1. Scope of the policy

The policy applies to all participants in the publication process:

• authors, co-authors and corresponding authors;
• reviewers, approved co-reviewers and external scholarly advisers;
• the Editor-in-Chief, deputies, coordinating, section and associate editors, where those positions have been established;
• the Chair, Deputy Chair and members of the Editorial Board;
• guest editors and special issue organisers;
• editorial, administrative and technical staff, including contracted service providers;
• the founder, publisher and their representatives involved in supporting the journal.

Each participant is personally responsible for identifying and disclosing actual, potential and perceived conflicts. Institutional position, scholarly standing or another person’s declaration does not replace individual disclosure. The policy covers all content types, including reviews, editorials and special issues.

2. Actual, potential and perceived conflicts

An actual conflict exists where a person already has competing interests relevant to their duties or a decision. Establishing a conflict does not require proof that a decision has already been distorted.

A potential conflict exists where a current or anticipated relationship could create competing interests in the future or under particular circumstances, such as employment negotiations or a prospective contract.

A perceived conflict exists where an informed third party could reasonably question the independence of a judgement, even if actual influence has not been established.

When in doubt, the participant reports the circumstances to the editorial office instead of independently withholding them as immaterial. Assessment concerns the relationship between the interest and the work, not a person’s origin, citizenship, beliefs or membership of a particular group.

3. Types of conflicts of interest

Financial interests

Relevant financial relationships requiring disclosure include:

• research grants, contracts and public or commercial funding;
• current or prospective employment, paid consultancy, honoraria and speaking engagements;
• payment for travel, accommodation, conferences and professional training;
• paid legal, criminological or other expert work;
• shares, equity, property rights, royalties, patents or patent applications;
• paid membership of advisory bodies;
• provision of equipment, software, databases, services or other resources;
• financial interests in security systems, analytical platforms, risk prediction algorithms, forensic technologies or services being assessed.

Official names of support providers and grant or contract numbers, where assigned, must be supplied. Disclosure is required regardless of whether authors believe that the funding party influenced the findings. Relationships through an institution or intermediary are disclosed where they may be relevant to assessing the work.

Professional and academic interests

Relevant circumstances include recent or continuing co-authorship and collaboration, supervision, mentorship, employment at the same institution, reporting relationships, participation in preparing the work, professional disputes and direct competition for a particular outcome, project or resource.

Authority over an author’s employment, promotion, dissertation or grant application, membership of editorial and advisory bodies, leadership of a professional organisation and participation in competing research must also be disclosed. Working in the same field does not, by itself, rule out impartial assessment.

Personal interests

Close personal or family relationships, serious personal disputes, dependency, power relationships and other circumstances that may affect impartiality must be disclosed. Private details are provided only to the extent necessary to assess and manage the conflict.

Institutional and employment-related interests

Disclosure covers connections to an organisation that may benefit or suffer reputational harm from the findings, institutional involvement in funding or conducting the study, ownership of relevant technologies and pressure from an employer, commissioner, founder or governing body.

Particularly relevant in criminology are research into one’s own institution or unit, involvement in a case or event analysed in the article, employment-related authority over participants and evaluation of a programme for which an author was responsible. Employment in law enforcement, the judiciary, prisons or another organisation is disclosed in relation to the study’s subject; such employment is not itself grounds for discrimination against an author.

Intellectual and public advocacy interests

Circumstances may include involvement in developing a policy, standard or programme being evaluated, public advocacy for a particular decision, directly relevant human rights, civic or lobbying activity and a substantial dispute over a method or conclusion under consideration.

A scholarly opinion, belief or academic disagreement is not itself a conflict. The specific role or relationship that could reasonably call objectivity into question is disclosed. This policy is not used to exclude critical research, unpopular findings or representatives of a particular scholarly tradition.

4. Disclosure period

The journal does not impose a single fixed period after which every interest automatically becomes irrelevant. Participants disclose current, recent, anticipated and past relationships where they retain a material connection to the work or decision. Where possible, the nature, duration and continuing relevance of the relationship are stated.

The end of a contract or co-authorship several years earlier does not remove the obligation to disclose continuing dependence, financial interests or a significant dispute. A complete history of private life and unrelated professional contacts is not required. Declarations are updated when circumstances change, including during review, production and after publication where an earlier disclosure has become materially incomplete or inaccurate.

5. Author disclosure requirements

Each author discloses financial and non-financial interests relevant to the article: research support, employment and institutional relationships, consultancy and leadership roles, intellectual property, commercial interests, professional and personal relationships, editorial roles and sponsor involvement.

Information is supplied at submission. The corresponding author collects individual declarations, agrees the combined wording and ensures it is updated before publication. Each co-author remains personally responsible for the completeness and accuracy of their information. A co-author’s failure to respond is not treated as a declaration of no interests.

For double-anonymous peer review, full named disclosures are supplied in a separate file or designated system field. The anonymised manuscript retains information necessary for scholarly assessment in a form agreed with the editor. Anonymisation does not justify withholding an interest from the handling editor. Disclosure does not replace ethics approval, participant consent or authorship requirements.

6. Funding and the sponsor’s role

All sources of direct financial and material support for the work are disclosed. In the funding statement, these are distinguished from general institutional support and from other author relationships reported in the conflicts of interest statement. Payment of publication charges, including coverage through the Institute’s budget, does not by itself mean that the Institute funded the research.

Authors describe the sponsor’s or commissioner’s role in:

• the research question, conception and design;
• the choice of methods, data acquisition and selection;
• analysis and interpretation;
• preparation, revision and approval of the manuscript;
• the decision to submit and choice of publication venue;
• control of data access and the right to verify the analysis;
• prior clearance, delay or restrictions on publication.

Where no such involvement occurred, the following wording may be used if accurate:

The funder had no role in the study design, collection, analysis or interpretation of data, preparation of the manuscript or decision to submit it for publication. The funding organisation imposed no publication restrictions.

Authors must not accept conditions that allow a sponsor to suppress material findings or prevent them from checking and reporting conclusions with scholarly integrity. Legitimate access and confidentiality restrictions are described separately. Where necessary, the editor requests relevant contractual provisions confidentially and to the minimum extent needed. The funder does not make the journal’s editorial decision.

7. Authors’ conflicts of interest statement

Every manuscript contains a separate statement, including where there are no conflicts. If all authors have confirmed the absence of competing interests relevant to the article, the following wording is used:

The authors declare no conflicts of interest related to the content of this article.

Where an interest exists, the statement identifies:

• the author concerned;
• the organisation, person or nature of the relationship;
• the financial or non-financial interest and its relevance to the work;
• management measures taken, where applicable.

Statements such as “the conflict has been managed” or “the authors are objective” do not replace disclosure of a material relationship. The editorial office may agree clearer wording while preserving its meaning. It does not remove material information to make the article appear more favourable or attribute an absence of conflicts to authors without their confirmation.

8. Examples of statements

The following examples must be adapted to actual circumstances. Initials, organisations and measures are replaced with factual information; independent handling may be claimed only when it has actually taken place.

Funding and paid expert work

A.A. received a research grant from [organisation, grant number]. B.B. provided paid expert services to [organisation] related to the article’s subject. The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

Intellectual property

A.A. holds rights to the risk assessment software examined in this article and receives licensing income. This relationship was disclosed to the editor; [independent verification measures actually applied] are described in the manuscript.

Employment by the organisation under study

A.A. is employed by [organisation], whose activities are analysed in the article. Their duties include [relevant function]. The organisation’s role in data access and preparation of the publication is disclosed in the Funding and Sponsor’s Role section.

Involvement in developing the programme evaluated

A.A. contributed to developing the prevention programme evaluated in this article. The analysis was conducted with [actual allocation of responsibilities and independent verification measures].

Editorial role

A.A. is a member of the Editorial Board of Criminological Activity. They did not participate in reviewer selection, internal discussions or the editorial decision on this manuscript. An independent editor managed its consideration in accordance with the journal’s policies.

No relevant conflicts

The authors declare no conflicts of interest related to the content of this article.

9. Reviewers’ conflicts of interest

Before accepting an invitation, reviewers inform the editor of material relationships with the authors, institution and subject of the work. Checks cover co-authorship and collaboration, the same institution, supervision, reporting relationships, personal and family relationships, financial interests, professional disputes, direct competition and participation in the study or manuscript preparation.

Reviewers also disclose involvement in developing, implementing or evaluating the programme under study and direct involvement in the case, event or organisation analysed. Having read a preprint does not itself disqualify a reviewer, but substantive assistance in developing the work and any resulting relationships must be reported.

A reviewer cannot serve as one of the two required independent external experts if they work at an author’s institution, belong to the journal’s Editorial Board or editorial team, participated in the study, have a reporting relationship with an author or have another connection incompatible with independent assessment. A material financial, close personal or other unmanageable conflict requires declining the review; disclosure alone does not remove the obstacle.

If a conflict is discovered after work begins, the reviewer pauses assessment and informs the editor. Work may resume only following a documented decision by an independent editor where the circumstance does not require mandatory replacement and does not prevent impartiality. Where necessary, another expert is appointed and the usability of any existing report is assessed.

Reviewers must not deliberately seek an anonymous author’s identity, use unpublished information for their own benefit or demand unjustified citations, collaboration, services or other advantages. Author-suggested candidates undergo the same checks; selection follows the Peer Review Policy.

10. Conflicts of editors and Editorial Board members

Editors, the Chair, Deputy Chair and members of the Editorial Board disclose relevant interests before receiving manuscript responsibilities and again when new circumstances arise. A person must not handle or decide on a manuscript if they:

• are an author, co-author or research contributor;
• have material recent collaboration, co-authorship, supervision, reporting or mentoring relationships with an author;
• have close personal, family or financial relationships with an author;
• have a direct financial, institutional or academic interest in the outcome;
• are involved in a substantial professional dispute with an author;
• are connected to the case, programme or institution under study in a way that prevents independence.

An editor employed at any author’s institution is recused from handling and deciding on that manuscript. Separate administrative units do not, in themselves, establish independence. A qualified external editor is appointed when impartial handling cannot be secured within the editorial office.

A recused person does not select reviewers, conduct confidential correspondence, participate in internal discussions or influence the decision. Access to confidential materials is limited to what is necessary to report the conflict and transfer the case. An author with an editorial role receives only ordinary author-facing information.

Where the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict, an unconflicted authorised person arranges a replacement under the Editorial Governance and Editorial Independence Policy. The Editor-in-Chief does not choose the assessor of their own case or overturn the decision by invoking general oversight powers. Recusal, appointment, authority and access restrictions are documented.

11. Manuscripts by editors, Editorial Board members and Institute staff

The Editor-in-Chief, the Chair, Deputy Chair and members of the Editorial Board, guest editors and Institute staff may submit work without guaranteed acceptance or preferential treatment. Their manuscripts:

• are assigned to an independent editor without involvement in the study or a reporting relationship with the author; an external editor is appointed where needed;
• undergo the established double-anonymous review process;
• receive at least two substantive reports from independent external reviewers meeting section 9 before a research article is accepted;
• are handled without author interference in peer review, internal discussions or decisions;
• receive no unjustified expedited treatment or concessions on quality and ethics.

The published article discloses the author’s editorial or relevant institutional role and the independent handling used, without identifying anonymous reviewers. Limits on the proportion of articles by editorial participants established in the Editorial Board Policy remain applicable and do not replace management of individual conflicts.

12. Guest editors and special issues

Guest editors disclose material interests before appointment and separately for each assigned manuscript. They do not handle their own articles, work by close collaborators or subordinates, or other content where relationships prevent independence. The manuscript is transferred to an unconflicted Editor-in-Chief or another independent editor.

Sponsorship, external funding, organisational support and material roles of special issue organisers are disclosed. Sponsors do not approve bylines, reviewers or decisions on individual manuscripts. Ordinary requirements for quality, independent peer review and special issue oversight apply; a guest editor does not determine a complaint about their own actions.

13. Conflicts of the publisher and editorial staff

The Criminological Research Institute of the Republic of Uzbekistan, in its role as publisher, and staff supporting the journal must not use financial, institutional, political, commercial or personal interests to influence scholarly decisions on individual manuscripts.

Functions relating to author charges, waivers, sponsorship, advertising, technical support and production are separated from scholarly decision-making. Combining functions requires formal appointment, absence of a relevant conflict and documented separation of authority. Technical access to the system alone does not authorise an employee to influence content.

The existence, payment, reduction or waiver of APCs, Institute coverage of expenses and an author’s financial relationship with the publisher do not determine acceptance or rejection. Payment matters follow published author fee terms. Commercial and administrative staff do not promise publication in return for payment, services or support.

14. The founder and institutional independence

The Institute combines founder and publisher functions while distinguishing organisational support from independent scholarly assessment. Institute leadership, affiliated institutions, public authorities, funders and partners do not interfere in decisions to accept, revise or reject individual manuscripts.

Institutional support does not confer a right to:

• influence reviewer selection or take over the editor’s role;
• access confidential reports, anonymous reviewer identities or internal discussions without a necessary role;
• demand publication of particular content;
• block research conducted with integrity to protect institutional or reputational interests;
• change decisions for non-scholarly reasons or require the removal of substantiated findings.

Concerns about ethics, data protection or applicable restrictions may be considered through established procedures; they do not authorise covert control of conclusions. Pressure is recorded and referred to an independent authorised person. Retaliation for good-faith disclosure or reporting interference is prohibited.

15. Management of disclosed conflicts

Disclosure is not equivalent to established misconduct. An unconflicted Editor-in-Chief or an authorised independent editor assesses:

• the nature and significance of the interest;
• its direct connection to the manuscript and the participant’s role;
• the risk of influence on the research, assessment and trust in the publication;
• whether disclosure is sufficient and additional safeguards are needed;
• whether recusal or replacement is mandatory;
• whether an impartial process can be secured.

Measures may include a public statement, clarification of the sponsor’s role, an independent editor, reviewer replacement, exclusion from confidential discussions, independent methodological or statistical assessment and proportionate requests for documentation. Additional advice does not replace the two mandatory external reports.

A minor relationship may be found compatible with participation, with reasons recorded. This does not override the mandatory restrictions in sections 9–12. If the risk cannot be adequately addressed, consideration is paused or the manuscript rejected with reasons. The decision, the person responsible for implementation, access restrictions and completion of the measures are recorded.

16. Confidentiality and publication of disclosures

Full individual declarations and supporting materials are available only to those who need them to assess and manage a conflict. Information provided to an editor, research integrity adviser or competent organisation is limited to the purpose and necessary extent. Reviewers receive information relevant to assessment with due regard for anonymity; where necessary, the form of disclosure is agreed with authors without concealing a material circumstance.

Every published article carries a conflicts of interest statement, including where no conflicts exist. Sufficient information is published to explain a material relationship, without excessive family, medical, address or other personal details. The journal does not promise complete confidentiality of the material interest itself where disclosure is necessary for transparent publication or correction of the scholarly record.

Criminal case materials, personal data and protected participant information are not included in an ordinary statement or initial complaint. A secure transfer method is agreed for necessary evidence. Editorial records are protected and access permissions reviewed following recusal or a change of responsible person.

17. Undisclosed conflicts before publication

When a potentially undisclosed interest is identified, the editorial office may:

• request an explanation and necessary supporting evidence;
• require an updated individual or combined statement;
• pause peer review or production;
• replace an editor or reviewer and restrict the relevant access;
• arrange additional independent assessment, including reconsideration of an affected decision;
• reject the manuscript where concealment is material or a reliable process cannot be secured;
• refer a serious ethics matter for handling under the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.

A good-faith error, misunderstanding and deliberate concealment are distinguished. Affected individuals have an opportunity to respond; suspicion is not presented as proven misconduct without investigation. Correcting the statement may suffice for a minor omission but does not automatically remedy compromised peer review.

18. Undisclosed conflicts after publication

The editorial office determines whether disclosure was required, whether the interest could have affected the research or editorial process and whether the conclusions remain reliable. This includes undisclosed relationships of reviewers, editors, sponsors or the publisher, as well as authors’ interests.

Where necessary, measures include:

• clarification of the statement through a transparent correction notice linked to the original article;
• independent assessment of affected findings or the acceptance procedure;
• requesting an investigation by a competent organisation;
• an expression of concern where substantial uncertainty remains unresolved;
• retraction where established circumstances provide sufficient grounds to question the work’s reliability or ethical acceptability.

A previously undisclosed interest does not automatically warrant retraction. Measures must reflect the nature and consequences of the breach. A material update is not made through silent replacement of the statement; the article, notice and journal-controlled metadata are linked and updated consistently. External database update times depend on those services’ procedures.

19. Disputes about conflicts of interest

A person disagreeing with an assessment or management measure may submit a reasoned written concern. It identifies the decision, factual or procedural issue, relevant evidence and requested remedy. Personal abuse and knowingly false allegations are unacceptable.

The assessment is conducted by a qualified person without a relevant conflict who was not involved in the contested decision. The original participant may be asked for factual explanations but does not determine a dispute about their own actions. Information or an opinion from an independent competent organisation may be requested; the journal does not replace bodies authorised to resolve legal disputes.

An anonymous, specific and verifiable report is not rejected solely because the complainant is unnamed. The circumstances are examined fairly and confidentially without premature public accusations.

20. Complaints and appeals

The procedures established in the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement and the Editorial Governance and Editorial Independence Policy apply. A separate Complaints and Appeals Policy applies once approved and published.

A complaint about the Editor-in-Chief or a founder or publisher representative is referred to an independent authorised person; an external expert is appointed where independent internal handling is not possible. The person complained about does not select the assessor of their own case or make the final decision.

Appeals are assessed on specific factual errors, material new evidence or procedural failures. Disagreement with a justified recusal does not guarantee its reversal. A reasoned outcome is communicated to the complainant to the extent permissible; a good-faith concern must not result in retaliation.

21. External standards

The following resources inform the development and application of this policy:

• COPE Core Practices and Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers — disclosure of interests and independent editorial assessment.
• ICMJE: Disclosure of Financial and Non-Financial Relationships and Activities, and Conflicts of Interest — reporting material relationships and the roles of support providers.
• Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing — joint principles of COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME.
• DOAJ Guide to Applying — guidance on transparency and the organisation of an open access scholarly journal.
• Scopus: Content Policy and Selection — requirements for a public publication ethics policy and adherence to stated procedures.
• Web of Science: Journal Evaluation Process and Selection Criteria — general guidance on assessing editorial quality.

This policy is applied alongside the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement, the Peer Review Policy, the Editorial Board Policy, the Editorial Governance and Editorial Independence Policy, and the Authorship Principles. References to external guidance do not imply organisational membership or indexing. The specific procedures in this document are journal rules; their number and wording are not presented as a mandatory Scopus or Web of Science template.

22. Policy administration

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for implementation, or an authorised independent editor where a conflict exists. The Criminological Research Institute of the Republic of Uzbekistan, as founder and publisher, provides organisational support and secure recordkeeping while preserving independent scholarly decisions.

The policy takes effect after approval through the applicable procedure and publication on the website. Actual approval, effective and revision dates are recorded in the published version. The text is reviewed periodically and changes are reflected consistently across language versions. Histories of declarations, recusals and decisions are retained in editorial records.

Editors and staff who influence scholarly decisions provide current information on their interests when appointed and update it as circumstances change. Material professional and financial interests of editorial leaders are published in the relevant website section with personal data protected; manuscript-specific declarations are additionally recorded in the corresponding case files.

Concerns and disclosures: use 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. Include “Conflict of interest — Criminological Activity” and the manuscript number or DOI, if available, in the subject line. Do not include restricted materials or personal data in the initial message; a secure channel is agreed separately.

The editorial office aims to acknowledge receipt within 10 working days; during prolonged consideration, progress information is normally provided at least once every 30 calendar days. These are communication targets, not guaranteed investigation completion times. All decisions on a concern are made without participation by individuals with relevant conflicts.