1. Definition of misconduct

For this policy, research and publication misconduct means conduct contrary to applicable ethical rules that materially affects the reliability, originality or transparency of research, participants’ rights or the integrity of the publication process. Assessment distinguishes intent, conscious disregard of risk, serious negligence and a correctable error. This editorial definition does not replace a legal determination or findings by a competent institution.

Honest error, reasoned scientific disagreement, a methodological limitation or a different interpretation does not itself demonstrate misconduct. However, a material error may require correction or retraction regardless of intent. Correcting the scholarly record does not depend on establishing individual culpability.

2. Types of misconduct

The following list is not exhaustive. Each case is assessed in light of the evidence, context, seriousness and effect on the publication or research participants.

Plagiarism

Appropriating another person’s text, idea, method, data, image, code or other intellectual contribution without proper acknowledgement, including close paraphrasing and translation without citation. Substantial undisclosed reuse of one’s own text and appropriation of unpublished material obtained through peer review are also examined.

Permitted reuse, clearly identified quotations and limited overlap in standard methodological wording are not automatically considered plagiarism. A similarity percentage or an automated detector’s result does not establish misconduct on its own; an editor evaluates the specific passages, sources and conditions of use.

Fabrication

Inventing observations, interviews, questionnaires, criminal case records, statistical records, calculations, findings, references or quotations and presenting them as authentic. Synthetic data and simulations are permissible when their origin and purpose are clearly identified; they must not be presented as real information about participants or crimes.

Falsification

Altering data, research records, procedures, analytical code or results, or concealing material information in a way that misleads readers. Examples include distorting interview transcripts, substituting crime categories, unjustifiably changing the sample or excluding observations to obtain a predetermined conclusion.

Inappropriate manipulation of images, graphs and data

Concealing or adding material elements, undisclosed duplication of images and datasets, presenting dependent observations as independent, and distorting scales, denominators, time intervals, map boundaries, uncertainty estimates or visualisations are unacceptable. Permissible technical transformations must be described and must not change the meaning of the data. De-identification must not misrepresent the findings.

Duplicate or redundant publication

Publishing substantially overlapping work without disclosure, scientific justification and necessary cross-references may constitute a breach. Authors disclose related articles, preprints, theses, reports, conference materials and shared datasets. A preprint or thesis is not automatically treated as impermissible republication; the decision takes account of journal rules and the nature of the overlap.

Simultaneous submission

The same or a substantially overlapping manuscript must not be under consideration by several journals at the same time. Disclosure of related work does not authorise parallel submission of the same article.

Inappropriate fragmentation of research

Artificially dividing a single study into minimally distinct publications is problematic when it conceals overlap, distorts the completeness of findings or exaggerates the independence of evidence. Several substantively distinct analyses of a shared dataset are permissible when differences are explained and related outputs are transparently cited.

Authorship and contributorship breaches

The journal examines gift, honorary, ghost, purchased and coerced authorship; exclusion of a person meeting the criteria; inclusion without sufficient contribution; false role statements; submission without every author’s consent; and unauthorised changes to the byline or author order. The journal’s Authorship Principles apply. Editors do not resolve contribution disputes through assumptions; independent institutional fact-finding is requested where necessary.

Undisclosed conflicts of interest

Material failure to disclose financial, institutional, professional, academic or personal relationships is assessed under the Conflicts of Interest Policy. Having an interest does not establish misconduct; the assessment considers disclosure obligations, completeness, the need for recusal and the effect on reliability or procedural fairness.

Citation manipulation

Coerced irrelevant citations, coordinated citation exchanges to increase metrics, unjustified self-citation, fabricated sources and pressure favouring a particular author, journal or institution are unacceptable. Recommending a scientifically necessary source is not manipulation. Cited material must be checked; secondary citation must be identified when the original is unavailable.

Peer review manipulation

The journal examines fabricated reviewer identities and contacts, author-controlled addresses, fictitious reports, collusion, misrepresentation of review authorship, interference with expert selection, pressure, intimidation and misuse of confidential information. Deliberate attempts to identify an anonymous person and establish unauthorised contact are examined; incidental recognition of an author from the subject matter does not itself demonstrate manipulation.

Editorial misconduct

This includes decisions on non-scientific grounds, discrimination, concealed conflicts, failure to recuse when required, disclosure of a manuscript, appropriation of unpublished ideas, favouritism, citation manipulation, suppression of justified criticism and interference by the founder or a sponsor. Payment, fee waivers and journal funding do not influence the assessment of an allegation or editorial decisions.

Breaches of research ethics

The journal examines missing required ethical approval or consent, false documents, coercion of participants, improper identification of individuals and misuse of restricted materials. Particular attention is paid to minors, victims, witnesses, detainees, convicted persons, people under supervision and others in dependent circumstances.

Permission from an institution, custodial administration or law enforcement agency does not replace participants’ informed consent where it is required. Participation must not be made conditional on promises of procedural advantages or threats of adverse consequences. Consent to publish identifiable information, re-identification risks and the adequacy of safeguards are assessed. Missing approval is evaluated in light of whether it was required for the particular research and any documented exemption, where applicable.

Misrepresentation of data, code and materials

The journal examines false availability statements, substituted files, concealment or destruction of relevant records after concerns arise, and misleading explanations of restrictions. A justified inability to share crime, participant or closed case data openly is not misconduct when restrictions are accurately disclosed.

The editorial office agrees a permissible means of verification: de-identified extracts, analytical code, secure access or independent confirmation by an authorised custodian. Verification does not require breaching confidentiality. If reliability cannot be established safely, the editorial decision explains that limitation without automatically accusing the author.

Inappropriate use of artificial intelligence

Breaches may include naming AI as an author, undisclosed substantial use, invented interviews or quotations, unchecked references, confidentiality breaches and manipulation of reviews. An AI detector alone does not establish authorship or misconduct. Humans remain responsible for the text, analysis and evidence.

Editors and reviewers must not send confidential materials to unauthorised AI services or delegate substantive scientific assessment to AI. Permissible administrative or language assistance takes place only in an approved protected environment. The AI provisions of the Publication Ethics Policy apply; a separate policy applies after approval and publication.

Other breaches

Other actions materially affecting research reliability, participant safety, confidentiality, intellectual property or editorial independence may also be examined. Assessment concerns a specific act, rather than a person’s position, citizenship, beliefs or agency affiliation.

3. Who may submit an allegation

Reports may be submitted by an author, co-author, reviewer, editor, Editorial Council or Editorial Board member, reader, research participant, institution, ethics committee, funder, competent authority, another journal, publisher or whistleblower. Professional qualifications or a relationship with the journal are not conditions for reporting.

Information is assessed for its substance and verifiability. A reporter is not expected to conduct a full investigation independently or prove intent. Reports in Russian, Uzbek and English are considered under the same rules; language errors are not grounds for rejection.

4. Submitting an allegation

Use the current editorial contacts listed on the journal website. The founder and publisher’s general address for forwarding a report to the editorial office is info@uzkti.uz. Suggested subject line:

Allegation of possible misconduct — Criminology (Uzbekistan): [manuscript ID, article title or DOI]

Where possible, include:

• your name and a safe contact method, except for anonymous reports;
• the manuscript or publication, its title, number, DOI or link;
• the specific concern and relevant passages, data or actions;
• material dates and the roles of those concerned;
• available documents, links and other supporting information, with an explanation of their provenance;
• your relevant interests;
• information about reports to other organisations;
• any need for urgent action or additional confidentiality.

Distinguish facts from assumptions. The first message must not contain closed criminal case files, participant identifiers, victims’ addresses or other sensitive evidence. Briefly describe the existence of such material and agree a secure channel. Reporters are not required to obtain documents improperly.

5. Anonymous allegations

An anonymous report is assessed when it provides specific information allowing a material concern to be checked. Absence of a name is not a reason for rejection. A publicly posted concern may also initiate editorial assessment without requiring its resubmission in a particular format.

The absence of a safe return contact may limit clarification and notification of the outcome. If no assessable issue or supporting information can be identified, the case may be closed with recorded reasons and reopened when material new information becomes available.

6. Good-faith reporting and protection against retaliation

The journal does not tolerate retaliation for good-faith reporting, participation in an assessment or justified criticism. These must not adversely affect other manuscript decisions, reviewer appointments or relations with the editorial office. Risks of pressure on a research participant or whistleblower are considered when choosing contacts and disclosing information.

An unsubstantiated allegation is not equated with a knowingly false report. Proven abuse may lead to proportionate procedural restrictions under section 26, but retaliation and unjustified disclosure of identity remain unacceptable in all cases. The journal can control its own procedures and engage competent bodies, but cannot promise complete protection against third-party actions.

7. Confidentiality

Access is limited to what is necessary for assessment, response and implementation of a decision. Before information is shared, the recipient’s authority, conflicts of interest and risks to the reporter, participants or witnesses are considered. De-identified materials and secure channels are used where possible.

Absolute confidentiality cannot be guaranteed: material information may be needed for a fair response, competent investigation or an applicable obligation. Identifying a reporter is not a standard prerequisite for assessment; the need is considered separately, with advance notice to the reporter where permissible and safe. Unnecessary personal information is not shared.

8. Conflicts of interest in handling an allegation

A case must not be assessed by someone whose conduct is challenged, who participated in the disputed decision or who has a personal, financial, professional or institutional dependency. Conflicts, appointment of the responsible person and recusal are recorded.

An independent authorised editor leads editorial assessment; an external research integrity or methodological specialist is involved where needed. A recused person does not select the assessor of their own case, participate in confidential deliberations or influence the outcome. They receive the information needed to respond on the same terms as other persons concerned.

9. Allegations involving the Editor-in-Chief

An authorised person without a conflict arranges independent handling under the Editorial Governance and Editorial Independence Policy. A competent member of an editorial body without a conflict may take responsibility; where internal independence is insufficient, an external editor or specialist is appointed.

The Editor-in-Chief may provide an explanation but does not appoint the assessor, control access to evidence or overturn an independent outcome by invoking general oversight of the journal. Separation of access and authority must operate in practice.

10. Allegations involving the founder and publisher

The founder and publisher is the Research Institute of Criminology of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Allegations concerning the Institute, its leadership or representatives are handled without their decisive influence over their own case.

An authorised person without a conflict arranges independent referral. Where an internal editor or employee depends on the leader concerned, or an institutional interest is involved, external independent assessment is required; a competent external body is approached where necessary. A general email or nominal appointment does not remove a conflict. Sensitive evidence is not sent to the person whose conduct is challenged before a safe independent contact has been agreed.

11. Preliminary assessment

The editorial office aims to acknowledge receipt within 10 working days. It assesses:

• the report’s connection to the journal, research or editorial process;
• the specificity of the concern and whether it can be checked;
• the need for clarification and applicable policies;
• conflicts and the responsible person’s competence;
• risks to people, data and the reliability of the publication;
• the need to preserve records and take interim protective action;
• grounds for external expertise or institutional investigation.

A vague suspicion alone is insufficient for a full investigation, but the reporter is told what clarification is needed where possible. Assessment is not conditional on presenting conclusive proof of misconduct. Urgent risks are assessed without waiting for the normal response period.

12. Preserving records and evidence

Relevant manuscript versions, supplements, reports, invitations, correspondence, authorship, consent and interest statements, metadata, system records and published files are preserved. The source, receipt date, transfer and alteration of materials are recorded; working copies do not replace originals.

Authors, reviewers and institutions may be asked to preserve original records, code and documents. Evidence collection is limited to what is necessary and to permitted access. Preservation does not establish misconduct; records relevant to an open case must not be destroyed.

13. Notification and opportunity to respond

Following preliminary assessment, the person concerned is normally told the specific concern, relevant material and a reasonable response deadline. Sufficient information is provided for a substantive explanation without unnecessary disclosure of the whistleblower’s identity. A justified request for an extension may be granted.

Notification may be temporarily delayed if there is a risk of evidence destruction, pressure on a participant or interference with an external investigation. Reasons and subsequent review of the delay are recorded. An opportunity to respond is provided before a final adverse finding, except in documented exceptional circumstances. Non-response alone does not establish culpability; after reasonable contact attempts, a decision may rely on the available information.

14. Editorial assessment and external investigation

Editors determine the material’s reliability, compliance with the journal’s procedures and necessary publication action. Independent experts in criminology, statistics, qualitative methods, digital data or research ethics may be involved. Automated checks provide supporting signals rather than final decisions.

The journal does not replace an institutional investigation, a court or investigative authorities, determine criminal responsibility or impose employment sanctions. Matters beyond editorial authority are referred to a competent institution or independent body with appropriate confidentiality. Referral does not remove the journal’s responsibility to protect participants and the scholarly record.

15. Cooperation with institutions

External referrals identify specific concerns and provide necessary evidence. The journal requests acknowledgement, an independent contact, progress and estimated timeframes, followed by findings sufficient for an editorial decision. Unnecessary personnel records or confidential procedural files are not requested.

If an institution does not respond, has a conflict or fails to address a material issue, editors document contact attempts, request clarification or seek competent independent assessment. Institutional findings are considered, but their absence does not prevent a justified correction of the scholarly record. A determination of individual misconduct differs from a decision about an article’s reliability.

16. Timeframes

The following targets apply:

• acknowledgement — 10 working days from receipt;
• initial assessment and a substantive response or explanation of next steps — where possible, 30 calendar days from receipt;
• during an ongoing case — a progress update normally at least once every 30 calendar days.

These are operational targets, not a guarantee of completing an investigation. Delays are explained, together with the next stage and expected update date. External investigations may take longer. No fixed reporting limitation period applies to material concerns about a published work’s integrity or participant risk; urgent protective action is not delayed to follow the normal timetable.

17. Allegations before publication

A credible concern may lead to a pause in review or decision-making, requests for explanations, data, code, consent and approval records, replacement of an editor or reviewer, independent assessment or referral to an institution. Only material that can permissibly be provided safely is requested.

A pause does not establish misconduct. Consideration may resume once the concern is resolved; unreliable or unethical work may be rejected with reasons. Acceptance of a research article requires at least two substantive independent external reviews under the Peer Review Policy; a misconduct assessment does not replace them. Withdrawal by an author does not automatically close a separate integrity concern.

18. Allegations after acceptance but before publication

Publication preparation is paused where preliminary assessment identifies a material credible concern. Receipt of an unspecific accusation does not automatically cancel acceptance.

After assessment and an opportunity to respond, acceptance may be rescinded for unreliable work, material concealment, unethical research, serious peer review manipulation or other sufficient grounds. Reasons are recorded and communicated to the authors. If an article is already publicly available, including online publication before assignment to an issue, the rules for published material apply rather than unrecorded removal of an accepted manuscript.

19. Allegations after publication

Serious concerns are examined regardless of an article’s age. Editors request explanations, permissible supporting information and independent opinions, and contact institutions where necessary. Action depends on the material’s reliability, participants’ rights and the strength of evidence.

An editorial notice, correction, expression of concern or retraction may follow. The journal updates its own files and metadata and sends information to relevant services where the material is listed; it cannot guarantee when external databases will update. The correction provisions of the Publication Ethics Policy apply; a separate detailed policy applies after approval and publication.

20. Corrections

A correction is appropriate when a material error or omission can be accurately remedied and the main body of the work remains reliable. It may concern data, wording, authorship, references, interest disclosures or funding. Honest error may also require correction.

A clear explanation, date and link to the original article are published; substantive changes are not made silently. Disputed authorship changes are handled under the Authorship Principles and, where necessary, independent fact-finding. A name change concerning the same author is handled separately with privacy safeguards.

21. Editorial expressions of concern

Such a notice may be appropriate for serious verifiable concerns when evidence is not yet sufficient for a final conclusion, an investigation is ongoing or substantially delayed, or an adequate response cannot be obtained. It alerts readers to uncertainty and does not declare misconduct proven.

The notice identifies the concern and the reason for the interim measure without unsupported accusations. It is linked to the article and reviewed when new information arrives. Resolution is followed by a final notice, including one clearing the concerns, correcting or retracting the work; the original history is retained.

22. Retractions

Retraction may be required when results or conclusions are materially unreliable because of fabrication, falsification or serious error; a publication is substantially plagiarised or redundant; research is unethical; required consent or permission is missing; or a compromised review process or another serious circumstance deprives the publication of a reliable basis.

An isolated authorship error or undisclosed interest does not automatically require retraction: the assessment considers whether correction is sufficient and how the issue affects the work. Retraction protects the scholarly record and readers; it is not primarily punishment. Agreement from all authors is desirable but is not a prerequisite for a justified editorial retraction; disagreement is accurately reflected.

An openly available notice identifies the article, date, reasons and party initiating the retraction and is linked to the article in both directions. All available article formats are clearly marked. The original is normally retained. Serious risks of identification, harm or a mandatory access restriction may justify proportionately withholding dangerous content with documentation and a permissible public explanation; the record of publication and action does not disappear without trace.

23. Possible findings

Assessment may conclude that:

• there are insufficient grounds for further action;
• the allegation is not substantiated by available information;
• further information or external investigation is needed;
• an honest error or correctable poor practice occurred;
• a specific editorial rule was breached;
• a competent investigation established an ethical breach;
• publication reliability or process integrity is materially compromised;
• correction, a warning to readers or retraction is necessary.

The decision distinguishes established facts, remaining uncertainty and external findings. Equal responsibility must not be assigned to all co-authors without assessing their roles. Closure for insufficient evidence does not prevent reopening when material new information emerges.

24. Corrective and protective measures

Depending on the circumstances, the journal may:

• request correction of files, metadata or declarations;
• pause the process or replace an editor or reviewer;
• reject a manuscript or rescind acceptance;
• publish a correction, notice, expression of concern or retraction;
• notify a competent institution or other authorised body;
• block a fraudulent account while preserving evidence;
• restrict editorial or reviewing responsibilities;
• impose a proportionate temporary restriction on new submissions in serious or repeated cases;
• examine related work where there are specific grounds to believe it is affected.

Measures are reasoned and documented. A temporary restriction states its basis, scope, duration and review route; it is not imposed in retaliation for a complaint or automatically extended to an institution or all co-authors. Urgent interim action is reviewed after explanations are received. Payment neither removes measures nor affects their selection; no separate fee is charged for handling an allegation.

25. Communicating outcomes

Those concerned receive a reasoned outcome to the extent permissible. Where a safe contact is available, the reporter is informed of completion, the general outcome and any review route. Institutions, other journals or authorities receive information necessary for their remit; readers receive an appropriate public notice.

Unnecessary personal, employment or procedural information is not disclosed. Public wording reflects established facts rather than repeating allegations as findings. Confidentiality may limit the detail provided to a reporter but is not used to conceal a necessary correction of a publication.

26. Unsubstantiated or malicious allegations

An unsubstantiated report, persistent good-faith criticism, emotional language or language errors do not themselves constitute abuse. Correspondence may be proportionately restricted for threats, harassment, knowingly false statements, fabricated evidence or repetition of a fully assessed matter without new information.

Where possible, reasons, an authorised contact channel and a way to provide material new information are communicated. A verifiable integrity concern is assessed even when expressed in an unacceptable manner. Restricting communication does not replace substantive consideration.

27. Procedural complaints and appeals

A material factual or procedural error, conflict of interest, bias or failure to consider evidence may provide grounds under the Complaints and Appeals Policy. The submission identifies the challenged act or decision, the error, its effect, supporting information and the requested remedy. Dissatisfaction alone is insufficient.

The ordinary deadline for an editorial appeal or further complaint review is 30 calendar days after receipt of the decision, with justified exceptions. An independent person uninvolved in the original decision handles the review. The rules permitting one ordinary appeal against a specific decision and one further complaint review apply. Material new evidence and serious ethical risks may require reopening outside these limits.

A submission does not automatically suspend necessary protective action. External institutional decisions are challenged under that institution’s procedure; the journal reviews its own conclusions. No separate fee is charged for a complaint or appeal.

28. Record retention

The editorial office maintains a protected case file containing the report, evidence, correspondence, recusals, appointments, policy versions applied, external findings, decisions, reasons, dates and implementation of measures. Access is based on role and need; transfers and changes are recorded.

Retention periods follow documented rules and applicable requirements, taking account of purpose and sensitivity. Relevant materials are preserved until assessment is complete; afterwards, the need for and extent of retention are reviewed. Excess personal information is not kept indefinitely. De-identified lessons may support training and process improvement without enabling participants to be re-identified.

29. External standards and related policies

The following inform the process:

• COPE Core Practices and applicable guidance on suspected misconduct;
• COPE guidance on cooperation between institutions and journals;
• ICMJE recommendations on misconduct, expressions of concern and retractions, insofar as they address general scholarly publishing principles;
• the joint COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME transparency principles;
• the journal’s policies on publication ethics, authorship, conflicts of interest, peer review, editorial independence, complaints and appeals;
• separate policies on AI, data, corrections and retractions after approval and publication, and the relevant Publication Ethics Policy provisions until then;
• applicable requirements for data protection, participant rights and responsible research.

These references provide methodological guidance and do not imply COPE membership or inclusion in an international database. This policy’s timeframes and organisational arrangements are journal rules, not universal Scopus or Web of Science deadlines. External organisations do not replace the journal’s own procedure.

30. Policy administration

The Editor-in-Chief oversees implementation except where involved in the case or conflicted. An independent authorised person acts in those cases. The Research Institute of Criminology of the Republic of Uzbekistan, as founder and publisher, provides necessary resources, secure retention and implementation of appropriate measures while preserving editorial independence.

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

Contact: the current editorial contacts on the journal website; the founder and publisher’s general address for forwarding a report is info@uzkti.uz. For cases involving the Editor-in-Chief or Institute, request independent referral under sections 9–10 and agree a safe contact before sending sensitive evidence.

The reporter is told the handling procedure and contact person. Listing a general address does not itself ensure independence: recusal, safe referral and separation of access must operate in practice.