1. Research integrity

Authors must:

• accurately describe the rationale, methods, sources, data, results and limitations;
• prevent fabrication, falsification and misleading processing of material;
• follow the rules on originality, citation and disclosure of reuse;
• include only eligible authors and agree the final manuscript;
• disclose funding, conflicts of interest and substantial AI use;
• obtain necessary rights and permissions for materials, software and data;
• retain a verifiable research history under permissible storage arrangements;
• distinguish research conclusions, evaluative judgements and established facts.

Invented interviews, substituted participant responses, false references to court decisions, fictitious permissions and suppression of findings to serve a commissioning body are unacceptable. Correlation is not presented as causation without justification, modelled risk as established guilt, or recorded crime as a complete account of all offences committed.

Authors disclose involvement in developing or delivering a programme under evaluation, official relationships with participants and the commissioning body’s role in access, analysis and publication. Substantiated criticism of an institution, policy or enforcement practice is assessed on scientific and ethical grounds.

2. Ethical approval and oversight

Before procedures requiring ethical assessment begin, authors obtain a decision from a competent independent committee or another authorised body. Applicable rules, the nature of the data, intervention and risk determine the required level of review. A questionnaire, online survey, expert interview, student project or secondary analysis is not automatically exempt.

Particular attention is required for:

• human participation, observation of behaviour or use of identifiable data;
• research in detention, correctional or professionally dependent settings;
• information on violence, victimisation, unlawful activity or other sensitive circumstances;
• covert observation, incomplete disclosure of purpose and departures from ordinary consent;
• interventions that may affect rights, services, supervision or safety;
• biological materials, animals and procedures subject to special safety requirements where relevant to the article.

The manuscript identifies the body, date, decision or protocol number where assigned, and scope of approval. Material protocol changes and necessary additional approvals are reported. The decision must cover the work actually conducted, its participants, setting and procedures.

Approval, a formal exemption from a particular type of review, and non-applicability of formal approval are distinguished. Having no local committee is not an automatic exemption: a permissible competent body must be sought where necessary. Editorial peer review does not replace prior ethical review.

Where approval was obtained

The study was approved by [full name of body], decision [number, if assigned] dated [date], protocol [identifier or description]. Approval covers [participants, data and procedures]. Protocol changes: [approved changes or confirmation of none].

Where an exemption was granted

[Authorised body] determined that [description of work] is exempt from [specific type of review] under [rule and decision, date, number if assigned]. Exemption conditions: [conditions]. This decision [includes / does not include] a waiver of consent.

Where formal approval is not required

Formal ethical approval is not required: the work consists of [nature of research and sources] and does not involve [absent procedures or data]. Basis: [applicable requirements or competent body’s decision]. Ethical risks and safeguards: [description, where applicable].

Examples are completed using authentic documents and actual circumstances. Dates must not be backdated, and later review must not be described as prior approval. Missing required approval must be disclosed to the journal; a later letter does not automatically remedy the breach. Assessment considers the facts and requirements applicable when the research was conducted.

3. Human participants and personal data

Recruitment and procedures must account for risks to participants and people connected to them. Before participation, accessible information is provided on:

• the researcher, organisation, purpose and nature of participation;
• duration, procedures, recording and intended uses of material;
• possible risks, anticipated benefits and the absence of guaranteed personal benefit;
• voluntary participation, skipping questions and stopping participation;
• confidentiality and its limits, storage, reuse and transfer of data;
• remuneration or reimbursement, where offered;
• a contact for questions and a safe way to report a concern.

Understanding is checked, and time and accessible language or other support are provided. Dependency, disability or group membership does not automatically establish an inability to decide about participation; needs and capacity are assessed in context.

For minors and people with limited decision-making capacity, required permissions from legally authorised representatives are obtained and the participant’s own agreement or dissent is taken into account under applicable requirements. Permission from a school, institution, community or supervisor does not itself replace individual consent. Departures require a proper basis.

Research involving survivors of violence or trafficking provides trauma-sensitive questions, opportunities to pause or stop an interview, and accessible support in cases of significant distress. Only necessary information is collected; identification keys are protected separately. Deadlines and limits on withdrawing data are explained beforehand, including inability to remove data after irreversible anonymisation and some limitations following publication.

4. Informed consent and consent for publication

Consent is an informed process, not merely a signature. It is obtained before the relevant procedures and documented in a form permitted by applicable rules and the ethical decision. Material changes to purposes, risks or data use trigger assessment of the need to obtain consent again.

A written record is generally preferred but may create additional identification risks. A justified oral or other procedure is permissible with required authorisation and documentation. Waiving a signature does not waive informed consent; exemption from ethical review does not automatically waive consent either.

For recognisable photographs, audio, video, quotations or descriptions of an individual, authors obtain separate consent for publication where required and show or explain the material to be disclosed. Consent to participate, repository deposit and publication of identifiable material are considered separately. Consent does not justify unnecessary disclosure or unacceptable risk.

Participation consent statement

Before [procedures], participants received information about [purpose, risks, data and rights] and gave [written / documented oral / other permitted] informed consent. The procedure was documented by [method]. Additional permissions or waivers: [details and basis, where applicable].

Publication consent statement

Required consent for publication of [description of identifiable material] was obtained from [the participant and/or an authorised representative according to applicable requirements]. Consent covers the information disclosed and its inclusion in a publicly accessible article.

A waiver or alteration of consent must have a specific ethical and legal basis before the relevant use. Convenience, a large volume of data or a promise of anonymity is not sufficient by itself. Forms containing names and signatures are not attached to the open article; editorial verification initially uses a blank template or safe confirmation.

5. Research involving animals

This provision applies only to work within the journal’s scope that actually involves animals, such as relevant studies of working animals or animal cruelty. It does not expand the journal’s scope or mean that every study about animals is an animal experiment.

Procedures requiring permission obtain competent approval before they begin. Authors identify the body, date, number where assigned, applicable standard, scientific justification and welfare safeguards. Permissible alternatives, a justified minimum number of animals and methods to reduce pain, suffering and stress are used.

Animal experiments are reported with regard to applicable ARRIVE 2.0 guidance. Analysis of published decisions or statistics on cruelty is assessed according to its actual design. Work with biological materials separately establishes provenance, permissions and safety; animal-use permission does not replace requirements governing human materials.

6. Experimental, field and institutional research

Necessary permissions to access institutions, people, sites, records and technical systems are obtained before work begins. These permissions do not replace ethical approval and consent where required. A research purpose does not confer powers to conduct law-enforcement operations, interfere with cases or obtain restricted information outside authorised access.

The design provides for:

• justification of the intervention, comparison and allocation procedure where applicable;
• assessment of effects on rights, services, supervision and other affected persons;
• preparation of researchers, interpreters and other personnel;
• safe conditions for interviews, observation and fieldwork;
• rules for stopping hazardous procedures, responding to incidents and providing assistance;
• recording material deviations, harm and changes in study conditions.

Evaluation of a prevention programme or official practice is separated from coercion into data collection. People must not be deprived of entitlements or services to place them in a comparison group. Randomised, pilot and other interventions disclose scientific and ethical justification, risk monitoring and required registration where applicable. Necessary changes are agreed beforehand, except urgent action to prevent immediate harm followed by appropriate notification.

7. Specific risks in criminological research

Authors assess possible legal, social, psychological and physical consequences of participation and publication, including:

• pressure in detention, correctional, supervisory or professionally dependent relationships;
• retraumatisation, retaliation, stigma and disclosure of location;
• identification through case circumstances, quotations, images or combined characteristics;
• discovery of immediate danger, violence or other circumstances affecting confidentiality limits;
• covert observation, deception, digital profiling and database linkage;
• erroneous classification of a person or community as being at risk;
• use of findings to cause harm, conduct unlawful surveillance or disclose vulnerabilities.

People in custody or under supervision. Safeguards for a free decision and refusal without penalties are described. Researchers do not promise sentence reductions, procedural advantages or improved conditions in return for consenting to data collection. Access to entitlements and lawful benefits is separated from research participation. Wherever possible, recruitment and consent are handled by someone who does not exercise authority over the participant; compensation must not create undue pressure.

Limits to confidentiality. Absolute secrecy must not be promised where applicable limitations exist. Before collection, a procedure is established for obtaining competent assistance in cases of serious danger or mandatory disclosure: to whom, on what basis and to what minimum extent information may be passed. Participants are informed of these limits and, where possible, of a disclosure unless this would increase risk. No universal duty to report every account of an offence is imposed.

Covert and digital methods. Covert observation, incomplete information and secondary use without renewed consent require justification of necessity, a permissible basis and appropriate prior assessment. Less intrusive alternatives and subsequent explanation to participants are considered where permissible. A public profile or message is not treated as unrestricted research consent; privacy expectations, searchable quotations, platform rules and identification risks are considered. Access controls must not be bypassed under the guise of a research task.

Publication safety. Material safeguards are described so that methods can be assessed without revealing protected people, locations or exploitable details. Withholding dangerous details is justified and must not conceal scientific errors. Materials are not sent to unauthorised AI services; the separate AI policy applies.

8. Environmental responsibility and fieldwork permissions

Research into environmental crime, unlawful resource use and other field projects considers the safety of local residents, researchers and informants, access rights and environmental effects of the activity.

Where necessary, authors:

• obtain permission for site access, sampling, equipment use and handling materials;
• assess environmental effects and minimise waste, pollution and habitat disturbance;
• follow applicable biological, chemical and other safety rules;
• avoid unnecessary disclosure of protected sites and informant locations;
• document material risks, incidents and limitations.

A local leader’s approval does not replace required individual consent or other groups’ rights. Publication must not unjustifiably stigmatise a location or community; generalisations reflect the evidence and sample limitations.

9. Data and methodological transparency

Methods, sample, sources, analytic criteria, instruments, software versions, assumptions and limitations are described sufficiently for scientific assessment. Transparency includes decisions affecting results, protocol departures and the commissioning body’s role; it does not require disclosure of protected personal information.

Preservation, controlled provision and availability statements are governed by the Data and Reproducibility Policy. Consent, permissions and use arrangements must cover actual processing and transfer. De-identification includes assessment of re-identification risks in small groups, maps, supplements and metadata.

Fabrication, selective suppression of material findings and undisclosed substitution of synthetic information for source data are prohibited. AI, de-identification or aggregation does not justify distortion of scientific meaning. Lawfully restricted access is accompanied by an explanation of permissible verification; the absence of an open dataset is not itself proof of a breach.

10. Required statements

The manuscript contains applicable statements on:

• ethical approval, exemption or justified non-applicability;
• informed consent and authorised departures from it;
• consent to publish identifiable materials;
• funding and the sponsor’s role;
• conflicts of interest, including official and institutional relationships;
• author contributions;
• data availability and restrictions;
• AI use under the specific policy;
• permissions, licences and material safety measures.

Funding and conflicts of interest are declared, including their absence, under journal rules. “Not applicable” is used only in accordance with the actual design. The absence of identifying information in the final article does not establish that the original collection required no review or consent.

Statements are consistent with methods, documents and submission forms; the corresponding author ensures complete information from co-authors. The anonymised manuscript retains sufficient information for ethical assessment; committee or institutional details that reveal author identity may be supplied separately to the editor and restored in the published version to the permissible extent. Participant identifiers are not disclosed in this process.

11. Editorial assessment and consideration of concerns

Editors and reviewers assess whether statements reflect the research conducted. Where necessary, the journal requests:

• the committee decision, permission or confirmation of exemption;
• a blank participant information sheet and consent form;
• the protocol, recruitment description, risk assessment and response procedure;
• specific supporting materials under permissible access arrangements;
• clarification from the institution, committee or another competent body.

Personal signatures and participant details must not appear in open supplements. De-identified documents and confirmations are used initially; access to identifiable materials is agreed only when necessary and properly authorised. Verification materials are protected under confidentiality rules.

The journal does not replace a committee or grant retrospective approval. An authentic committee decision does not preclude examination of a serious issue outside its scope or a mismatch with actual procedures. Consideration may be paused; unacceptable risks or an irremediable ethical defect may lead to a reasoned rejection.

Cases involving an editor, the Editor-in-Chief, the institute or a sponsor are referred to an independent authorised person without control by the interested party. Suspected misconduct is examined rather than declared established. Authors and good-faith complainants are protected against unjustified pressure.

12. Non-compliance with the policy

An inadequate explanation may require clarification; missing required consent, fictitious approval, substantial unjustified harm or falsification is handled under the Allegations of Misconduct Policy. Assessment considers the evidence, nature and consequences of the issue and rules applicable when the research took place.

Possible measures include:

• requesting explanations and documents;
• pausing consideration and arranging independent verification;
• rejecting a manuscript or reversing acceptance on sufficient grounds;
• referring the matter to an institution, committee, funder or competent body;
• publishing a correction, expression of concern or retraction after publication, according to the circumstances;
• urgently restricting access to information whose disclosure causes harm, with the decision documented.

Authors ordinarily receive a specific account of concerns and a reasonable opportunity to respond before a final decision. Urgent protective measures and exceptions are justified. Textual correction is not considered sufficient where it does not resolve the substantive problem; ethical unacceptability may require retraction even when numerical results are accurate.

An online article counts as published. Changes retain a traceable history without repeating harmful disclosures. Withdrawal of a submission does not automatically end a separate inquiry. Complaints and reasoned appeals follow the journal’s dedicated policy, with no separate fee.

13. Policy administration

The Editor-in-Chief organises implementation except in cases involving their own conduct or a conflict of interest. The founder and publisher, the Research Institute of Criminology of the Republic of Uzbekistan, provides organisational support while preserving editorial independence. Researchers and their institutions retain responsibility for research conduct and ethical oversight.

The policy takes effect after approval and website publication. Actual approval, effective and revision dates are stated in the published version; all three language versions are updated together. New provisions are not represented as having applied previously. Review considers developments in methods, participant protection and applicable requirements.

Contact: current editorial contacts on the website; the founder and publisher’s general address for forwarding a report is info@uzkti.uz. The initial message need only describe the issue without participant names, closed case files or signed forms. A secure channel is agreed for evidence; independent referral is requested where a conflict exists.

This policy operates alongside rules on publication ethics, authorship, conflicts of interest, peer review, data, AI, misconduct allegations and appeals. General guidance includes COPE Core Practices and the ESRC research ethics framework and guidance. International guidance is applied according to the study’s nature and does not replace specific requirements in the relevant jurisdiction.