AGM Journal
Research data and reproducibility
01Describe the supporting evidence
Explain how the data, materials, code, or other evidence support the reported results. Methods should make the process of collection and analysis understandable, including selection criteria, transformations, and important assumptions. Reproducibility expectations differ across experimental, qualitative, historical, and theoretical work; authors should provide the information most useful for scholarly evaluation of their approach.
02Data availability statement
Include a statement identifying where supporting data can be found, how they may be requested, or why sharing is restricted. Where a repository is used, provide a stable link or identifier, describe the deposited material, and state relevant access conditions. Do not claim public availability if a reader will encounter undisclosed restrictions or an unavailable link.
03Protect participants and legitimate rights
Open data are encouraged where appropriate, but personal information, consent restrictions, intellectual property, confidentiality agreements, and sensitive contexts may limit disclosure. Remove identifying details where effective and explain remaining restrictions. Public article licensing does not automatically authorise disclosure of underlying confidential data. Restricted access procedures should protect people while allowing proportionate scholarly scrutiny when feasible.
04Organisation, citation, and retention
Use clear filenames, explanatory documentation, units, and version information so shared materials can be interpreted. Cite datasets and software that materially contribute to the research. Authors are responsible for keeping supporting records in accordance with institutional and study requirements; the journal does not promise to operate a research-data repository or guarantee indefinite storage of submitted datasets.
05Requests during and after assessment
Editors or reviewers may request relevant supporting information when needed to assess a result or investigate a concern. Authors should respond with available evidence or a justified explanation of restrictions. A failure to share publicly is not automatically misconduct, but unsupported claims of evidence or misleading availability statements may require editorial action.
06Applying this policy
This document sets out the editorial rules adopted for AGM Journal. Read it with the author guidelines and related handbook policies. A policy describes the responsibilities expected of participants; it does not establish membership of an external organisation, a certification, or a guarantee of acceptance. Where an individual case falls outside the examples given here, the editorial office should explain the applicable rule and record the reason for its decision.
07Questions and accountability
Contact the editorial office at editorial@agmjurnal.uz with the article title, submission reference, the policy section, and your question. Provide supporting information without unnecessarily identifying research participants. The office should identify who can consider the matter and request clarification where necessary. Material changes to these rules should be reflected in a new document version. Keep your submission’s policy version; earlier commitments should be assessed against the information originally supplied.
Reference standards
- COPE — Core practices ↗https://publicationethics.org/core-practices
- DOAJ / COPE / OASPA / WAME — Transparency and best practice ↗https://doaj.org/apply/transparency/