1. Content subject to peer review

External peer review applies to:

• original empirical research;
• theoretical and methodological articles;
• review articles, including systematic reviews and meta-analyses;
• comparative and comparative legal studies;
• short communications;
• other material presenting independent scholarly findings in criminology and related social and legal sciences.

To be accepted for publication, a research manuscript must receive at least two independent external reviews that the editorial team considers substantive and suitable for informing a decision. Two reports by the same specialist on different versions of a manuscript do not count as two independent reviews.

Editorials, book reviews, letters and comments without independent research findings, announcements, corrections and retraction notices may undergo editorial assessment instead of external peer review. If a letter, comment or other contribution contains original research findings, external peer review applies regardless of the section in which it is submitted.

Published material that has undergone editorial assessment only must clearly state the nature of that assessment. It must not be labelled as having undergone standard external peer review.

2. Peer review model and anonymisation

The journal uses double-anonymous / double-blind peer review:

• authors' identities are not disclosed to reviewers;
• reviewers' identities are not disclosed to authors;
• the editor knows the participants' identities in order to check expertise and conflicts of interest;
• review reports are not published alongside the article;
• communication between authors and reviewers takes place through the editorial office.

Authors submit a separate title page containing names, affiliations, contact details and the required declarations, and a separate anonymised manuscript. Identifying information must also be removed from supplementary material, file names and properties, comments, revision histories and repository pages accessible to reviewers.

Information about ethics approval, funding and the conditions under which data were obtained that is necessary for scholarly assessment must remain available for evaluation: the editorial office receives a complete version, while reviewers receive a version with sufficient substantive information and temporarily masked identifying details. The necessary information is restored before publication.

References to authors' own published work should be written neutrally, without wording that reveals authorship. Scholarly sources essential to the work must not be removed solely to preserve anonymity. Where difficulties arise, the method of anonymisation is agreed with the editorial office.

Complete anonymity cannot be guaranteed where an author can be identified through a preprint, an open dataset, conference material or distinctive features of the study. Reviewers must not deliberately seek to identify authors. If an identity becomes known, the reviewer informs the editor of any possible conflict of interest; identifying an author does not, by itself, automatically end the assessment.

3. Initial editorial assessment

Before inviting external reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned handling editor checks:

• alignment with the journal's aims, scope and accepted types of contribution;
• completeness of the submission and compliance with formatting requirements;
• the presence of a clear research question and an independent scholarly contribution;
• whether sources, methods, findings and limitations are described sufficiently for expert assessment;
• the presence of authorship, funding, conflict of interest and data availability information;
• ethics approval, consent and permissions where required, or an explanation of why they are not applicable;
• the protection of research participants and restricted material;
• sufficient clarity of language and appropriate anonymisation.

The editorial team may check textual overlap, references, authorship, consistency of data and other indicators of research integrity. A text similarity percentage or the output of an automated AI detector does not replace substantive assessment.

A technically incomplete submission may be returned for correction. A manuscript may be rejected without external peer review if it falls outside the journal's scope, lacks a sufficient scholarly contribution, has substantial methodological weaknesses or faces established ethical obstacles. Suspected misconduct is examined under the procedures set out in the ethics policy; suspicion is not treated as proven misconduct.

The author is informed of the decision and its principal grounds. An initial rejection concerns the suitability of a particular manuscript for the journal and does not deny the scholarly significance of the topic itself.

4. Reviewer selection and diversity of expertise

The handling editor selects reviewers on the basis of:

• expertise in the subject and methods of the research;
• relevant publication and research experience;
• independence from the authors, the organisation being studied and the outcomes of the work;
• absence of conflicts of interest;
• the quality of previous reviews, where known to the editorial team;
• ability to complete the assessment within the agreed timeframe;
• professional conduct and respect for confidentiality.

The two required external reviews are obtained from specialists who are not members of the journal's editorial team, Editorial Council or Editorial Board. An editor's initial assessment or an internal methodological consultation does not replace external reviews.

The reviewers providing these two reports must not work at the same organisation as the authors, participate in the study under consideration, be professionally subordinate to the authors or have other relationships that prevent an independent assessment.

For interdisciplinary work, the reviewers' combined expertise should cover both the subject area and the methods used. Additional specialists in statistics, qualitative methods, legal analysis, computational methods or research ethics may be consulted where necessary.

While maintaining requirements for expertise and independence, the journal seeks broader representation of countries, organisations, research approaches, career stages and genders among its reviewers. Position, reputation or a high citation indicator does not, on its own, replace relevant expertise.

5. Reviewers suggested or opposed by authors

Authors may suggest qualified reviewers, providing their affiliations, areas of expertise, contact details and any connections to the authors. Authors may also give reasons for asking that particular individuals not be invited. The final choice remains with the editorial team.

The editorial team independently verifies the candidate's identity, affiliation, scholarly experience and contact details using independent sources. An institutional email address is used where possible; the absence of such an address is not, in itself, grounds for exclusion if identity and expertise can be reliably established.

At least one of the two required external reviewers is selected independently of the authors' suggestions. All invited reviewers must meet the same independence requirements.

Fictitious identities, false contact details, email accounts controlled by an author or intermediary, and concealed significant relationships are treated as possible manipulation of peer review and are subject to examination.

6. Reviewers' conflicts of interest

Before accepting an invitation, reviewers disclose any actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest. Significant circumstances include working at the same organisation as an author, recent co-authorship or collaboration, academic supervision, hierarchical dependency, close personal relationships, financial interests, direct competition and involvement in preparing the work under consideration.

In criminological research, additional consideration is given to the expert's involvement in developing, implementing, funding or evaluating the programme under study, in the activities of the institution being examined, or directly in the case or event being analysed.

Differences in scholarly approach or disagreement with a hypothesis do not, in themselves, constitute a conflict of interest. Circumstances must be assessed in terms of the ability to provide an impartial report.

If a conflict is discovered after an invitation has been accepted, the reviewer pauses the assessment and promptly informs the editor. Another reviewer is appointed if an independent assessment cannot be ensured. Minor circumstances that do not compromise objectivity may be managed by the editor, with the decision documented.

7. Stages of peer review

The procedure includes:

1. Appointing a handling editor and checking their independence.
2. Conducting the initial editorial assessment and preparing the anonymised review materials.
3. Selecting, verifying and inviting external reviewers.
4. Obtaining reviewers' agreement, disclosing conflicts of interest and agreeing on deadlines.
5. Receiving at least two independent substantive reviews.
6. Assessing the quality of the reports and the adequacy of the expertise obtained.
7. Sending the author a reasoned decision and anonymised comments.
8. Receiving a revised manuscript and a response to the comments, where revision has been requested.
9. Conducting further peer review or additional editorial assessment where necessary.
10. Making and documenting the final editorial decision.

If a report is incomplete, lacks scholarly justification or raises doubts about independence, the editor requests clarification or replaces the reviewer. An additional review is commissioned to address an existing scholarly or procedural need; seeking a favourable report instead of addressing well-founded criticisms is prohibited.

If an obstacle is identified that rules out further consideration, the editorial team may end the process before receiving two reports and send the author a reasoned rejection. Such a manuscript is not considered to have completed the full external peer review process and cannot be accepted on that basis.

8. Criteria for scholarly assessment

Reviewers assess originality, the contribution to criminological knowledge, clarity of the research question, appropriateness of the approach, reliability of sources and findings, and whether the conclusions are supported by the evidence presented. Research limitations, relevant literature, quality of presentation and ethical acceptability are taken into account.

Quantitative, experimental and quasi-experimental studies. Assessment covers sampling, definitions of variables and outcomes, measurement quality, missing data, choice of statistical models, uncertainty of estimates, possible confounding factors and robustness of findings. Causal claims must be consistent with the research design. Null or negative results are not, in themselves, grounds for rejection.

Qualitative and mixed-methods studies. Assessment covers the rationale for selecting participants or cases, data collection conditions, coding and analytical procedures, justification of interpretations, researcher reflexivity and the connection between conclusions and data. Mixed-methods studies are assessed for how different types of data are integrated. Requirements for quantitative representativeness are not automatically applied to qualitative designs.

Theoretical and comparative legal studies. Assessment covers conceptual clarity, coherence of argument, the independent theoretical contribution, the rationale for selecting legal systems or cases, the currency of legal sources, and the distinction between legal propositions and empirical claims. A descriptive account of legislation without independent analysis is not considered a sufficient scholarly contribution.

Review articles. Assessment examines the justification for the literature covered, critical synthesis and the relationship between conclusions and the studies reviewed. For systematic reviews and meta-analyses, reviewers assess the search strategy, search dates, selection criteria, quality or risk-of-bias assessment and the justification for pooling findings. A narrative review is not automatically subject to all the requirements of a meta-analysis, but its selection principles and limitations must be clear.

Computational research and the use of AI. Assessment covers data provenance and quality, separation of training and test datasets, the risk of data leakage, external applicability, errors and potential systematic bias. When evaluating offending risk or analysing judicial decisions, attention is given to the consequences of misclassification and the justification for claimed practical implications.

For all types of work, the distinction between recorded and unreported crime, self-reports and other indicators is checked where these measures are used. Changes in recording practices, legislation or data availability must be considered when comparing periods, areas and groups.

Reviewers assess the protection of victims, minors, people in custody and other participants, the voluntary nature of consent, ethics approval and the permissibility of disclosing judicial or investigative information. Critical findings about government measures or law enforcement agencies are assessed on scholarly merit, without requiring their alignment with the interests of the institution concerned.

Changes necessary for reliability and ethical acceptability are distinguished from additional suggestions. Reviewers must not demand disproportionate expansion of a study or a change in its scholarly position without justification.

9. Requirements for review reports

A report must be specific, reasoned, respectful and sufficiently detailed to support an editorial decision and revision. The recommended structure includes:

• a brief account of the work's purpose and contribution;
• its principal strengths and significant limitations;
• major comments identifying the relevant sections or passages;
• minor comments on clarity, presentation and sources;
• an overall recommendation to the editor with scholarly justification.

Insults, discriminatory language, personal accusations and demands to cite particular works to increase citation counts are prohibited. Any recommendation to add a source must relate to the substance of the research.

Confidential comments to the editor may concern ethical suspicions, conflicts of interest or other protected information. They must not give an inexplicably opposite assessment to the report provided to the author. If a comment contributes to a negative decision, its substance is communicated to the author, who is given an opportunity to respond within permissible limits of disclosure.

The editor may remove identifying details, insults and impermissible personal data from the report sent to the author. The scholarly meaning of the report must not be altered without disclosure; significant editorial intervention is documented.

10. Editorial decisions

Following assessment of the manuscript and reviews, one of the following decisions is made:

• Accept: the work meets the requirements and may proceed to preparation for publication.
• Minor revision: limited changes are needed that do not affect the fundamental soundness of the research.
• Major revision: substantive changes are needed to the analysis, argument, presentation of findings or other significant weaknesses.
• Reject with the option of a new submission: the necessary revision goes beyond the scope of the current assessment; a new version is evaluated as a new manuscript, with its relationship to the previous submission disclosed.
• Reject: the work cannot be accepted within the current assessment on the stated scholarly, scope-related, methodological or ethical grounds.

Reviewers' recommendations are advisory. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorised independent editor where the Editor-in-Chief is recused or handling has been transferred under the established procedure.

The editor considers the reports, manuscript quality, authors' responses and journal policies. The editor is not obliged to follow a majority vote; a significant departure from reviewers' recommendations must have a documented scholarly justification. An additional expert may be consulted to resolve a specific methodological or substantive disagreement.

Two favourable reviews, an invitation to submit or successful revision do not guarantee acceptance before the final decision. Institute funding, an author's status, payment of an APC and fee waivers do not influence scholarly assessment. Publication frequency and the planned number of articles do not justify lowering standards or bypassing peer review.

11. Revision and reassessment

When revision is requested, authors submit:

• a revised anonymised manuscript;
• a separate response to every comment from the editor and reviewers;
• an account of the changes made and their locations;
• a scholarly explanation for recommendations that have not been followed;
• updated supplementary material and declarations where changes affect their content.

Responses must not reveal the author's identity. Changes may be highlighted in a separate version if requested by the editorial office. Removing inconvenient findings or replacing an analysis without explanation is prohibited.

A substantially revised manuscript is normally returned to one or more of the original reviewers. If they are unavailable or new expertise is needed, other reviewers are appointed and provided with the relevant history of comments in anonymised form. Minor changes may be checked by the handling editor without another external review round.

Further rounds are arranged where significant questions remain unresolved. During preparation of an accepted article for publication, new results, a significant change in conclusions or an identified integrity concern may require a return to scholarly assessment; proof correction must not be used to introduce substantial changes that have not been assessed.

12. Timeframes, delays and ending assessment

The deadline for a review is stated in the invitation and agreed with the reviewer. The revision deadline is stated in the letter to the author, taking account of the extent of the requested changes. Where necessary, a participant requests an extension in advance and explains the reason.

The editorial office monitors agreed deadlines and, in the event of delay, sends a reminder or appoints a replacement reviewer. Significant delays are communicated to the author, with an explanation of the reason and the next steps.

No guaranteed deadline for acceptance or publication is set. Published processing-time indicators must be calculated from actual editorial data, with the reporting period and the meaning of the indicator specified; target timeframes must not be presented as observed statistics.

An author may request withdrawal of an unpublished manuscript, including in the event of a prolonged delay. The editorial office records the request and confirms that consideration has ended. Simultaneous submission to another journal is not permitted while the current assessment remains ongoing. Withdrawal does not prevent the examination of substantiated reports of ethical violations.

If an author does not respond or submit a revision by the agreed deadline, the editorial office may close the current assessment after notifying the author. The reason and status are recorded in the editorial records.

13. Supplementary material and protected access to data

Appendices, survey and interview instruments, coding frameworks, tables, datasets, software code and other material necessary to verify the conclusions are included in expert assessment. Supporting files that have not undergone scholarly assessment must not be presented to readers as having been checked by reviewers; their status is stated on publication.

Anonymised versions are provided for peer review. Protecting authors' identities must not conceal methodological limitations or information necessary to assess ethical acceptability.

Disclosure of primary interviews, criminal case files, personal records or restricted institutional databases is not required where it would violate the conditions of consent, participants' rights or lawful restrictions. The editor may agree on access to anonymised aggregate data, variable descriptions, analysis code, permission documents or another permissible means of verification.

Reviewers must not request information that could identify victims, minors, protected witnesses or other participants unless it is necessary for an authorised assessment. Access to sensitive material is granted only to the minimum extent necessary through an agreed secure channel.

An inability to disclose source data lawfully does not, in itself, indicate misconduct. However, if the safe means available are insufficient to assess the key conclusions, the editorial team may require revision or reject the work with an appropriate explanation.

14. Confidentiality and editorial records

Manuscripts, reviews, supplementary material, invitations, correspondence and information about participants are treated as confidential. Reviewers must not:

• share or discuss material outside the authorised editorial process;
• independently contact authors about the manuscript;
• disclose unpublished findings;
• use the information obtained for personal, scholarly, competitive, financial or commercial gain;
• retain or distribute working copies after completing the assignment without an agreed need and editorial permission.

Involving a colleague, trainee or co-reviewer requires prior written editorial approval. All participants are disclosed to the editor, checked for conflicts of interest and bound by confidentiality obligations. A report prepared jointly by several people does not replace two independent reports.

After completing the assignment, reviewers delete local working copies and other copies under their control unless further retention has been authorised. Confidentiality obligations continue after rejection, withdrawal or publication of the article.

The editorial office retains records of reviewer verification, invitations, conflicts of interest, manuscript versions, reports, authors' responses and decisions in a secure editorial system or another controlled repository. Access is granted on a need-to-know basis. Retention and deletion periods are determined with regard to applicable requirements, consent and the need to examine substantiated concerns.

Information is shared with competent authorities during investigations only to the extent permissible under the ethics policy. Confidentiality must not be used to conceal established misconduct.

15. Use of artificial intelligence in peer review

Reviewers and editors must not upload confidential manuscripts, reviews, invitations, supplementary material, personal data or restricted material to publicly accessible generative AI services.

The reviewer personally conducts the scholarly assessment. Generative AI is not used to replace expert judgement, create a substantive scholarly report, formulate a recommendation to accept or reject, or obtain fabricated references or evidence. The reviewer remains fully responsible for the report.

Limited use of a protected tool approved in advance by the editorial team for language correction or accessibility is permitted only within the authorised function, permissible data access and agreed processing arrangements. A reviewer's own judgement that a service is secure does not replace editorial approval. Any authorised use of AI is disclosed to the editor, identifying the tool and its purpose.

Statistical software, reproducible analysis tools and other computational tools may be used to check methods within the reviewer's expertise and authorised access to material. Their outputs are checked by a person. Editorial decisions are not made solely by an automated system.

16. Possible misconduct and manipulation of peer review

If reviewers identify signs of plagiarism, unreliable data, duplicate publication, breaches of consent, disclosure of protected information, an undeclared conflict of interest or authorship concerns, they inform the editor confidentially and provide specific, verifiable grounds.

Reviewers do not independently investigate authors' identities, approach research participants, institutions or other third parties, or publish accusations. The editorial team arranges an examination under the ethics policy, giving affected individuals an opportunity to provide explanations.

Manipulation of peer review includes fictitious identities, impersonation, author-controlled contact details, collusion, fabricated reports, unauthorised delegation and pressure on recommendations. Hidden instructions in files intended to influence assessment or bypass checks are also examined as possible manipulation.

Where misconduct is established, the editorial team may replace the reviewer, invalidate an unreliable report, request independent reassessment, end consideration, exclude the reviewer from future selection or contact a competent organisation. The response is proportionate to the established circumstances and is not imposed automatically on the basis of suspicion alone.

If a compromised process is identified after publication, the editorial team assesses the reliability of the work and the need for a correction, expression of concern or retraction. Action is governed by the ethics policy; a lack of agreement from all authors does not, in itself, prevent a justified correction of the scholarly record.

17. Work by Institute staff and members of editorial bodies

The journal's founder and publisher is the Research Institute of Criminology of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Manuscripts by its staff, the Editor-in-Chief and members of the Editorial Council and Editorial Board are assessed under the same requirements, without preferential treatment.

Such a manuscript is assigned to an editor who did not participate in the research, has no conflict of interest and is not professionally subordinate to the author. If independence cannot be ensured within the editorial team, an appropriately qualified external editor is appointed and authorised to organise assessment and make the decision.

An editor who is an author does not participate in reviewer selection or decision-making and has no access to reviewers' identities, confidential reports or internal discussions beyond the normal rights of an author. The appointed independent editor makes the final decision on an article by the Editor-in-Chief.

Reviewers must be external and independent in accordance with this policy. Significant details of the independent handling arrangements are stated in the published article without disclosing reviewers' identities.

18. Special issues and guest editors

Contributions to special issues, thematic collections and guest-edited sections undergo the same stages of scholarly and ethical assessment as regular articles. An invitation to contribute is not a promise of acceptance.

Guest editors must comply with rules on reviewer selection, confidentiality, conflicts of interest and the documentation of decisions. The Editor-in-Chief retains overall responsibility for the quality of the process and ensures independent handling where conflicts arise.

A guest editor's own article and work that they cannot assess impartially are handled by another independent editor. Scholarly content, funding for a special issue or a partner's involvement do not justify bypassing the standard procedure.

19. Recognition of reviewers' contributions

The journal recognises peer review as an important contribution to the scholarly community. On request and with the reviewer's consent, a letter or confirmation of completed work may be provided. A periodic acknowledgement list may be published with reviewers' consent, without identifying particular manuscripts.

Confirmation may be shared with an external service where technically possible and with the reviewer's consent, to an extent that does not disclose confidential information.

Recognition does not depend on whether a recommendation is favourable or unfavourable. Reports and the connection between a particular reviewer and a manuscript are not published under the journal's double-anonymous model.

20. Complaints and appeals concerning peer review

An author may appeal a decision by identifying a significant factual, methodological, procedural or ethical error. The communication should include the manuscript identifier, the disputed decision, specific points of concern and supporting information. Disagreement with a reviewer's conclusion must be supported by scholarly argument; personal accusations do not replace a justification.

An appeal does not automatically constitute another round of peer review. It is considered by someone who was not involved in the disputed decision and has no conflict of interest; an independent external expert is involved where necessary. The person whose actions are challenged does not make the final decision on the complaint.

The editorial office aims to acknowledge receipt within 10 working days. Following initial assessment, the procedure for further consideration and an estimated response timeframe are communicated. During a prolonged examination, progress updates are normally provided at least once every 30 calendar days, in accordance with the journal's ethics policy.

The outcome may be to uphold the original decision, resume consideration, arrange independent reassessment or make another reasoned decision. The author receives a reasoned response. A concluded appeal may be reconsidered where significant new circumstances arise.

Readers and other participants may report shortcomings in a published work or the peer review process. Scholarly criticism is considered on its merits; discussion and authors' responses are arranged where necessary in accordance with the ethics policy.

21. Relationship to publication ethics

This policy explains the expert assessment procedure. Authorship, ethics approval, participant consent, protection of sensitive data, the handling of misconduct and correction of the scholarly record are also governed by the journal's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Policy.

Ethical assessment and scholarly peer review complement each other. A favourable review does not replace necessary permissions, participant consent or a proper basis for accessing data. Ethics approval does not exempt work from assessment of methodological quality and the justification of conclusions.

If inconsistencies are found in published rules, the editorial team clarifies the applicable procedure, informs affected participants and corrects the relevant text. Changes must not be used to alter the conditions of a completed assessment without disclosure.

22. External guidance

In organising peer review, the journal takes account of:

• COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers;
• COPE Core Practices;
• Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing — COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, WAME;
• applicable national and institutional requirements for research integrity, personal data protection and access to documents.

Specific assessment requirements are determined by the type of manuscript, its methods and the nature of the data used. General ethical principles are applied with regard to the particular characteristics of criminological research.

23. Policy administration and contact

Following editorial approval, the policy takes effect on the date it is posted on the journal's official website. The page states the effective date and the date of the latest amendment. Information about significant changes and previous versions is retained.

For manuscripts under consideration when a procedure changes, the editorial office communicates the applicable arrangements. Information about the review of previously published articles is established from the editorial records for the relevant period.

Questions, complaints and appeals may be forwarded to the editorial office through the founder's and publisher's general contact address — info@uzkti.uz. The email subject should read: “Criminology (Uzbekistan): peer review”. The Institute's contact details are available on its official contact page.

The initial communication need only identify the manuscript by its identifier or title, describe the matter and provide available supporting information. Participants' personal data, restricted judicial or investigative documents and other restricted material must not be attached before a secure means of transfer has been agreed.