1. Purpose and core principles

Criminology (Uzbekistan) maintains an accurate, reliable and transparent scholarly record. Significant errors, ethical breaches and circumstances affecting the reliability or acceptability of published material are assessed on the evidence and with regard to readers, authors and research participants.

The journal may publish a correction, expression of concern, retraction or content removal notice, or another justified update. The action depends on the nature of the problem and its effect on the publication, rather than authors’ status, the founder’s interests or publication payments.

Substantive changes are not made without disclosure. Significant updates are documented in an understandable and traceable form. Post-publication actions aim to correct the literature and protect readers; an action does not itself establish an individual’s culpability or intent.

2. Scope and definitions

This policy covers articles, reviews, short communications, editorial material, supplementary files and official notices published by the journal, including early online publication.

The following definitions apply:

• Correction — the rectification of a significant error or inaccuracy where the principal findings remain reliable and the issue can be resolved without retracting the article.
• Expression of concern — a warning about serious, substantiated concerns where a final decision is not yet possible or significant uncertainty remains.
• Retraction — an official change in publication status because the principal findings are unreliable or a serious breach of research ethics, publication ethics or rights requires this action.
• Withdrawal before publication — termination of the publication process for a manuscript the journal has not yet made publicly available as a scholarly publication.
• Content removal — exceptional restriction of access to published content; it differs from retraction and is accompanied by retention of a permissible public record.
• Addendum or other update — a separately identified clarification, addition or change-of-status notice that does not conceal the original work’s content.

3. Minor changes

Spelling, punctuation, typographical, formatting and technical errors that do not affect meaning, findings, authorship or citation may be corrected without a separate notice. The editorial office retains an internal record of such changes.

Changes significant to the scientific or bibliographic interpretation of an article require an official notice. Incorrect metadata are corrected and supplied to the relevant services regardless of whether a separate notice is needed. Technical editing is not used to conceal a substantive change.

4. Corrections

A correction is published where an error materially affects accuracy, clarity, attribution or presentation but can be resolved while the principal findings remain reliable. Examples include:

• an error in an author’s name, author order or affiliation;
• an incorrect number, unit, symbol or formula;
• a significant error in a table, figure, caption or heading;
• an omitted or inaccurate funding, conflict of interest, author contribution or acknowledgement statement;
• a factual error, inaccurate quotation or incorrect reference that changes meaning;
• a limited coding, calculation, sampling or analytical error that does not invalidate the principal conclusions;
• a significant inaccuracy in the data availability statement or supplementary files.

For criminological work, the editors assess the effect on crime indicators, the description of the legal context, interpretation of case material and conclusions about prevention or punishment. A change in legislation after publication is not itself an error in an article if the original context and period were accurately described.

Depending on the origin of the error, the notice may be labelled Author Correction, Publisher Correction, Corrigendum or Erratum. Authorship changes are assessed under the journal’s Authorship Principles; a dispute is not resolved by changing the list unilaterally at one author’s request.

5. Format of a correction notice

A correction notice:

• clearly states the error and the corrected information;
• identifies the article by title, authors and DOI or persistent link;
• explains the correction’s effect on the results and conclusions;
• states its publication date and identifies responsibility for the notice;
• has reciprocal links with the original article;
• normally receives its own DOI;
• is freely available and retained as part of the scholarly record.

If an updated article file is issued, it states that a correction was made, gives its date and links to the notice. The previous state and nature of the changes are documented; access to earlier material may be restricted only on the grounds in section 11.

6. Grounds for retraction

Retraction is considered where sufficient evidence establishes a serious problem that cannot adequately be resolved by correction. Grounds may include:

• fabrication, falsification or substantial misrepresentation of data, images, interview quotations, findings or calculations;
• a major methodological or analytical error that makes the principal findings unreliable;
• substantial plagiarism;
• unjustified duplicate publication without necessary disclosure, agreement or attribution;
• unauthorised use of data or material and serious infringement of intellectual property rights;
• manipulation of peer review, identity substitution or other conduct undermining the integrity of editorial assessment;
• authorship manipulation associated with a breach of research integrity;
• an undisclosed major conflict of interest that affected interpretation or assessment of the work;
• absence of required ethics approval, consent or lawful permission, and other serious breaches of participants’ rights;
• another confirmed breach that substantially undermines the reliability or ethical acceptability of the publication.

Inability to release sensitive data publicly, a single unsuccessful replication, disagreement with conclusions or an author’s failure to respond does not, on its own, establish a need for retraction. The provenance of materials, explanations, available verification methods and the evidence as a whole are assessed.

An honest error may also require retraction if the principal findings are unreliable. Conversely, an authorship dispute without other serious breaches is normally resolved through correction or a separate procedure. Retraction is not used as punishment; intentional misconduct is stated only where sufficiently substantiated.

7. Limited errors, partial retraction and a new version

An error confined to part of a work that does not undermine the remaining findings is normally addressed by a precise correction. The journal does not ordinarily use partial retraction because it can create uncertainty about the article’s status; loss of confidence in the principal findings calls for full retraction.

An exceptional partial retraction requires specific justification, precise identification of the affected content and clear labelling. The existence of this technical update type in Crossmark is not itself a reason to use it.

If a substantially revised work is proposed after retraction, it may be considered only with disclosure of its history, fresh editorial assessment and necessary independent peer review. Publication does not cancel the earlier retraction and must not appear to be an undisclosed replacement of the original; versions and notices are openly linked.

8. Retraction notice and original article

A retraction notice:

• remains freely and permanently accessible;
• is clearly labelled as a retraction and identifies the affected article;
• explains the grounds and their effect on the publication, separating established facts from unresolved questions;
• identifies who takes the action: the authors, Editor-in-Chief or another authorised editorial body;
• where relevant, records authors’ agreement, disagreement or lack of response without unsupported conclusions;
• includes a date, normally its own DOI, and reciprocal links with the article;
• uses accurate, neutral language that protects participants’ rights.

The article normally remains accessible. A prominent “Retracted” label appears on its landing page and HTML version; the journal-distributed PDF carries a legible retraction mark on every page and a link to the notice. Copies previously downloaded by readers do not change automatically.

Authors’ disagreement does not prevent a justified editorial decision. Full-text removal is permitted only in the exceptional cases in section 11; retraction and removal are distinct actions.

9. Expressions of concern

A warning is published where serious, substantiated concerns exist and a final action has not yet been determined, for example when:

• an investigation is ongoing and is likely to take considerable time;
• evidence is contradictory or insufficient for a final conclusion;
• an institution does not conduct a necessary assessment, delays it unjustifiably or does not respond;
• essential source material cannot be obtained and concerns remain;
• readers need timely warning about possible unreliability or an ethical issue.

The notice describes the issue, current status and responsibility for issuing it, without presenting suspicion as proven misconduct. It is open, linked to the article and normally assigned a separate DOI.

The editorial office follows the case and publishes a correction, retraction or resolution notice when new evidence becomes available. If justified uncertainty cannot be resolved, the warning may remain with an explanation. It is not silently removed, including when the concerns are not substantiated.

10. Withdrawal before publication and early online versions

The publication process for a manuscript not yet published by the journal may be terminated where:

• a serious error or breach is identified;
• production was initiated by mistake;
• necessary ethical, legal or permission requirements have not been met;
• there are justified grounds why the material cannot be published lawfully and reliably.

A reasoned author request is considered in light of the process stage and circumstances; a change of intention does not automatically cancel an existing decision or obligations. The outcome and notification to authors are recorded in the editorial system.

Material already publicly issued by the journal as an article, including Online First or Early View, is subject to post-publication procedures regardless of issue allocation, pagination or DOI. A public accepted version is also not removed without an explanatory record and preservation of its history. An author’s preprint outside the journal platform does not itself constitute publication of the article by the journal.

11. Removal of published content

Removal or access restriction is considered only in exceptional, justified circumstances, including:

• a binding requirement from a court or competent authority;
• established unlawful content or a serious infringement of rights;
• an immediate and serious safety risk;
• improper disclosure of personal, confidential or protected information;
• a serious intellectual property infringement that cannot be resolved by a less restrictive action.

In criminology, particular attention is given to exposure of a protected witness, minor, victim or research participant’s identity. Where possible, only the harmful passage is removed; the full text is restricted when necessary and a lesser action is insufficient.

The DOI, bibliographic page and an open notice are retained to the extent permitted by applicable requirements. The reason is explained without repeating protected data. Reputational discomfort, criticism of an institution or a request to remove a negative finding is not, by itself, grounds for removal.

12. Post-publication scholarly discussion

The journal welcomes substantiated comments, critical analyses, replication findings and author responses. They must:

• relate directly to the published work’s content;
• be expressed professionally and respectfully;
• rely on verifiable arguments and sources;
• disclose relevant conflicts of interest;
• contain no threats, personal attacks, discrimination or improper disclosure of data.

The original authors are normally offered an opportunity to respond. Comments and responses making an independent scholarly contribution undergo appropriate editorial assessment and, where necessary, independent peer review, and may be published as citable material. An author’s failure to respond does not block consideration of substantiated criticism.

Scientific disagreement or non-replication is not equivalent to misconduct. If a comment identifies a significant error or ethical concern, the editors assess it under this policy independently of the decision to publish the comment itself.

13. Reporting concerns and initial assessment

A written report should, where possible, include:

• the article title and authors’ names;
• its DOI or full publication details;
• a description of the specific error or concern;
• verifiable evidence, links and permissible supporting documents;
• any relevant conflict of interest of the person reporting;
• identification of an urgent risk, if present.

Anonymous reports are considered where they contain specific, verifiable information. Initial assessment considers the journal’s remit, whether information is sufficient and whether urgent protective action is necessary. A reporter need not prove the entire case before assessment begins.

Acknowledgement and progress communication follow the Complaints and Appeals Policy; no fixed limitation period applies to serious concerns about published work. A wholly repetitive report without new circumstances may be closed with an explanation. Harsh language, a personal dispute or the reporter’s conflict of interest does not justify disregarding verifiable evidence within the report.

14. Assessment of the circumstances and decision-making

Authors and other affected persons are normally informed of the substance of the concern and given a reasonable opportunity to respond. Where necessary, the journal involves:

• independent experts in criminology, methodology or statistics;
• the authors’ institution or research integrity office;
• a competent ethics committee;
• specialists in data, images, digital material or other technical matters;
• legal advisers and other competent bodies within their authority.

The journal assesses publication reliability and takes editorial action; an institutional investigation of researchers’ conduct may proceed separately. Waiting for its outcome must not unjustifiably delay a necessary warning to readers. Where sufficient evidence exists, the editors may take final action without waiting for an external decision.

The Editor-in-Chief makes the decision, or an appointed independent authorised person does so where the Editor-in-Chief is recused. Grounds, author responses, effects on the article and the implementation plan are documented. If the concern is not substantiated, the case is closed with reasons; any published warning is accompanied by a public statement of the outcome.

15. Editorial independence and responsibility

A person with a conflict of interest does not assess evidence or make decisions in the relevant case. This applies to authors, reviewers, Editorial Board members, the Editor-in-Chief and representatives of the founder or publisher. An independent editor or external group is appointed where necessary.

The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board are responsible for the content and justification of post-publication decisions. As publisher, the Research Institute of Criminology of the Republic of Uzbekistan arranges their technical implementation through authorised personnel: updating pages and files, registering DOI relationships and depositing metadata.

Technical providers and administrative units do not independently make scientific decisions or block them for financial or reputational reasons. Authors must report significant errors without undue delay and cooperate with assessment. Payment for considering a report or publishing a necessary ethical correction is not a condition for protecting the scholarly record.

16. Metadata, DOI, indexing and Crossmark

Official notices have a permanent relationship with the affected article. Within its actual authority, the journal updates:

• the article page and a prominent statement of its status;
• HTML, PDF and affected supplementary files;
• DOI metadata and update relationships in Crossref;
• Crossmark information within the service actually implemented;
• information supplied to the indexing, archiving and aggregation services used.

A separate significant notice normally receives its own DOI. Its relationship to the original article’s DOI is registered in the notice’s metadata under Crossref procedures. Updates can be registered before the Crossmark button is fully implemented; publication of this policy does not activate it.

Reader notification is not postponed because of a technical delay. The editorial office checks consistency between text and metadata; updates in external databases also depend on those services’ processes and are not guaranteed to be immediate. These arrangements operate alongside the Crossmark Policy.

17. Confidentiality and protection of those reporting concerns

Assessment documents are available only to people who need them. Personal data, restricted case files, unpublished material and unconfirmed allegations are protected; they are obtained through an agreed permissible channel and only to the extent necessary.

The journal seeks to keep a good-faith reporter’s identity confidential and prohibits retaliation or pressure by participants in the editorial process. Where disclosure is needed on lawful grounds or for a fair assessment, necessity, proportionality and risk are considered; the reporter is informed beforehand where possible. Absolute anonymity is not promised where it cannot be guaranteed.

Confidentiality does not mean concealing the outcome. The public notice explains the decision adequately without unnecessary identifiers or protected information. Failure to substantiate a report does not itself imply that the reporter acted in bad faith.

18. Complaints and appeals

An author or another directly affected person may request a reasoned review under the Complaints and Appeals Policy. Grounds include:

• a significant factual error;
• a serious procedural breach;
• substantial new evidence;
• a conflict of interest that affected the decision.

Disagreement with the outcome alone is insufficient. Review is conducted by a qualified person who was not involved in the disputed decision and has no relevant conflict of interest. The time limits and exceptions for significant new circumstances established by the general policy apply.

An appeal does not automatically suspend a published notice. If the decision changes, the journal openly updates the status, publishes an explanation and updates necessary metadata. The earlier notice does not disappear without documenting the change.

19. Archival material and limits of authority

An article’s age does not itself remove the journal’s responsibility to assess a significant concern. For archival material, the editors consider surviving documentation, requirements applicable when the research took place and the actual authority to manage the publication and metadata.

If another organisation controls the original version or DOI, the journal supplies permissible information to the responsible rights holder and cooperates within its authority. It does not unilaterally change another party’s DOI records or official files. An explanatory note or link may be placed on the journal’s own archival page where justified and authorised.

Inability to obtain old data is assessed in light of retention rules at the time, circumstances and alternative evidence. The absence of an archive does not itself establish fabrication. Where significant concerns remain unresolved, the editors may issue a reasoned expression of concern.

20. Policy administration

Following approval, this policy takes effect on the date of its publication on the official Criminology (Uzbekistan) website. The editorial office records the actual date and subsequent revisions, taking account of developments in COPE guidance, Crossref requirements and publishing practice.

The policy operates alongside the journal’s policies on publication ethics, allegations of misconduct, complaints and appeals, authorship, participant protection, data and Crossmark. It brings together procedures for the principal post-publication actions; specific instructions clarify implementation and do not permit undisclosed changes to the scholarly record.

Reports of errors, article-status queries and post-publication concerns should be sent to the editorial office at info@uzkti.uz. An initial enquiry need only identify the article and describe the concern; restricted material and participant data are transmitted only through an agreed secure method.