1. Definition and forms of plagiarism

Plagiarism is presenting another person’s published or unpublished words, ideas, methods, data, results, images, tables, code, algorithms, models or other intellectual contribution as one’s own without proper acknowledgement of the source.

Plagiarism may include:

• copying text directly without identifying it as a quotation and citing its source;
• excessively close reproduction of wording, the structure of an argument or original analysis without attribution;
• translating another person’s material and presenting it as original;
• appropriating a research idea, survey instrument, coding scheme, method, interpretation or conclusion;
• using another person’s interviews, field notes, statistical findings or analytical tables without acknowledging the source;
• copying or adapting figures, crime maps, charts, photographs and diagrams without necessary attribution;
• using another person’s data, software, code, risk assessment algorithms or computational models without identifying their provenance;
• appropriating unpublished or confidential materials obtained through review, correspondence or collaboration.

Replacing individual words, rearranging sentences, translating, redrawing or changing formatting does not create an independent intellectual contribution or remove the obligation to acknowledge the source. Fabricated, irrelevant or misleading references also breach integrity requirements, although not every such case is plagiarism; possible reference fabrication and citation manipulation are handled under the relevant policies.

Attribution and permission to reuse

Correct citation and the right to reproduce material are separate requirements. A citation alone does not replace necessary permission or compliance with a licence; permission does not remove the duty to acknowledge the source. Adaptations identify the original material and the nature of the changes. Open availability does not mean that material has no conditions of use.

Legal sources and criminological research materials

Quotations from legislation, judicial decisions, official reports and statistical publications are clearly distinguished from the author’s analysis. The specific source and, where applicable, the article, paragraph, page, date or version used are identified. Verbatim passages are marked with quotation marks or as block quotations. A borrowed commentary on legislation must not be presented as the author’s own interpretation.

Public availability does not remove attribution requirements or participant safeguards. Interviews, case files and other sensitive materials are cited using an appropriate de-identified designation; identifying information must not be disclosed merely to provide a reference. Necessary evidence of provenance is agreed with the editorial office through a secure channel.

2. Self-plagiarism and text recycling

Authors disclose and cite substantial reuse of their previously published work. In this policy, “self-plagiarism” refers to misleading reuse, not a prohibition on developing earlier research.

Inappropriate practice may include:

• reproducing substantial portions of earlier text without disclosure;
• presenting previously published data or findings as new;
• republishing essentially the same article in another language without a transparent, agreed basis;
• reusing figures, tables, code or research instruments without citation and necessary permission;
• artificially dividing a study into substantially overlapping articles in a way that distorts the completeness or independence of the findings;
• concealing substantial overlap with an earlier article, conference material, thesis, report, preprint or related manuscript.

Limited repetition of a standard method description may be permissible where necessary, transparent and consistent with citation, copyright and licensing requirements. It does not justify presenting earlier findings or conclusions as new. Text from a jointly authored work must not be regarded as exclusively one’s own or free from co-authors’ or a rights holder’s rights.

A preprint, thesis or report is not automatically considered impermissible republication. At submission, authors provide links or available copies of related works and explain the overlap, changes and new contribution. Acceptability is assessed against journal rules and the nature of the material. Translated secondary publication requires prior agreement with the editorial offices concerned, clear identification and the necessary rights.

Reanalysis of a shared dataset is permissible where it offers a distinct scientific question or analytical contribution, discloses provenance and overlap, cites earlier findings and does not falsely claim new observations. The same or a substantially overlapping manuscript must not be submitted to several journals simultaneously.

3. Similarity screening and assessment

Screening may take place:

• at initial submission;
• before referral for peer review;
• after substantial revision;
• before final acceptance or publication;
• after publication following a specific report or reasonable suspicion.

The journal does not set a single automatic similarity threshold for acceptance, rejection or a finding of plagiarism. A correctly presented quotation may also produce a match; the report helps identify passages for assessment rather than replacing assessment. This interpretation of the score is also explained in Turnitin’s guidance.

Editors consider:

• whether the actual source has been established and correctly identified;
• whether verbatim quotation, including translated quotation, is indicated;
• the extent, concentration and scientific significance of the overlap;
• its location in methods, results, discussion or conclusions;
• its connection to standard terminology, a legal provision or an unavoidable procedural description;
• whether it originates in the authors’ earlier work and whether this was disclosed;
• reuse of ideas, images, data, code, instruments and findings;
• whether readers could be misled about the originality and independence of the research.

Reference lists, properly presented quotations, standard declarations, organisation names, established terms, formulas and necessary methodological descriptions may be assessed separately. Report exclusions must be justifiable: they must not conceal a problematic passage. The version checked, date, material settings or exclusions, editorial assessment and reasons for further action are recorded.

A low score does not rule out appropriation of a short but significant conclusion, idea, table or algorithm. A high score may reflect appropriate quotation, a disclosed preprint or a previous version. Where several sources match, their provenance and chronology are examined; the software’s first displayed source is not automatically treated as the original.

Limits of automated screening and confidentiality

Text matching may miss translated plagiarism or appropriation of an idea, data, an image or material outside the accessible database. Manual comparison and independent subject expertise are used where needed. The absence of matches, a third-party service certificate or an author’s declaration does not replace editorial consideration.

Before files are sent to an external system, editors assess confidentiality, retention, database inclusion and access arrangements. Restricted materials, personal data and participant identifiers must not be uploaded to unauthorised services. An appropriate de-identified version or a safe alternative check is used, with its limitations recorded. De-identification must not obscure the concern being checked or change scientific meaning.

4. Authors’ responsibilities

Authors ensure that:

• the manuscript presents an independent and accurately described contribution;
• sources are identified accurately and fully;
• direct and translated quotations are clearly marked;
• paraphrases and borrowed ideas have necessary citations;
• permissions and licence conditions are respected;
• related publications, preprints and previous versions are disclosed;
• reused text, data, images, tables, code, models and instruments are identified;
• bibliographic sources are authentic, relevant and verified;
• confidential or unpublished material is not used improperly;
• all co-authors have read the manuscript and approved submission.

The corresponding author coordinates responses, but each co-author remains responsible for their contribution and assists in resolving concerns. Authors who identify substantial undisclosed borrowing promptly inform the editorial office and help correct the scholarly record.

Attempts to conceal matches through hidden text, substituted characters, deliberate errors, images replacing copied text, misleading formatting or automated paraphrasing are prohibited. Language editing or technical conversion alone does not establish manipulation; the specific action, context and effect on screening are assessed.

Artificial intelligence

AI must not be used to disguise appropriated content, create false attribution or fabricate references. Authors verify the originality, meaning and sources of any AI-assisted or AI-edited text and disclose substantial use under journal rules. AI cannot be an author; humans retain responsibility.

An AI detector score is not a plagiarism score and does not itself prove AI use or misconduct. Permissible language assistance does not remove citation obligations. The Publication Ethics Policy and Authorship Principles apply; a separate AI policy applies after approval and publication.

5. Editorial action

All concerns are assessed substantively, objectively and confidentially under the Policy on Handling Allegations of Misconduct. Authors concerned are normally informed of the specific passages, sources and grounds for concern and given a reasonable opportunity to respond. Evidence is made available to the extent needed for a response without unnecessary disclosure of another person’s confidential information.

The assessor must be free of conflicts of interest. Cases involving an editor, editorial body member, the Editor-in-Chief or the Institute are handled independently under established policies; an interested person does not select the assessor of their own case or control the outcome. Author status, institution, payment or waiver status does not influence the decision.

Before publication

Limited, correctable errors in citation or the identification of borrowed material may lead to a request for revision. The specific attribution, originality or rights issue must be remedied, rather than merely lowering the overall percentage. Substantial appropriation cannot automatically be remedied by adding a citation or superficial paraphrasing. The revised version may be checked again where necessary.

Where there are indications of substantial plagiarism, the journal may:

• pause consideration and preserve relevant materials;
• request explanations and permissible evidence of provenance;
• obtain independent expert assessment;
• reject the manuscript on sufficient grounds after assessing the response;
• notify all authors and, where necessary, a competent institution;
• examine related manuscripts where there are specific grounds to believe they are affected;
• take proportionate action under the Policy on Handling Allegations of Misconduct.

After acceptance but before publication, a material credible concern may lead to a production hold and, following assessment, withdrawal of acceptance. An unspecific accusation does not automatically cancel acceptance. Author withdrawal does not end a separate integrity assessment. Co-authors are not collectively accused without consideration of their individual roles.

After publication

Depending on the evidence and impact on the work, possible measures include:

• a correction, where a specific problem can be accurately remedied and the work remains largely reliable;
• an editorial expression of concern, where a serious verifiable issue remains unresolved and readers need to be alerted;
• retraction, where plagiarism materially compromises the publication’s originality, integrity or reliability and correction is insufficient.

Publication action considers the nature and significance of the borrowing, the rights of those affected and the evidence. Absence of proven intent does not remove the need to correct the scholarly record; suspicion alone does not establish misconduct. Editors do not replace competent bodies in establishing facts beyond their authority.

An article already available online before assignment to an issue is considered published. Notices are clearly labelled and linked to the article, and changes and history are preserved. On retraction, all available formats are marked; a justified editorial measure does not depend on every author’s agreement. Content posing identification risks may be restricted with documentation under the Policy on Handling Allegations of Misconduct, while preserving a traceable publication record.

6. Complaints and appeals

An author, reader, reviewer, rights holder, institution or other person may report possible plagiarism. Anonymous reports are considered when they contain specific verifiable information. The report should preferably identify the article or manuscript ID, comparison source, disputed passages and grounds for concern. Good-faith reporting does not result in retaliation.

Disputes about the assessment of a report or a plagiarism finding are handled under the Complaints and Appeals Policy. A submission must identify a material factual or procedural error, conflict of interest or overlooked evidence and explain its effect on the outcome. Disagreement or a lower score after revision alone is insufficient.

The ordinary deadline for an editorial appeal is 30 calendar days after receipt of the decision, with justified exceptions. An independent person uninvolved in the original decision conducts reconsideration. The number of ordinary reviews and reopening on material new information are governed by that policy. Serious reports concerning the reliability of published work are not subject to a fixed reporting limitation period.

Editors aim to acknowledge a report within 10 working days, provide an initial substantive response or explanation of next steps where possible within 30 calendar days, and update an ongoing case normally at least once every 30 calendar days. These are communication targets, not a guarantee of completing an investigation. No separate fee is charged for a report, complaint or appeal.

7. Policy administration

The Editor-in-Chief oversees implementation except in cases involving them or a conflict of interest, when an independent authorised person acts. The Research Institute of Criminology of the Republic of Uzbekistan, as founder and publisher, provides resources and secure retention while preserving editorial independence. Reports, explanations, recusals and decisions are retained under documented access and retention rules; open-case materials are not destroyed.

The policy takes effect after approval and posting on the website. Actual approval, effective and revision dates are stated in the published version. The three language versions are updated together. Past conduct is assessed with regard to the rules applicable at the time; serious originality and reliability concerns remain subject to examination.

Contact: current editorial contacts on the journal website; the founder and publisher’s general address for forwarding a report is info@uzkti.uz. An initial message must not contain closed criminal case files, participant identifiers or other sensitive evidence. Briefly describe the existence of such material and agree a secure channel. Where a case concerns the Editor-in-Chief or Institute, request independent referral without control by an interested person.

This policy operates alongside journal rules on publication ethics, authorship, conflicts of interest, peer review, misconduct allegations, complaints and appeals. COPE Core Practices and the joint COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME transparency principles provide methodological guidance. These references do not imply membership or indexing; a technical report does not replace an independent editorial decision.