1. Purpose of the policy

This policy defines the governance structure, allocation of authority, responsibility for decisions and safeguards for editorial independence at Criminology (Uzbekistan). The policy governs relationships between the Institute as founder, responsible research institution and publisher, the Editor-in-Chief, the editorial office, the Editorial Council and the Editorial Board. Its purpose is to ensure fair, transparent and independent scholarly and editorial decision-making in accordance with the journal’s aims, scope, peer review requirements and publication ethics policies.

2. Scope of application

This policy applies to:

• the founder;
• the research institution responsible for the journal;
• the publisher;
• the Editor-in-Chief;
• the Deputy Editor-in-Chief;
• Section and Associate Editors, where appointed;
• the Coordinating Editor;
• members of the Editorial Council and 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, guest-edited content, 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:

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 research institution

The journal’s founder, responsible research institution and publisher is the Research Institute of Criminology 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 under applicable institutional procedures;
• support the continuity of the journal’s activities and its scholarly reputation.

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

• demand the acceptance or rejection of an individual manuscript;
• select reviewers in order to influence an editorial decision;
• interfere with confidential peer review materials;
• prevent the publication of scientifically sound 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 needed to prepare, disseminate and preserve publications. These functions are assigned to authorised staff or service providers without granting them authority over the scholarly selection of manuscripts. The publisher is responsible for:

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

The publisher does not accept, reject, substantively alter or demand the publication of an individual manuscript for non-scholarly reasons. Payment, non-payment or waiver of article processing charges, coverage of costs 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 substitute for assessment of manuscript quality. Engaging a technical service provider does not release the Institute from responsibility for 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;
• oversees 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 where necessary;
• assesses conflicting review reports and may request additional expertise;
• 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 matters from which they have not been recused.

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

Where a conflict of interest exists, the Editor-in-Chief neither handles the manuscript nor decides on it. Final authority for that matter 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 individual, assigned task, scope of authority and period of service. Authority to organise peer review and authority to make the final decision are specified separately.

Delegation does not remove overall responsibility for the journal’s integrity. However, an Editor-in-Chief recused because of a conflict of interest may not use their general oversight role to access confidential discussions or change the decision in that matter.

During the Editor-in-Chief’s temporary absence, the assigned duties are performed by an authorised deputy or, if the deputy is unavailable or conflicted, by another qualified independent editor. Authority is formalised under the journal’s governance documents, and participants are informed of the change in the responsible person.

Where the Editor-in-Chief cannot participate in the appointment because of a conflict of interest, an uninvolved member of the Editorial Council or Editorial Board, authorised under the established procedure, arranges the replacement. An external editor is engaged if independence cannot be ensured within the editorial bodies. A manuscript author or a person whose actions are challenged does not select the person who will assess their own case.

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

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

The Deputy Editor-in-Chief 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 initial scholarly assessment;
• identify and select qualified independent reviewers;
• manage peer review;
• assess review reports and authors’ responses;
• provide the Editor-in-Chief with a reasoned recommendation;
• identify ethical and methodological issues and conflicts of interest.

An editor without formal authority over a particular matter forwards a recommendation to the person authorised to make the final decision. The limits of authority are determined by the appointment, rather than solely by the job title.

9. Coordinating Editor and administrative staff

The Coordinating Editor and administrative staff:

• receive and register manuscripts;
• check technical completeness;
• manage administrative communication with authors, reviewers and editors;
• monitor editorial procedure timelines;
• maintain documents and correspondence;
• 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 formally granted the relevant scholarly editorial authority 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. Editorial Council and Editorial Board

The Editorial Council provides strategic and advisory support, while the Editorial Board provides scholarly, methodological and ethical support for editorial work. Their membership and individual authority are reflected on the website and in the journal’s governance documents. Their functions, within their assigned authority, may include:

• advice 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 necessary;
• advice on complex scholarly or ethical matters;
• consideration of journal policies;
• support for international and institutional cooperation;
• participation in periodic evaluation of the journal’s activities.

Membership of the Council or Board, including the position of Chair, does not, in itself, confer final authority over manuscripts, provide general access to confidential materials or permit decisions to be influenced 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.

11. Editorial independence

Editorial decisions on manuscripts are based exclusively on:

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

Decisions must not be influenced by:

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

The Institute, as founder and publisher, protects the Editor-in-Chief and editorial office against improper interference in decisions on individual manuscripts. Institute management may assess organisational performance, resource provision and compliance with policies, but may not demand a predetermined scholarly outcome.

For criminological research, it is particularly important to be able to publish well-supported findings on crime, law enforcement, the execution of sentences and prevention effectiveness, including critical conclusions about the Institute or its partners. Findings that are inconvenient to an institution are not grounds for rejection. Specific issues concerning confidentiality, participants’ rights or the permissibility of publication are considered on their merits through ethical procedures.

If improper 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 their participation; if Institute management is involved and internal independence cannot be ensured, an independent external assessment is arranged. The decision and measures are documented. Good-faith reporting of interference is not grounds 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;
• ability to perform editorial duties;
• absence of conflicts of interest that 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 through the quality of work, adherence to ethics and timelines, rather than the number of accepted articles, APC revenue or mandatory citations. An editor may be removed from office for:

• 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. A removal decision must be reasoned, documented and reached through a procedure free from relevant conflicts of interest. The editor is informed of the grounds and given an opportunity to respond. Access to materials may be temporarily restricted during an assessment where necessary; this does not mean that misconduct has already been established. An objection to the decision is considered independently, and pending matters 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 they:

• are an author or co-author;
• participated in the research;
• recently collaborated or published with an author;
• work at the same institution;
• have supervisory, mentoring, family, personal, financial or commercial relationships with an author;
• have a direct academic dispute or competing interest that may affect impartiality;
• participate in developing, implementing or evaluating an institution, programme or measure examined in the manuscript;
• are in an employment-related relationship of dependence on an author or have other relationships that may compromise impartiality.

An editor with a conflict of interest:

• does not select reviewers;
• has no access to confidential materials beyond what is needed to identify the conflict;
• does not participate in internal discussions;
• neither influences nor makes the editorial decision.

The manuscript is transferred to an independent editor, and 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, members of the Editorial Council and Editorial Board, Institute staff or persons closely associated with the journal receive no preferential treatment. These manuscripts:

• are handled by an independent editor who has no employment-related dependence on the author or involvement in the research;
• undergo the journal’s standard double-anonymous peer review;
• receive at least two substantive reports from qualified independent external reviewers before a research article can be accepted; these reviewers must not belong to the editorial bodies or work at the author’s institution;
• are considered without the involvement of the editor or member of an editorial body who submitted the manuscript;
• appropriately disclose 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 has no access to reviewer identities, confidential discussions or other materials beyond ordinary author rights. Material features of independent handling are stated in the published article. The limit on editorial endogeny applies in accordance with the Editorial Board Policy.

15. Complaints and appeals

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

A person who participated in the disputed decision, whose actions are challenged or who has a relevant conflict of interest does not conduct the independent assessment of the complaint or appeal and does not make the final decision on it. This does not prevent factual explanations being requested from that person.

A complaint about the Editor-in-Chief is referred to an authorised, uninvolved member of the Editorial Council or Editorial Board. Where a complaint concerns the Institute as publisher, the person considering it must be independent of the disputed actions and the officials involved. An independent external expert is engaged if independent internal consideration cannot be ensured. Administrative referral of a complaint does not authorise the founder to direct the acceptance or rejection of an article.

The editorial office aims to acknowledge receipt within 15 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 assessment.

The complainant or appellant receives a reasoned response. Outcomes may include confirmation of the original decision, reopening of consideration, an independent reassessment or appropriate post-publication measures. A concluded appeal may be reconsidered if significant new circumstances arise. Detailed procedures apply in accordance with the ethics policy and the Peer Review Policy.

16. Special issues and guest editors

Special issues, thematic collections and guest-edited content remain under the overall responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief. 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, academic 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 the guest editor concerned;
• clearly label special issue content on article pages, 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 special issue’s total articles;
• empower the Editor-in-Chief to inspect, restrict, suspend or discontinue preparation of a special issue if concerns arise about quality, ethics, peer review integrity or conflicts of interest.

A guest editor may coordinate a special issue 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 work. Overall editorial endogeny among a special issue’s research articles is also monitored under the Editorial Board Policy. Funding or a thematic partnership does not create exceptions to scholarly requirements.

17. Confidentiality and use of artificial intelligence

All persons involved in the editorial process must maintain 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 produce substantive scholarly assessments, analyse review reports in place of an editor or generate a recommendation to accept or reject a manuscript. Protected tools approved in advance by the journal may be used only for administrative or language assistance within the agreed function and data 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 data about victims, minors, prisoners and other research participants, criminal case materials and other restricted information. A protected channel and a proper basis for access are agreed for transferring such materials; membership of an editorial body or an official position does not, in itself, provide that basis.

18. Documentation and accountability

Editorial decisions must be documented in the journal’s electronic editorial system; correspondence and decisions made outside it are added to the relevant editorial file. The journal maintains appropriate records of:

• assignment of editors to handle manuscripts;
• reviewer invitations and review reports;
• editors’ recommendations;
• disclosures of conflicts of interest;
• decisions on recusal and manuscript reassignment;
• acceptance and rejection decisions;
• complaints and appeals;
• corrections, retractions and other post-publication measures;
• the scope of delegated authority, handover of cases and changes to access rights;
• reports of improper interference and measures taken.

Confidential records are protected and accessible only to authorised persons. Access rights are reviewed when roles change and revoked when authority ends. The Institute ensures backups and the preservation of editorial records under the established procedure. Public information about editorial membership, the publisher and applicable policies is kept up to date; transparency of governance does not require disclosure of confidential manuscript materials.

19. Relationship with other policies

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

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

Until a separate subject-specific policy has been approved and published, the relevant provisions of the general policies listed above apply; 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 makes coordinated corrections to the texts. An individual decision may not override independent handling or create an unannounced exception for a particular author.

20. External standards

The journal considers the following sources of guidance:

• COPE Core Practices and relevant recommendations 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 participants in affected processes; the Russian, Uzbek and English versions must convey the same requirements.

Revisions take account of editorial experience, communications from participants and current professional guidance. An update to the wording is not evidence that the corresponding procedure operated in the past. Actual practice is demonstrated through editorial records.

Questions about governance, editorial independence and improper interference may be forwarded to the editorial office through the general contact of the founder and publisher — info@uzkti.uz. The subject line should read: “Criminology (Uzbekistan): Editorial Governance and Independence”. The Institute’s current contact details are published on its official page.

The initial message should describe the circumstances and provide a way to respond; confidential criminal case materials and participants’ personal data should not be attached until a protected transfer method has been agreed. The communication is referred to an uninvolved responsible person under the procedure in Section 15.