevents the Editor-in-Chief from participating in the appointment, responsibility for arranging the replacement is assigned to an uninvolved Editorial Board member authorised under the established procedure. If independence cannot be ensured within the editorial bodies, an external editor is engaged. The manuscript’s author or the person whose conduct is being challenged does not select the person who will assess their own case.

When editorial leadership changes, unfinished cases, editorial records and necessary access rights are transferred. A previous decision is not overturned solely because the editor has changed; reconsideration requires a specific scholarly, ethical or procedural ground.

8. Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Section Editors and Associate Editors

The Deputy Editor-in-Chief, where this position has been established, assists the Editor-in-Chief in coordinating editorial activities and may handle assigned manuscripts. Section and Associate Editors, where appointed:

• handle manuscripts within their areas of expertise;
• conduct or oversee the initial scholarly assessment;
• identify and select qualified independent reviewers;
• manage the peer review process;
• assess review reports and authors’ responses;
• provide the Editor-in-Chief with a reasoned recommendation;
• identify ethical and methodological concerns and conflicts of interest.

If an editor has not been granted formal authority over a particular matter, the editor submits a recommendation to the person authorised to make the final decision. The limits of authority are determined by the appointment, not by the job title alone.

9. Coordinating Editor and administrative staff

The Coordinating Editor, where this position has been established, and administrative staff:

• receive and register manuscripts;
• check their technical completeness;
• manage administrative communication with authors, reviewers and editors;
• monitor editorial procedure timelines;
• ensure that documents and correspondence are retained;
• provide organisational support for preparing and publishing issues.

The Coordinating Editor and administrative and technical staff do not independently make scholarly decisions to accept or reject manuscripts unless the relevant scholarly editorial authority has been formally granted to them with due regard to qualifications and independence. Technical access to the platform does not confer the right to make scholarly decisions or alter their substance.

10. Leadership and members of the Editorial Board

The Chair and Deputy Chair of the Editorial Board provide strategic, advisory and organisational support, while Board members provide scholarly, methodological and ethical support for editorial work. Their membership and individual authority are recorded on the website and in the journal’s governance documents. Their functions, within their assigned authority, may include:

• recommendations on the journal’s aims, scope and priorities;
• assessment of the relevance and development of research areas;
• recommendations of qualified reviewers;
• participation in manuscript assessment when needed;
• advice on complex scholarly or ethical matters;
• review of journal policies;
• support for international and institutional cooperation;
• participation in periodic assessment of the journal’s performance.

Editorial Board membership, including the positions of Chair and Deputy Chair, does not in itself confer final authority over manuscripts, provide general access to confidential materials or permit influence on decisions for personal, institutional or non-scholarly reasons. An internal assessment by a member of an editorial body does not replace the two independent external reviews required for acceptance of a research article under the Peer Review Policy. The required external reviewers are not members of the journal’s Editorial Board or editorial team.

11. Editorial independence

Editorial decisions on manuscripts are based exclusively on:

• scholarly quality;
• originality;
• methodological soundness;
• alignment with the journal’s aims and scope;
• the validity and reliability of results;
• compliance with ethical requirements;
• the clarity and significance of the scholarly contribution.

Decisions must not be influenced by:

• an author’s academic title, position, country, citizenship, ethnicity, gender, religion, political views or institutional affiliation;
• pressure from the founder, responsible scholarly institution, publisher, government bodies, funders, sponsors, advertisers or commercial partners;
• payment or waiver of a publication fee;
• personal relationships or institutional interests;
• targets for increasing citations, revenue, marketing performance or publication volume.

As founder and publisher, the Institute protects the Editor-in-Chief and editorial office from inappropriate interference in decisions on individual manuscripts. The Institute’s management may assess the organisational performance of duties, resources and compliance with policies, but must not require a predetermined scholarly outcome.

For criminological research, the ability to publish substantiated findings on crime, law enforcement, the execution of sentences and the effectiveness of prevention is particularly important, including critical conclusions concerning the Institute or its partners. Institutional inconvenience arising from the conclusions is not a ground for rejection. Specific questions of confidentiality, participants’ rights or the permissibility of publication are considered on their merits through ethical procedures.

When inappropriate interference is attempted, the editor preserves information about the approach and reports it to an uninvolved authorised person. Pressure from the Editor-in-Chief is considered without the Editor-in-Chief’s participation; if the Institute’s management is implicated and internal independence cannot be ensured, an independent external assessment is arranged. The decision and measures taken are documented. Good-faith reporting of interference is not a ground for punishment or termination of editorial authority.

12. Appointment, assessment and removal of editors

Editors and Editorial Board members are appointed on the basis of:

• scholarly expertise relevant to the journal’s scope;
• publication and peer review experience;
• professional standing;
• commitment to research integrity;
• the ability to perform editorial duties;
• the absence of conflicts of interest that would prevent impartial work.

The candidate’s consent, duties, term of office and assessment procedure are recorded on appointment. Identity, affiliation and professional details are verified. Performance is assessed by the quality of work, adherence to ethics and timeliness, rather than the number of accepted articles, APC revenue or required citations. An editor may be removed from office in the following cases:

• prolonged inactivity;
• repeated failure to perform assigned duties;
• breach of confidentiality;
• failure to disclose a conflict of interest;
• a serious breach of publication ethics;
• manipulation of peer review or editorial decisions;
• provision of false professional information;
• conduct that seriously damages the journal’s academic integrity.

An editor may not be removed solely for making an independent, evidence-based decision consistent with journal policy. Removal must be reasoned, documented and decided through a procedure free from relevant conflicts of interest. The editor is informed of the grounds and given an opportunity to explain. Access to materials may, when necessary, be temporarily restricted during an assessment; this does not mean that misconduct has been established. An objection to the decision is considered independently, and unfinished cases are transferred to another authorised editor.

13. Conflicts of interest and recusal

An editor must disclose any actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest relating to a manuscript. An editor does not handle a manuscript if the editor:

• is an author or co-author;
• participated in the research;
• has recently collaborated or published with an author;
• works at the same institution;
• has a supervisory, mentoring, family, personal, financial or commercial relationship with an author;
• has a direct academic dispute or competitive interest that could affect impartiality;
• is involved in developing, implementing or evaluating an institution, programme or measure examined in the manuscript;
• is in an employment-related relationship of dependence on an author or has another relationship that could call impartiality into question.

An editor with a conflict of interest:

• does not select reviewers;
• does not access confidential materials beyond what is necessary to identify the conflict;
• does not participate in internal discussions;
• neither influences nor makes the editorial decision.

The manuscript is reassigned to an independent editor; recusal and replacement are recorded. Scholarly disagreement alone does not constitute a conflict of interest. The conflict of interest provisions in the publication ethics, peer review and Editorial Board policies apply; a separate detailed policy applies after its approval and publication.

14. Manuscripts by editors, members of editorial bodies and Institute staff

Manuscripts by the Editor-in-Chief, other editors, the Chair, Deputy Chair and other Editorial Board members, Institute staff or persons closely connected with the journal receive no preferential treatment. Such manuscripts:

• are handled by an independent editor who has no employment-related dependence on an author and has not participated in the research;
• undergo the journal’s standard double-anonymous peer review;
• receive, before acceptance of a research article, at least two substantive reports from qualified independent external experts who are not members of the journal’s Editorial Board or editorial team and do not work at the author’s institution;
• are considered without the involvement of the editor or member of an editorial body who submitted the manuscript;
• include appropriate disclosure of the author’s editorial role in the journal.

If the Editor-in-Chief is an author, the entire process and final decision are assigned to an authorised independent editor, external where necessary. The author does not have access to reviewers’ identities, confidential discussions or other materials beyond ordinary author rights. Material features of the independent handling are stated in the published article. The limit on editorial endogeny is applied in accordance with the Editorial Board Policy.

15. Complaints and appeals

Complaints and appeals are handled fairly, confidentially and independently. An appeal should identify a specific factual, methodological, ethical or procedural error and provide supporting reasons.

A person who participated in the challenged decision, whose conduct is being challenged or who has a relevant conflict of interest does not conduct the independent assessment or make the final decision on the matter. This does not prevent requesting factual explanations from that person.

A complaint about the Editor-in-Chief is referred to an authorised, uninvolved Editorial Board member. If the complaint concerns the Institute as publisher, the person considering it must be independent of the actions being challenged and the officials concerned. If an independent internal assessment cannot be ensured, an independent external expert is engaged. Administrative referral of a complaint does not give the founder the right to require acceptance or rejection of an article.

The editorial office aims to acknowledge receipt within 10 working days. Following initial assessment, the subsequent procedure and an indicative response timeframe are communicated. During prolonged consideration, progress updates are normally provided at least once every 30 calendar days. These targets are consistent with the ethics policy and do not guarantee a particular outcome or completion date for a complex investigation.

The complainant or appellant receives a reasoned response. Possible outcomes include confirmation of the original decision, reopening of the case, independent reassessment or appropriate post-publication action. A concluded appeal may be reconsidered if significant new circumstances arise. Detailed procedures follow the ethics policy and the Peer Review Policy.

16. Special issues and guest editors

Special issues, thematic collections and content managed by guest editors remain under the Editor-in-Chief’s overall responsibility. They must:

• align with the journal’s aims and scope;
• meet the same scholarly, ethical and peer review requirements as regular issues;
• appoint only guest editors whose identities, institutions, scholarly qualifications, publications and relevant expertise have been verified and approved;
• ensure disclosure and appropriate management of conflicts of interest;
• ensure independent selection of qualified reviewers;
• prevent a guest editor from handling their own manuscript or influencing its assessment;
• assign manuscripts by a guest editor or their close co-authors to an independent editor without the involvement of that guest editor;
• clearly identify special issue content on the article page, in the table of contents and in the published issue;
• ensure that articles authored or co-authored by a guest editor do not exceed 25 per cent of the total number of articles in the special issue;
• provide the Editor-in-Chief with authority to inspect, limit, suspend or terminate the preparation of a special issue if concerns arise about quality, ethics, peer review integrity or conflicts of interest.

A guest editor may coordinate the special issue process but does not have unrestricted final authority to accept or reject manuscripts. Final editorial responsibility remains with the Editor-in-Chief; where the Editor-in-Chief is recused, an authorised independent editor decides on the individual manuscript. For research articles in special issues, overall editorial endogeny is additionally monitored under the Editorial Board Policy. Funding or a thematic partnership creates no exceptions to scholarly requirements.

17. Confidentiality and use of artificial intelligence

Everyone involved in the editorial process must preserve the confidentiality of manuscripts, review reports, authors’ responses, internal discussions and editorial correspondence. Confidential manuscripts and editorial materials are not uploaded to publicly accessible generative artificial intelligence systems or systems that do not guarantee confidentiality. Generative AI is not used to create substantive scholarly assessments, analyse review reports in place of an editor or generate recommendations to accept or reject a manuscript. Secure tools approved in advance by the journal may be used only for administrative or language assistance within the agreed function and processing arrangements. Permitted use is recorded, specifying the tool, purpose and human verification. Routine use of automated tools by the journal is disclosed. Final responsibility remains with the authorised editor; an automated flag for text similarity or possible AI use does not, by itself, establish misconduct.

Access to manuscripts is granted according to role and specific assignment. Particular protection applies to information about victims, minors, prisoners and other research participants, criminal case materials and other restricted information. A secure channel and an appropriate basis for access are agreed before such material is transferred; membership of an editorial body or an official position does not, in itself, provide that basis.

18. Documentation and accountability

Editorial decisions are documented in the electronic editorial system; correspondence and decisions made outside that system are added to the relevant editorial case record. The journal maintains appropriate records of:

• appointments of handling editors;
• reviewer invitations and review reports;
• editorial recommendations;
• disclosures of conflicts of interest;
• recusal decisions and manuscript reassignment;
• acceptance and rejection decisions;
• complaints and appeals;
• corrections, retractions and other post-publication measures;
• the scope of delegated authority, case handovers and changes to access rights;
• reports of inappropriate interference and the measures taken.

Confidential records are protected and accessible only to authorised persons. Access rights are reviewed when roles change and withdrawn when authority ends. The Institute ensures that editorial records are backed up and preserved in accordance with established procedures. Public information about the editorial team, publisher and applicable policies is kept up to date; transparent governance does not require disclosure of confidential manuscript materials.

19. Relationship with other policies

This document establishes the framework for governance, allocation of authority and accountability. It applies together with:

• the Editorial Board Policy;
• the Peer Review Policy;
• the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement;
• the published conditions on author fees and funding;
• provisions on conflicts of interest, complaints, appeals and reporting misconduct;
• provisions on corrections, retractions and other post-publication measures;
• special issue, advertising and direct marketing policies, where approved and applicable.

Until a separate policy on a particular topic has been approved and published, the relevant provisions of the general policies listed above apply; a reference to a possible separate document does not mean that it is already in force. If an inconsistency is identified, the editorial office documents the applicable procedure and updates the texts consistently. An individual decision cannot override independent handling or create an undisclosed exception for a particular author.

20. External standards

The journal considers the following references:

• COPE Core Practices and relevant guidance on journal management, conflicts of interest and research integrity;
• Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing;
• DOAJ Guide to Applying;
• Scopus Content Policy and Selection;
• Web of Science Journal Evaluation Process and Selection Criteria;
• applicable legal requirements and recognised standards of research integrity.

These links identify sources of guidance and do not constitute a claim of COPE membership, inclusion of the journal in DOAJ, Scopus or Web of Science, or endorsement of the policy by those organisations.

21. Policy administration

The policy applies after approval through the established procedure and publication on the official website. The approval, effective and last amendment dates are stated when it is posted. Substantial changes are communicated to editors and those involved in the affected processes; the Russian, Uzbek and English versions must convey the same requirements.

Reviews take account of editorial experience, communications from participants and current professional guidance. Updating the text is not evidence that a corresponding procedure operated in the past. Actual practice is substantiated by editorial records.

Questions about governance, editorial independence and inappropriate interference may be forwarded to the editorial office through the founder’s and publisher’s general contact — info@uzkti.uz. The email subject should read: “Criminological Activity: editorial governance and independence”. The Institute’s current contact details are published on its official page.

The initial communication should describe the circumstances and provide a means of reply; confidential criminal case materials and participants’ personal data should not be attached before a secure transfer method has been agreed. The communication is referred to an uninvolved responsible person under section 15.