1. Ethical approval

Authors comply with applicable national, institutional and professional requirements. Before procedures requiring ethical assessment begin, they obtain a decision from a competent independent committee or another authorised body. Retrospective review is not described as prior approval and does not automatically replace timely permission.

The manuscript includes:

• the committee or body’s full name;
• the decision date and approval or protocol number where assigned;
• the scope of approval: participants, settings, data sources and procedures;
• material protocol changes and additional approvals;
• how consent was obtained and documented;
• the body, specific basis and conditions of any exemption from review or waiver of consent.

Ethical approval, management permission for access and participant consent are distinct. The decision must cover the work actually conducted. Expert status, an anonymous questionnaire, online format, an educational purpose or the absence of a local committee does not create an automatic exemption.

Where approval was obtained

The study was approved by [full name of body], decision [number if assigned] dated [date], protocol [identifier or description]. Approval covers [participants, data and procedures]. Material changes: [approved changes or confirmation of none].

Where formal approval was not required

Formal ethical approval for [nature of study] was not required under [specific applicable rule or competent body’s decision, date and number where available]. The study used [sources and procedures]; safeguards included [description].

A formal exemption is identified as such, with the body, decision and its limits stated. Exemption from review is not treated as a waiver of consent. Where doubt exists, written clarification from a competent body is obtained before collection. Missing required approval is disclosed to the journal; dates and documents must not be reconstructed as though they existed previously.

2. Participant information and voluntary participation

Before deciding, the individual receives clear and accessible information on:

• who conducts and funds the study and why it is being undertaken;
• why they are invited and the intended procedures, recording and duration;
• what information is collected and how it is analysed and used;
• possible risks, inconvenience, expected benefits and the absence of guaranteed personal benefit;
• potential data recipients and storage location and conditions;
• limits to confidentiality and possible data withdrawal;
• the right to decline, skip questions, pause and stop without punishment;
• reimbursement or remuneration and its conditions where offered;
• a contact for questions, safe reporting of concerns and withdrawal of consent.

Time to decide, opportunities for questions and necessary language or other support are provided. Understanding is checked; attendance, silence, an official instruction or platform registration is not equated with freely given consent.

Pressure, threats, concealed conditions on services and undue inducement are unacceptable. Research involving authorised incomplete disclosure follows a justified procedure agreed in advance; participation must not be described as fully informed without explaining the exception.

3. Informed consent

Where required, consent is obtained before the relevant participation, recording or data use. Written or reliably documented electronic consent is generally preferred. Oral or another form is permissible under applicable rules and necessary ethical authorisation, particularly where a signature increases identification risk.

The procedure must establish what information was provided, what the person agreed to and how this was recorded, without excessive identification data. Waiving a signature does not waive informed consent. Audio documentation is also assessed for safety and permission to record.

Participation consent statement

Before [procedures], participants received clear information about the study and voluntarily gave [written / electronic / documented oral / other permitted] informed consent. Consent was recorded by [method]. For [specific group or procedure, if applicable], [authorised exception and its basis] applied.

A waiver of consent or alteration of its content has a specific ethical and legal basis before the relevant use. The article states the body or applicable basis, decision date where available, data covered and conditions. Convenience, database size or subsequent removal of names is not sufficient by itself.

Participants may stop and decline individual questions. The ability to remove data already collected, deadlines and limits after irreversible anonymisation, aggregation or publication are explained in advance. Removal that is technically or lawfully impossible must not be promised. Material changes to purposes, risks, recording, transfer or reuse require assessment of renewed consent and protocol authorisation.

4. Participant safety and risk minimisation

Physical, psychological, legal, professional, social, economic and digital consequences for participants and people connected to them are assessed. Public value does not justify disproportionate or unmanageable risk.

Authors provide for:

• a scientifically justified approach that minimises risk among suitable data collection methods;
• safe locations, timing and communication channels, accounting for observation by others;
• interviewer preparation and trauma-sensitive questions;
• opportunities not to answer, to pause, to stop interviews and to access available support;
• rules for stopping hazardous procedures, recording adverse events and notifying competent persons;
• safe communication during remote interviews, without messages that could disclose participation to an abuser or outsiders;
• justification of interventions, group allocation and monitoring of consequences where the study is experimental.

Absolute secrecy must not be promised where applicable limitations exist. Before the study, confidentiality limits and procedures for immediate danger or mandatory disclosure are established. Information is passed to appropriate recipients, on a permissible basis and to the necessary extent; participants are informed where possible unless that increases risk. This policy does not impose a universal duty to report every account of an offence.

Research does not authorise unlawful situations, provocation of harm or deprivation of entitlements for comparison purposes. Routine work and subordination to an author do not reduce protection requirements. Material events and changes in risk are reported in study records and the manuscript to a safe extent.

5. Confidentiality and personal data

Collection, analysis, storage and transfer have a permissible basis and conform to authorised purposes. Authors:

• collect only necessary information;
• apply justified de-identification or pseudonymisation;
• keep linkage keys separately and restrict access;
• protect devices, backups, transfer channels and destruction procedures;
• establish responsibilities and retention periods under applicable requirements and study conditions;
• assess re-identification in text, quotations, tables, maps, supplements and metadata;
• document material processing changes, access and responses to disclosure incidents.

Pseudonymisation is not complete anonymity. A rare occupation, precise date, institution, place or combination of circumstances may reveal identity. Being able to read a case file, agency record or public document does not authorise transferring all its information to the journal, a repository or a third-party service.

Identifiable research data are not deposited openly without the necessary legal and ethical grounds, explicit consent where required and appropriate safeguards. Even consent does not justify unnecessary disclosure. Safe aggregates, controlled access or explained restrictions are used under the Data and Reproducibility Policy.

Confidential information is not sent to unauthorised AI services or platforms. Suspected disclosure incidents trigger limits on further exposure, notification of responsible persons and the prescribed response. Public notices and initial messages to the journal do not repeat protected details.

6. Vulnerable participants

Additional protection reflects context and possible consequences. Particular attention is required for:

• minors and people with limited capacity to make a particular decision;
• people with language difficulties, limited literacy or support needs;
• survivors of violence, trafficking, coercion or traumatic events;
• people in custody, prisoners and those under supervision;
• participants in economic, social, professional or educational dependency;
• witnesses, informants and others who may be harmed by disclosure of participation.

Group membership does not establish inability to consent or, by itself, justify exclusion from research. Information, time, translation and decision support are tailored to individual needs. An assistant or interpreter respects confidentiality and does not decide for the participant without proper authority.

Required parental or legally authorised representative consent is obtained, alongside consideration of the participant’s own agreement and dissent according to understanding and applicable rules. A child’s silence is not assent. If approaching a proposed representative creates danger, a permissible alternative is agreed with a competent body beforehand; researchers must not remove required safeguards unilaterally.

Appropriate protections are planned for follow-up contacts, crises and subsequent use of sensitive information. Risks extend beyond the interview itself to publication and later re-identification.

7. Participants in dependent relationships

Power imbalances are assessed separately for employees, students, subordinates, detainees, prisoners and people under supervision. Refusal and withdrawal must not adversely affect work, grades, pay, status, access to entitlements, detention conditions or the exercise of lawful rights.

Where possible, invitations and consent are handled by an independent person who does not exercise authority over the participant. The distinction between research and interrogation, an internal inquiry, education or a mandatory procedure is explained. Participation decisions are not disclosed to a manager or supervising person without necessity and a permissible basis.

Sentence reductions, procedural advantages, improved conditions or professional benefits must not be promised in exchange for consent to data collection. Evaluation of an existing programme separates its lawful eligibility conditions from voluntary research participation. An author’s, agency’s or institution’s authority does not replace individual consent where required.

The amount, form and conditions of remuneration or reimbursement are disclosed to participants and in the study description. They must be proportionate and non-coercive. Payment arrangements on withdrawal are explained beforehand and not used as punishment; reimbursement due for costs and time already incurred is not made conditional on completing all procedures.

8. Online surveys and remote research

Online surveys, video calls, mobile applications, social media, digital traces and sensors are subject to the same ethical requirements, adjusted to the environment. Where collection relies on consent, information and an opportunity to consent precede the relevant collection.

Authors must:

• explain recording, transcription, responses collected and technical metadata;
• disable unnecessary collection of IP addresses, location and device identifiers where possible and explain necessary collection;
• assess storage, provider access, third-party transfer and use of material to train AI;
• use proportionate age, eligibility and consent checks without unnecessary identity documents;
• enable safe departure from an interview and consider others’ access to the device;
• disclose cross-border processing where it occurs and establish necessary grounds;
• refrain from bypassing access controls or sending personal materials to unauthorised services.

Covert methods and use of digital data without renewed consent require a justified exception and appropriate prior review. Public availability of a message or profile is not unrestricted permission for research dissemination. Publication context, privacy expectations, searchable quotations, third-party rights and applicable platform rules are considered.

A survey must not be described as fully anonymous if the team or its processor retains identifiers linking responses to individuals. Technical processing and its limits are described truthfully. A working link or paid subscription does not itself establish service security.

9. Consent for publication

Publishing identifiable material about a participant requires separate, clear consent to disclosure where required by applicable rules and the study’s nature. This includes photographs, video, audio, recognisable quotations and detailed cases. Consent to participate does not automatically provide such consent.

Participants are shown or told what will be disclosed, the article’s public accessibility and limits on later removal from circulation. The rights of other people mentioned or depicted are checked. Removing a name or face does not always prevent contextual identification.

Publication consent statement

[Written / reliably documented electronic / other permitted] consent to publish [specific identifiable material] was obtained from [the participant and/or legally authorised representative under applicable requirements]. Consent covers the information disclosed and its inclusion in a publicly accessible article.

If required consent cannot be obtained, identifiable material is not published without another specific permissible basis and editorial assessment. Safe de-identification, removal of unnecessary details or exclusion of the material is considered; changes must not distort conclusions.

Scholarly citation of a published official statement or source is not automatically equated with disclosure of confidential participant data. Permissibility, accurate attribution, rights and the need for identification are assessed in context. This does not exempt confidential interviews presented under the guise of citation.

10. Research without human participation

Theoretical, legal or other work without recruitment, intervention, observation or processing of human research data may provide a justified statement of non-applicability. It must describe the actual sources and design.

Non-applicability statement

Research involving human participants: not applicable. This work consists of [nature of work and sources] and involves no recruitment, interaction with participants or analysis of individual research data. Basis for non-applicability of ethical review: [applicable rule or decision where required].

Having no new interviews does not mean having no human data. Secondary analysis of case files, medical, administrative or other personal records must not be labelled “without human participation” solely because the author did not meet the people concerned. Provenance, de-identification status, access terms and the need for review or consent are assessed.

Public and anonymous datasets also require consideration of context and linkage risks. Where specific approval is unnecessary, the basis is stated accurately; a regime applicable to secondary data is distinguished from a complete absence of such data.

11. Editorial verification and non-compliance

The journal may request the ethical decision, information sheet, blank consent template, protocol, data protection plan or confirmation of permissions. Safe copies and de-identified confirmations are used initially. Signed forms containing personal data are not included in open supplements; access to them requires a justified need, permissible basis and secure channel.

Consideration of a concern may include:

• requesting explanations and correcting an inaccurate statement;
• pausing consideration and arranging independent verification;
• rejecting a manuscript or reversing acceptance on sufficient grounds;
• referring the matter to an institution, committee or other competent body;
• handling it under the Allegations of Misconduct Policy;
• after publication, a correction, expression of concern or retraction according to the issue’s nature and consequences.

The journal does not grant ethical permission or deem research acceptable merely because a document exists. Authenticity, approval scope and actual conduct are assessed. Inadequate wording is distinguished from missing required consent or substantial harm; textual correction does not automatically remedy every breach.

Authors ordinarily receive a specific account of concerns and a reasonable opportunity to respond. Urgent measures to prevent further harm are justified and documented. Cases involving an editor, the Editor-in-Chief, the institute or a sponsor are assessed independently without control by the interested party.

An online article counts as published. Changes and notices retain a traceable history without repeating harmful information. Withdrawal of a submission does not automatically end a separate inquiry. Complaints and reasoned appeals follow the journal’s dedicated policy without a separate fee; good-faith reporting is protected against retaliation.

12. Policy administration

The Editor-in-Chief organises implementation except in cases involving their own conduct or a conflict. The founder and publisher, the Research Institute of Criminology of the Republic of Uzbekistan, provides organisational support while preserving editorial independence. Researchers and their institutions retain responsibility for research conduct, consent and document retention.

The requirements take effect after approval and publication on the journal website. Actual approval, effective and revision dates are stated in the published version; all three language versions are updated together. New provisions are not represented as having applied previously. Review considers developments in participant protection, methods and applicable requirements.

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 participant names, signed forms or closed case files. A secure channel is agreed for evidence; independent referral is requested where a conflict exists.

The research and publication ethics, data, AI, peer review, misconduct allegations and appeals policies also apply. General guidance includes COPE Core Practices and the ESRC research ethics framework and guidance. These are considered according to the work’s nature and do not replace requirements in the relevant jurisdiction.