Conflicts of Interest Policy

Transparent disclosure of interests supports independent and fair scholarly assessment. This policy defines relevant interests, participants’ responsibilities, assessment and management measures, and action when previously undisclosed circumstances come to light.

01. Definition and scope

A conflict of interest exists where financial, personal, professional or institutional circumstances could influence scholarly judgement or reasonably be perceived to do so. Both current and potential interests must be disclosed; proof of actual bias is not required for disclosure.

The rules cover authors, reviewers, editors, guest editors, board members, participating staff, the founder and publisher of “Irrigation and Melioration”. They apply to every type of content, including special issues, before and after publication.

A disclosed interest does not itself establish misconduct or automatically result in rejection. Equally, disclosure does not automatically resolve a conflict: material risks require recusal or other measures. If uncertain, participants report the circumstances rather than deciding alone that they are irrelevant.

02. Circumstances requiring disclosure

  • Financial: employment, consultancy, honoraria, ownership interests, patents, licence income, funded travel, equipment or other benefits from organisations with a stake in the results.
  • Professional and academic: recent co-authorship, joint projects, supervision, reporting relationships, direct competition for the same resource or contract, or involvement in a dispute related to the research.
  • Personal: close family or other relationships, a pronounced personal dispute or circumstances that could compromise impartiality.
  • Institutional: an organisation’s stake in a technology, study subject, funding, contract or findings, or a participant’s administrative role in that organisation.
  • Other material interests: public representation of an interested party, participation in decisions on the matter or beliefs directly related to the subject that could affect assessment.

Examples include relationships with a supplier of irrigation equipment under study, the owner of a technology being analysed, a client commissioning assessment of a water-management facility or an organisation with an interest in modelling results. The list is not exhaustive.

Working in the same field or expressing reasoned disagreement does not by itself establish a conflict. Personal information and beliefs without a justified connection to the work are not requested. There is no monetary threshold below which a relevant financial relationship is automatically exempt from disclosure.

03. Disclosure period, timing and recipient

Direct support for the research is disclosed for its entire preparation and execution. For other related relationships, the baseline disclosure period is the 36 months preceding submission or acceptance of an editorial assignment. Earlier circumstances must also be disclosed if their influence continues, such as an active patent, continuing dependency or unresolved dispute.

  • Authors disclose at initial submission and update material changes, before final acceptance and proof approval.
  • Reviewers inform the handling editor before accepting an invitation; if a relationship is identified later, they pause their assessment and notify the editor.
  • Editors and board members declare interests on appointment, confirm that declarations remain current at least annually and check their interests for each assignment.
  • Staff and publisher representatives disclose material interests before participating in a decision, accessing sensitive material or handling a concern.

New circumstances are reported without delay, including after publication. Information concerning the Editor-in-Chief is referred to an independent responsible person under the Editorial Governance and Editorial Independence Policy; an interested person does not assess their own conflict.

04. Author statements and publication

Each author supplies their own disclosures or explicitly confirms that there are no relevant interests. The corresponding author combines confirmed information into an agreed statement but does not declare absence of interests for a co-author who has not responded. The journal may request individual confirmation.

Where an interest exists, the statement identifies the author, organisation or party, relationship and relevance to the article. “A conflict may exist” without explanation is insufficient. Circumstances are described neutrally; personal documents and excessive financial detail are not included in the public statement.

If every author has confirmed the absence of relevant interests, the following wording may be used: “The authors declare no financial or non-financial interests that could influence the submitted work.” If any relevant interest exists, specific information replaces a blanket negative statement.

A statement is published in every article. For double-anonymous review, identifying information is supplied separately to the editorial office; reviewers receive information needed for scholarly assessment while anonymity is preserved as far as possible. Anonymisation must not conceal material influence on the research.

05. Funding and the supporting party’s role

Research funding and competing-interest declarations are separate statements. Absence of a conflict does not remove the requirement to report grants, institutional, material or other support. Absence of funding is also stated explicitly in the funding section.

Authors describe the supporting party’s role in defining the question, selecting methods, collecting and analysing data, interpreting findings, preparing the text and deciding to submit. If the party had no involvement in these activities, this is stated. Naming an equipment supplier or data provider only in acknowledgements does not replace disclosure of a material relationship.

Restrictions on authors’ data access, verification of results or independent reporting are disclosed. The editor may request relevant agreement terms confidentially. If reliability cannot be assessed because an interested party’s control cannot be adequately addressed, review may be paused or the article rejected with reasons; commercial funding alone does not justify rejection.

06. Participation of editors and reviewers

A reviewer is not appointed if based at the same institution as any author, if they have co-authored or closely collaborated in research with an author within the past three years, or if another significant conflict exists. This also applies to author-suggested reviewers. Earlier relationships are assessed for continuing influence.

Editors do not handle their own work, work involving close personal relationships, direct reporting relationships, material financial stakes or other ties incompatible with independent assessment. Co-authorship and close collaboration within the past three years require recusal. An editor’s shared institution with an author is disclosed and assessed separately; this does not relax the stricter exclusion for reviewers.

Following recusal, another qualified editor is assigned. If internal reassignment cannot remove dependency or institutional influence, an editor from another organisation is engaged. Appointment, access restrictions and independent decision authority are governed by the governance and peer review policies.

Double anonymity does not guarantee freedom from conflicts. If a reviewer recognises an author or identifies a material relationship, they report it without independently seeking the author’s identity. A conflicted person’s report does not count as an independent expert report required for acceptance.

07. Assessment and management measures

A handling editor without a conflicting interest assesses the relationship’s relevance, possible influence, the participant’s role and the adequacy of proposed safeguards. The person’s own assessment is considered but does not replace the editorial decision.

  • If a circumstance is unrelated to the work, the reasons are recorded and unnecessary personal information is not published.
  • For a material author interest, the public statement is clarified; additional methodological information, data or independent expertise may be requested.
  • A significant editor or reviewer conflict requires recusal and replacement, rather than disclosure alone.
  • If the conflict affected an assessment already completed, the need for a fresh independent assessment is considered.
  • If adequate independence or verifiability cannot be achieved, the journal explains a pause or rejection and provides the appeal route.

The decision, safeguards and responsible persons are recorded. Additional checks are not a punishment for good-faith disclosure. Disclosure of an author’s interest neither lowers reliability requirements nor removes independent peer review.

08. Interests of the journal, founder and publisher

As founder and publisher, the Institute discloses the journal’s organisational affiliation and relevant sources of support. Contracts, partnerships and institutional commitments that could affect an individual publication are reported to an independent handling editor; matters material to readers are reflected in public journal or article information.

Coverage of an author’s costs, payments, advertising relationships or an interest in journal metrics do not determine scholarly decisions. Article decision-makers do not decide its payment or waiver arrangements, and remuneration does not depend on article acceptance. The practical separation of functions is governed by the Editorial Governance and Editorial Independence Policy.

Current summaries of editors’ and board members’ material editorial, professional and financial interests relevant to their journal roles are published. When their own articles are published, their role and independent handling are disclosed without identifying anonymous reviewers.

09. Undisclosed interests before and after publication

Any participant or reader may report a possible omission. The journal checks the information and seeks an explanation from the person concerned. A report alone establishes neither a conflict nor intentional concealment; facts, significance and effects on the work or its assessment are evaluated.

Before publication, the journal may pause processing, obtain an updated declaration, replace a conflicted participant and arrange reassessment. Once the problem is resolved, consideration continues under the usual scholarly criteria. Evidence of deliberate concealment is handled under the allegations-of-misconduct policy.

After publication, a confirmed omission that has not impaired reliability is addressed by a linked correction to the statement. If data, findings or independent assessment were affected, further action is considered under the Corrections, Retractions and Post-Publication Updates Policy. An undisclosed interest does not automatically require retraction; action depends on the established impact.

Where necessary, the journal seeks verification from the appropriate research institution. Participants and the person raising the concern are informed of outcomes within permitted confidentiality limits. The interested person’s consent does not replace independent assessment of whether the scholarly record needs correction.

10. Confidentiality, contact and application

Declarations, clarifications, recusals and decision reasons are retained in protected editorial records with access based on professional need. Articles disclose what readers need to understand the interests; complete internal documents and personal data are not automatically made public. Confidentiality must not be used to omit a material public statement.

Questions and concerns may be sent through OJS or to i_m_jurnal@tiiame.uz, identifying the manuscript or publication and the specific circumstance. Matters concerning the Editor-in-Chief or publisher follow the independent route in the governance policy; the Institute’s official contacts at https://tiiame.uz/ are also available. Appeals are considered by a person uninvolved in the disputed decision under the Complaints and Appeals Policy.

This policy applies after approval and official posting. Disclosures, assessments and updates are recorded using actual dates. It supplements publication-ethics rules; detailed peer review, governance, investigation and correction procedures appear on their respective policy pages.

Guidance

The policy takes account of COPE and ICMJE guidance and the principles of transparency in scholarly publishing. The specific disclosure periods and organisational measures below are the journal’s rules.

Back to top


ISSN 2181-1369 (Online)