1. Data availability statement

Every research article includes a Data Availability Statement (DAS). It accompanies the submission, is updated following revisions and appears in the published article. Work without research data provides a reasoned explanation of non-applicability.

The statement identifies:

• data, code, models, instruments and other resources supporting the results;
• the storage location, persistent link or identifier and version used;
• the actual availability of each resource and terms of reuse;
• specific restrictions and the materials they cover;
• the authorised data custodian and procedure for requesting controlled access, where possible;
• the end date of a temporary restriction or conditions for reconsideration, where established.

“On reasonable request” is used only where a functioning provision mechanism exists. Authors state why public deposition is unavailable, the contact or channel, assessment criteria, required permissions and expected response procedure. An author must not promise to release information that only another institution is entitled to disclose. Where no permissible access is possible, this is stated explicitly.

Open repository

Data [description] and code [description] supporting this research are available in [repository] at [DOI or persistent link], version [version], under [licence or terms of use].

Article and supplementary materials

Materials necessary to verify the reported analysis are included in the article and supplementary files [names]. Restrictions on other underlying materials: [description or confirmation that there are no restricted materials].

Controlled access

Materials [description] are not publicly available because of [specific reason]. The data custodian is [organisation]. Requests are considered through [channel] under [criteria, permissions and access arrangements]. Publicly available resources include [de-identified materials, code or method description and link, where applicable].

Provision by an author on request

Resources [description] may be provided by the corresponding author through [channel], subject to [assessment criteria and procedure]. Public deposition is restricted because of [reason]. Provision requires [permissions or conditions, where applicable].

Third-party data or secondary analysis

This study analysed previously collected data [source, identifier, version or retrieval date]. The authors obtained access under [conditions]. Redistribution is [permitted under the stated terms / prohibited by the custodian]; independent requests should be made [where and how]. Author-created derivative materials and code are available [link or justified restrictions].

No research data

No new research data were generated and no existing data were analysed. This is a [theoretical or other type of] work; the scholarly and legal sources used are identified in the text and references.

Examples are completed according to the actual circumstances and combined where necessary. Having no new data does not mean that existing data were not analysed. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses describe search materials, selection and extracted data; the final statement must not be used merely because no new participants were recruited.

2. Research materials and scope

Supporting materials may include, where applicable:

• raw and processed datasets, aggregates and results tables;
• recorded-offence statistics, victimisation surveys and self-reports;
• permissible information from judicial, police, prison and probation sources;
• questionnaires, interview guides, field notes, transcripts and qualitative coding frameworks;
• legal documents, text corpora and source search and selection rules;
• geographical data, maps, network structures and spatial aggregation descriptions;
• crime prevention programme evaluation protocols, analysis plans and registration records;
• code, scripts, algorithms, models, parameters and input and output files;
• review materials: search strategies, search dates, exclusion reasons and data extraction forms.

Disclosure is proportionate to the method and rights over the materials. An accessible dataset includes a README or equivalent documentation, a variable dictionary, units and category codes, missing-value conventions, formats, provenance, version and the relationship of files to the article’s tables and figures.

Personal identifiers, linkage keys and restricted materials do not become mandatory public supplements. An author’s official access to data does not automatically permit transfer to the journal or online publication.

3. Depositing data in a repository

A trustworthy disciplinary or general repository is preferred, supporting:

• long-term preservation and a persistent identifier;
• descriptions of resource provenance, creators, contents and version;
• clear access and licensing conditions;
• version history and links to the publication;
• controlled access where required for the material concerned.

Resources offered openly must be accessible by publication. Before then, a private deposit or review link may be used subject to anonymity and data protection requirements. The version used in the article is identified; a promise of future upload is not presented as current access.

The FAIR principles promote findability, accessibility under defined conditions, interoperability and reuse. They accommodate access authorisation and do not require unrestricted disclosure of confidential information. Metadata are also assessed for disclosure risks.

A personal page, temporary cloud folder or mutable link without a stable version does not itself provide long-term preservation. If the storage location changes, authors notify the journal of the new address while retaining a connection to the original record.

4. Restrictions on open access and participant protection

Justifications for restrictions may include:

• participant rights, confidentiality and risk of harm;
• limits of informed consent and ethical approval;
• protection of closed case files, official information and personal safety;
• third-party rights, licences and permissible contractual obligations;
• commercial interests or technical limitations with a specific explanation.

For victims, minors, witnesses, prisoners, informants and other dependent participants, the consequences of re-identification are considered. Names, addresses, rare case circumstances, precise coordinates and searchable quotations are assessed together. Replacing a name with a code does not itself establish anonymity. A document’s online publication also does not remove the need to assess whether its research dissemination is permissible.

Only necessary materials are restricted. Wherever possible, safe aggregates, edited excerpts, instruments, code, processing descriptions or independent verification in a secure environment are provided. Changes made to protect identity are documented without disclosing the protected details and must not silently distort conclusions. A synthetic dataset is labelled and must not be represented as original observations or evidence of exact reproduction of results obtained from real data.

Consent to participate is not automatically consent to public dissemination. Institutional permission, participant consent and the data custodian’s rights are considered separately where required. The journal does not require authors to breach valid restrictions for the sake of openness. Insufficient accessible evidence may warrant an assessment of the work’s limitations or a decision on its scientific verifiability, rather than an automatic allegation of misconduct.

5. Citing data, code and software

Standalone datasets, code, software and models are cited in the reference list. Where possible, the citation includes creator, title, year, repository or publisher, version and persistent identifier. For changing official sources, the retrieval date and version used are recorded; copies may be retained within the relevant rights.

Online availability does not permit every form of reuse. The article’s licence does not automatically extend to third-party data or software. Authors choose appropriate terms for their own resources and accurately identify third-party restrictions. Source acknowledgement must not become a demand for co-authorship in exchange for access.

6. Methodological transparency

To the extent appropriate to the design, authors describe:

• the research question, context, geographical area and observation period;
• the population, sample, recruitment and inclusion and exclusion criteria;
• observation and analysis units and definitions of offences, outcomes and measures;
• data provenance, record linkage, cleaning, transformations and handling of missingness;
• sample size and its rationale, non-response, attrition and available assessments of bias;
• measurement instruments, coding quality, translation and checks on interpretation;
• statistical methods, weights, clustering, confounders, uncertainty and robustness checks where applicable;
• the software environment, versions and material parameters;
• any preregistration or analysis plan and departures from it;
• the roles of the commissioning body, data provider and researcher, and study limitations.

Recorded crime, estimates of unrecorded crime and self-reports are not interchangeable measures. Changes in legislation, recording rules, geographical boundaries or record availability are disclosed when they affect comparisons. Associations are not presented as causal effects without an appropriate design and justification.

Qualitative work explains the analytic approach, researcher positioning, selection, coding and the basis of interpretations within the chosen methodology. Numerical intercoder agreement is not declared mandatory for every qualitative approach. Confirmatory and exploratory analyses are distinguished; an unregistered protocol is not described as preregistered.

7. Code, models and computational results

Where conclusions depend substantially on custom code or a model, authors provide a sufficient account of the computational process and, where possible, a verifiable package containing:

• code, its precise version and dependencies;
• permissible input data or an account of their acquisition and structure;
• parameters, settings and random seeds where applicable;
• the execution sequence, required resources and instructions;
• expected output files and their correspondence to the article’s results;
• checks performed, comparison criteria and known limitations on reproduction.

For proprietary software, authors specify the product, developer, version and material settings. Unavailable source code is explained; the underlying algorithm is described sufficiently to assess the scientific claims. Example or synthetic inputs may demonstrate execution but do not replace verification of empirical conclusions.

AI use is also governed by the Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools. Material models, training and evaluation data where permissible, settings, prompts and access limitations are disclosed. Attention is paid to training–test leakage, errors, bias and changes in external services. A repository or successful execution does not itself establish model correctness; a claim of independent reproduction rests on verification actually performed.

8. Accuracy and preservation of research records

Authors are responsible for the provenance, accuracy, completeness and integrity of supporting materials. Original records are preserved separately from processed versions; material transformations and corrections are documented. Access controls, backups and transfer of custodial responsibility when employment changes are arranged.

Retention follows applicable institutional, funder, ethical approval, consent, contractual and legal requirements. This policy does not set a universal period. Conflicting requirements are resolved with authorised persons; confidential materials are not retained indefinitely solely for possible verification. Permissible destruction is documented; following a justified evidence-preservation request, authors agree necessary measures within applicable requirements.

Authors notify the journal of loss, corruption, disclosure incidents or an inability to honour published access terms, explain the effect on verifiability and take justified recovery or mitigation measures. Retrospectively reconstructed records must not be presented as original records.

9. Peer review and editorial assessment

Editors and reviewers assess the substance of the DAS, methods description and correspondence between available evidence and conclusions. Where justified, the journal requests specific data, code, protocols or confirmation of access rights and explains the purpose.

For restricted materials, recipient authorisation, a secure channel, minimum volume, retention and deletion are agreed in advance. Transfer to a reviewer is not automatic; verification by an authorised independent specialist, a secure environment or safe derivative materials may be used. The Peer Review Policy applies, including anonymity and the prohibition of unauthorised transfer to AI services.

Deposit metadata and links are checked for disclosure of author and participant identities. Information necessary to assess methods remains in the anonymised manuscript; identifying details may be supplied separately to the editor. Peer review does not imply a full audit of every dataset or execution of every script; any specific verification undertaken is described accurately.

If essential conclusions cannot be assessed after considering permissible alternatives, the journal may request revision, narrower conclusions or reject the manuscript on scientific grounds. A lawful access restriction is not itself misconduct. Authors may use the Complaints and Appeals Policy.

10. Replication and reproducibility studies

The journal considers methodologically sound replication, reanalysis and reproducibility studies within its scope. Failure to confirm an earlier result or obtain a statistically significant effect is not itself grounds for rejection.

Authors identify the work examined, the replication objective, methodological similarities and differences, context, comparison criteria and uncertainty. Computational error, contextual differences and limited statistical precision are distinguished. Non-reproduction does not automatically establish misconduct, while repeating a calculation does not remedy flaws in the original design. Assessment is independent, with conflicts disclosed and respectful discussion of evidence.

11. Post-publication issues

Authors promptly notify the journal of a material error in data, code, a model, methods or the DAS. The report identifies the affected version, results and proposed correction; verified corrected materials are supplied where possible.

Changes retain a traceable history. A new dataset or code version does not replace an article correction when an error affects published conclusions. Proportionately to the circumstances, the journal updates access information, publishes a correction, issues an expression of concern for a substantial unresolved issue or publishes a retraction notice where sufficient grounds exist.

Harmful disclosure may require urgent access restrictions. The decision is documented, notices do not repeat confidential information, and a public record of the change is retained to the permissible extent. Temporary repository unavailability does not itself establish that an article is unreliable; restoration possibilities and effects on verification are assessed.

12. Non-compliance with the policy

Knowingly false DASs, fabrication, falsification, version substitution and unjustified withholding of necessary materials are handled under the Allegations of Misconduct Policy. Honest error, external restrictions, loss and deliberate misconduct are distinguished.

Editorial measures may include:

• requesting explanations, specific materials and a corrected statement;
• pausing consideration and arranging independent verification;
• rejecting a manuscript or reversing acceptance on sufficient grounds;
• correcting a publication, issuing an expression of concern or retracting it according to the evidence and effects on the work;
• referring the matter to an institution, data custodian or another competent body where necessary.

Before a final decision, authors are ordinarily given a specific account of concerns and a reasonable opportunity to respond. Urgent interim measures are justified and documented. Cases involving an editor, the Editor-in-Chief or the institute are referred to an independent authorised person without control by the interested party.

A justified refusal to breach confidentiality is not grounds for a sanction. Withdrawal of a submission does not automatically end a separate inquiry. Complaints and reasoned appeals are handled under the relevant journal policy; no separate fee is charged for considering them.

13. Policy administration

The Editor-in-Chief organises implementation except in cases involving their own conduct or a conflict of interest. The founder and publisher, the Research Institute of Criminology of the Republic of Uzbekistan, provides organisational support while preserving editorial independence. Authors and their institutions are responsible for the agreed preservation of research resources.

The policy takes effect after approval and publication on the journal website. Actual approval, effective and revision dates are stated in the published version; language versions are updated together. Review considers developments in methods, data protection and open science. New rules are not represented as having applied historically; current risks to participants and the reliability of publications are addressed through applicable procedures.

Contact: current editorial contacts on the website; the founder and publisher’s general address for forwarding a report is info@uzkti.uz. The initial message describes the issue without closed case files or identifying information. A secure channel is agreed for evidence, and independent referral is arranged where a conflict exists.

This policy operates alongside rules on ethics, peer review, AI, misconduct allegations and appeals. General guidance includes COPE Core Practices and UK Data Service ethical responsibilities for research data. Specific manuscript requirements follow this policy and applicable research conditions.