1. Authorship criteria

An individual must meet all four criteria to be listed as an author:

1. A substantial intellectual contribution to the conception or design of the study, or to the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of research data and materials. For theoretical, review and comparative legal studies, this includes developing arguments, the reasoned selection and critical analysis of sources, and the synthesis and interpretation of findings.
2. Drafting the manuscript or making substantive revisions to its important scholarly arguments, methods, analysis or conclusions.
3. Reading and approving the submitted manuscript and the final version intended for publication.
4. Accepting responsibility for their own contribution and cooperating in the appropriate investigation and resolution of questions about the accuracy and integrity of any part of the work.

Each author must be able to explain their contribution, know who is responsible for other principal parts of the study and have reasonable confidence in the integrity of their co-authors’ work. Authors need not master every specialist method used by other contributors, but must not disregard substantiated concerns about the reliability of the work.

Individuals who meet the first criterion must have a meaningful opportunity to participate in drafting or substantive revision and to approve the final version. A researcher must not be excluded by deliberately denying them this opportunity. This applies, in particular, to doctoral candidates, early-career researchers, local researchers and fieldwork contributors.

2. Contributions insufficient for authorship

The following activities on their own, without fulfilment of all criteria in section 1, are insufficient for authorship:

• providing funding, a grant or other material support;
• general administrative management, line management or institutional leadership;
• providing equipment, software, premises, archives or access to data;
• arranging access to law enforcement agencies, courts, prisons or research participants;
• mechanical data entry, transcription or other routine technical work without a substantial intellectual contribution;
• proofreading, reference formatting, routine language editing or translation without substantive scholarly revision;
• general advice that does not substantially influence the scholarly content;
• paying for professional services, or delivering them without a contribution meeting the authorship criteria.

A substantial contribution to data acquisition, including designing and conducting interviews or observations or developing a reasoned sampling approach, may fulfil the first criterion. The other three criteria must also be met for authorship. Payment for work or a contributor’s professional status does not exclude that individual from authorship when all criteria are fulfilled.

Access to criminal case materials, departmental statistics or institutions must not be made conditional on including a manager or intermediary as an author without the necessary scholarly contribution.

3. Unacceptable authorship practices

The journal does not permit:

• honorary or guest authorship — including someone because of their position, reputation or presumed influence on publication;
• gift authorship — including someone without the necessary contribution in exchange for a favour, reciprocal authorship or because of personal relationships;
• ghost authorship — omitting a person who meets the authorship criteria or concealing a professional writer’s substantial role;
• purchasing, selling, transferring or advertising an authorship position;
• coercive inclusion of a supervisor, commissioner, official or other person;
• naming an individual without their knowledge and consent, impersonation or fictitious authorship.

Where there are substantiated indications of a breach, the editorial office may suspend consideration and request explanations. Confirmed breaches lead to proportionate measures under sections 17, 21 and 22; suspicion alone is not proof of misconduct.

4. Author contributions

An author contribution statement is required for every manuscript, including single-author submissions. It must reflect actual participation and be agreed by all authors. CRediT — Contributor Roles Taxonomy is used to structure the statement where its roles are applicable:

• Conceptualization — developing the research idea and objectives.
• Data curation — preparing, documenting, organising and maintaining research data.
• Formal analysis — applying analytical methods to data and materials.
• Funding acquisition — obtaining financial support for the project.
• Investigation — carrying out research procedures and obtaining data or evidence.
• Methodology — developing methods, research designs or models.
• Project administration — coordinating and organising the research.
• Resources — providing necessary materials, tools or access.
• Software — developing, implementing and testing code.
• Supervision — providing scholarly mentorship and leadership for the research.
• Validation — checking findings, methods and reproducibility where applicable.
• Visualization — preparing substantive visual representations of data and findings.
• Writing – original draft — preparing the initial manuscript text.
• Writing – review & editing — critically revising the manuscript’s scholarly content as an author; this role does not mean the journal’s external peer review.

One person may perform several roles, and several contributors may share a role. Roles must not be invented or all 14 assigned as a formality. CRediT describes contributions and does not replace the authorship criteria: funding, resources or administration alone do not qualify a person for the byline.

Names or initials must identify contributors unambiguously. Equal contributions, shared first authorship or joint supervision are stated only through an agreed and accurate declaration. During double-anonymous peer review, author-identifying information is submitted separately from the anonymised manuscript; the published article identifies authors in the contribution statement.

5. Author order

Authors agree the byline and order before submission and revisit their agreement as actual contributions change. These agreements should preferably be documented from the start of the research. Neither the first nor the last position is automatically assigned to a supervisor, the most senior employee or a grant recipient.

The journal does not determine author order on behalf of a research group or treat a name’s position as a universal indication of role. Where necessary, authors explain the ordering principle, such as alphabetical order or contribution, and an agreed statement of equal participation. Changes after submission follow sections 15–17.

6. Responsibilities of the corresponding author

The corresponding author is the principal contact during submission, review, production and after publication. Their responsibilities are to:

• verify eligibility for authorship, ensure that no qualifying contributor has been unjustifiably omitted and obtain all authors’ agreement to the byline and order;
• ensure the accuracy of names, affiliations, contact details and supplied identifiers;
• collect agreed statements on contributions, funding, competing interests, research ethics and AI use;
• relay substantive editorial communications, reviewer comments and proposed changes to co-authors;
• coordinate revisions and responses to comments, securing all authors’ approval of the final version;
• respond promptly to editorial enquiries and assist with post-publication concerns;
• notify the editorial office of errors, an authorship dispute or circumstances affecting the reliability of submitted declarations.

Administrative tasks may be delegated to a co-author or authorised assistant with notification to the editorial office, but the responsibilities of the corresponding author and all other authors remain. The editorial office may contact any co-author directly; the corresponding author may not prohibit such communication.

7. Responsibilities of all authors

Each author is responsible for the accuracy of their contribution statement, reads the entire manuscript, approves the submitted and final texts and discloses relevant financial and non-financial interests. Submission without a co-author’s knowledge and consent is unacceptable.

All authors must cooperate with enquiries into scholarly concerns, provide supporting materials within permissible limits and report significant errors. Responsibility continues after acceptance, a change of institution or the end of funding. When substantiated concerns arise about any part of the work, authors assist with their examination and appropriate correction of the scholarly record.

8. Group and consortium authorship

For a manuscript submitted on behalf of a research group or consortium, the group name, corresponding author and specific individuals accepting author responsibility must be identified. Each person designated as an author must meet section 1; group membership alone is insufficient.

Authors must be distinguished from contributors acknowledged without author status. The corresponding author supplies the agreed list and contribution statements. Individual details are included in the article and, as platform and metadata formats allow, transmitted to bibliographic records. The journal cannot guarantee identical representation of group authorship in every external database.

9. Acknowledgements

The Acknowledgements section recognises technical, organisational, language, advisory or other assistance from people who do not meet all authorship criteria. Substantial professional writing assistance and its funding source must be disclosed even where the contributor is not an author.

An individual’s consent must be obtained before naming them, and the description of their assistance must be agreed. An acknowledgement must not falsely imply endorsement of the conclusions. Interviewees, victims, convicted persons, informants and other research participants must not be identified merely to recognise their involvement where this would breach consent conditions, confidentiality or safety.

10. Disclosures and required statements

Submissions must include statements applicable to the research concerning:

• author contributions;
• funding, grants and the role of the sponsor or commissioner, including influence on design, data access, analysis and the decision to publish;
• financial and non-financial competing interests, or their absence;
• ethics approval, exemption or a reasoned explanation that the procedure is not applicable;
• consent to participate and, separately, consent to publish identifying materials where required;
• availability of data, code and research materials;
• AI use in accordance with section 14.

The absence of funding or the non-applicability of a requirement must be stated explicitly and with an appropriate explanation. Authors disclose circumstances that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the work, including employment by a body under study, acting as an expert in a case discussed or conducting institutionally commissioned research. Such a relationship does not, in itself, preclude publication.

11. Transparency of data, code and materials

Authors describe which data, code, coding schemes, survey instruments, protocols and other materials are available for scrutiny, where they are held and the conditions of access. Open deposits should preferably use a reliable repository with a persistent identifier. Studies that generate no new data should explain the nature of their sources and the applicability of a data availability statement.

Transparency does not override personal data protection, interview confidentiality, third-party rights, ethical commitments or applicable access restrictions. In criminological research, criminal case materials and information about victims, minors, convicted persons, staff and informants require particular protection. Anonymisation must be assessed in light of re-identification risks.

Where open deposit is not possible, authors explain the specific restriction and any permissible controlled access. The editorial office may request proportionate supporting evidence through an agreed secure channel. Authors must not claim open availability when materials are inaccessible or disclose restricted information without the necessary grounds and permissions.

12. Affiliations

An affiliation identifies an organisation where the work was conducted or substantial scholarly support was provided. Multiple affiliations are listed only where each organisation has a genuine connection to the study. A funder is disclosed as a source of support and does not automatically become an affiliation.

When an author moves to another institution, a current address may be added; the study’s historical affiliation must not be rewritten for rankings or reporting purposes. Fictitious affiliations and listing an organisation without a valid basis are unacceptable. After publication, factual errors are corrected in accordance with the scholarly record and confidentiality requirements.

13. Author identification

The journal strongly recommends that each author provide their own ORCID iD. Authenticated ORCID integration is used where that functionality is available on the platform. An ORCID iD does not replace verification of contribution and consent; Scopus and Web of Science identifiers, where supplied, do not independently establish these matters either.

Names, transliteration, affiliations and contact details must be accurate and consistent. Authors must not use another person’s identifier, invent an identity or operate another author’s account without authorisation. The editorial office may make proportionate identity and affiliation checks through individual contact. Documents unnecessary for the specific check are not requested.

14. Use of artificial intelligence

AI systems, language models, chatbots and other software tools cannot be authors or co-authors because they cannot consent to publication or accept authorship responsibilities. Using a tool does not relieve a person of the duty to check content, sources, calculations, code and the lawful use of materials.

Generative AI used for writing, translation, programming or research analysis must be disclosed in the relevant manuscript section and at submission: the tool, version or date of use, purpose, nature of assistance and method of human verification. Use in the research process is also described in the methods. Routine spelling checks without content generation do not require a separate declaration.

Invented sources, substitution of generated data for empirical observations, concealment of substantial limitations and transfer of personal or restricted materials to unauthorised external services are unacceptable. The Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement applies; a separate AI policy applies once approved and published.

15. Authorship changes before acceptance

After submission, adding or removing authors, changing their order or revising related contribution statements requires sufficient justification and documented agreement. The corresponding author submits a request, preferably before acceptance, containing:

1. The reason for the change and an explanation of why the correct byline was not supplied earlier.
2. The proposed full author list and updated contribution statement.
3. Written agreement from all current authors and every person being added or removed.
4. Confirmation that every author in the proposed byline meets the criteria and approves the relevant manuscript version.

The editorial office may request confirmation directly from each person and pause manuscript processing. The Editor-in-Chief, or an authorised independent editor in the event of a competing interest, makes the decision. A change is not approved where justification is insufficient or consent unverified; a dispute is handled under section 21. A corresponding author’s statement alone is insufficient to remove a co-author.

16. Authorship changes after acceptance

After acceptance, changes are permitted only in exceptional, documented circumstances and must meet section 15. Publication may be held pending verification. Seeking to increase a publication’s status, satisfy an administrative requirement or add a supervisor without the required contribution is not a valid reason.

A byline change may require renewed assessment of contributions, approval of the text and associated ethical declarations. Neither payment nor an approaching issue deadline replaces this examination. Unannounced name changes during proof correction are unacceptable.

17. Authorship changes after publication

A justified change to the byline, author order or a substantive contribution description is recorded through a correction notice linked to the article. The editorial office checks evidence and consents, updates the versions and metadata under its control and sends corrected information to the relevant registration and information services. External database updates depend on those services’ procedures.

A dispute may require findings from a competent organisation. Where those findings establish the need for a correction, the editorial office considers the evidence and the affected individuals’ positions; lack of unanimity does not mean that an established error must remain indefinitely. Decisions and their grounds are documented without disclosing excessive personal information.

An authorship dispute alone, with no grounds to question the work’s reliability or ethical acceptability, ordinarily calls for correction of the authorship record rather than retraction. Retraction or an expression of concern is considered where the nature of an established breach or substantial unresolved uncertainty provides a separate basis for that action. A name change concerning the same person is governed by section 18.

18. Author name changes

An author may request a change to their name in a published article and associated metadata. This concerns identification of the same person and is not an addition, removal or substitution of an author. Disclosure of the personal reason and consent from co-authors are generally not required.

The editorial office verifies the requester’s identity confidentially and proportionately. Legal documents are not automatically required. In agreement with the author, journal-controlled electronic versions and metadata are updated; where necessary to protect privacy, the change may be made without a public notice linking the former and current names.

The journal transmits available updates to external services but cannot guarantee changes to distributed printed copies, third-party copies, caches or every bibliographic database. The former name and reasons for the change are not disclosed beyond what is necessary and agreed.

19. Deceased authors or authors unable to communicate

Death or loss of the ability to communicate does not automatically justify removing a person who made the required contribution. The corresponding author notifies the editorial office and supplies reliable information about the work performed, participation in drafting and available evidence of agreement.

Where the person approved an earlier version but could not approve the final changes, the circumstances are considered individually. The editor may allow authorship to be retained where there is sufficient evidence of contribution and a prior intention to participate in publication; the remaining authors accept responsibility for the final version and subsequent changes. Approval that was never given must not be attributed to a deceased or unavailable person.

An appropriate note may be added where necessary, respecting confidentiality. A co-author or relative must not substitute their signature for that person’s own; the limits to the ordinary consent procedure and the decision are documented.

20. Confidentiality

Authors protect confidential editorial communications, reviewer information and unpublished materials received during consideration. Sharing with co-authors is permitted to the extent needed for work on the manuscript. Other disclosure requires a proper basis and must respect editorial conditions and participants’ rights.

Authors must not attempt to identify an anonymous reviewer, pressure them, contact them outside the editorial process or retaliate against a person who raises a concern in good faith. An initial complaint must not include unsecured criminal case materials or identifying participant information.

A preprint or other previously public version must be disclosed at submission. Posting and circulation conditions are governed by the journal’s applicable rules; authors should recognise that a public version may limit practical review anonymity.

21. Authorship disputes

The editorial office provides a fair process but does not replace competent institutions in establishing disputed actual contributions or adjudicate legal disputes. Participants are invited to provide their positions, a chronology, agreements and relevant evidence.

Where a dispute remains unresolved, consideration or publication may be paused and the matter referred to those responsible for research integrity at the participants’ institutions or another competent independent body. Concerns involving the founder’s leadership or staff follow the independent handling arrangements in the Editorial Governance and Editorial Independence Policy.

The editorial office decides on the manuscript and scholarly record using available evidence and the results of an appropriate investigation. If the dispute cannot be resolved, consideration of an unpublished manuscript may be discontinued with reasons. Complaints and appeals follow the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement; individuals with competing interests do not decide their own cases.

22. Suspected authorship misconduct

To investigate a concern, the editorial office may request individual consent confirmations, contribution descriptions, manuscript versions, research records, information on professional assistance and institutional responses. Requests must be proportionate; only necessary materials are supplied with confidential information protected.

Affected individuals have an opportunity to respond. Information is handled confidentially without premature public accusations. A complainant’s anonymity does not by itself invalidate a specific and verifiable report; knowingly false allegations are also unacceptable.

Depending on the findings, measures may include correction of a contribution statement, rejection, a post-publication correction, an expression of concern, retraction or referral to a competent organisation. Additional restrictions on future submissions or removal from an editorial role require a reasoned and proportionate decision specifying duration, review conditions and an opportunity to appeal. Automatic indefinite sanctions are not imposed.

23. External standards

The policy draws on the following scholarly publishing resources:

• ICMJE: Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors — an approach to authorship criteria and accountability adopted in this policy with regard to the nature of criminological research.
• CRediT — Contributor Roles Taxonomy — description of research contributions.
• COPE Core Practices — guidance on authorship, handling misconduct and protecting the scholarly record.
• Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing — joint principles of COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME, including transparent policies and procedures for handling concerns.

These resources are used alongside the journal’s Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement, Peer Review Policy and Editorial Governance and Editorial Independence Policy. References to guidance do not imply membership of the organisations concerned or indexing in Scopus, Web of Science or DOAJ.

24. Policy administration

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for applying the policy; where a competing interest exists, authority is transferred to an independent editor through the established procedure. As founder and publisher, the Criminological Research Institute of the Republic of Uzbekistan provides organisational support, secure recordkeeping and implementation of appropriate editorial decisions while preserving editorial independence.

The policy takes effect following approval through the applicable procedure and posting on the website. Approval, effective and subsequent revision dates are recorded in the published version. Substantive changes are documented and reflected consistently across all language versions; earlier publications are not attributed procedures that did not actually take place.

Authorship enquiries: use the current editorial contacts on the journal website. The general founder and publisher address for forwarding a concern to the editorial office is info@uzkti.uz. Include “Authorship — Criminological Activity” and the manuscript number or DOI, if available, in the subject line. Confidential evidence is supplied after a secure method has been agreed.

The editorial office aims to acknowledge an enquiry within 10 working days; during a prolonged review, progress information is normally provided at least once every 30 calendar days. These are communication targets, not a guarantee that an investigation will be completed within those periods. Appeals and independent handling follow the journal’s related ethics and governance policies.