Peer Review Policy

Scholarly articles undergo double-anonymous peer review. Before accepting an article, the editorial office obtains at least two independent expert reports. This policy explains manuscript preparation, reviewer selection, assessment, revision and decision-making.

01. Review model and scope

Irrigation and Melioration uses double-anonymous peer review: reviewers are not given authors’ names or affiliations, and authors are not told reviewers’ identities. Authorised editors can access this information to manage the process and check competing interests.

Original research, review articles and other submissions reporting new scholarly findings or substantive analysis undergo external assessment, regardless of whether they were invited or how they were funded. Appendices, data and other supplementary material needed to assess the conclusions are also reviewed.

Editorial announcements, acknowledgements and other informational items without independent scholarly content receive editorial checks and are labelled as not externally peer reviewed. This category must not be used to publish a research article without scientific assessment.

02. Preparing an anonymous manuscript

  • Authors provide a separate title file containing names, affiliations, contacts, contributions and required declarations; the reviewer version must not contain identifying information.
  • Names must be removed from document properties, comments, tracked changes, filenames and acknowledgements in the review file. Identifying funding and permission details are supplied separately to the editorial office and restored before publication.
  • Self-citations use the normal reference format and third-person wording. Necessary scholarly references must not be removed to preserve anonymity. Where possible, data access is provided through anonymised links without altering the data.
  • Preprints and other public versions must be disclosed to the editorial office. They may allow authors to be identified; reasonable anonymisation measures are taken, but identification cannot be ruled out. Reviewers must not deliberately seek authors’ identities and must inform the editor if recognition creates a competing interest.

03. Initial editorial assessment

After submission through OJS, the editorial office checks completeness, scope, formatting, readability, declarations of authorship, interests and ethical permissions, and whether sufficient material is available for assessment. Text overlap and the accuracy of submitted information may be checked as necessary; an automated score does not replace substantive assessment.

The editor-in-chief or an authorised editor without a competing interest decides whether to seek external reviews. A manuscript may be returned for technical corrections or rejected before review because it falls outside the scope, lacks sufficient scholarly content, has fundamental weaknesses or presents unresolved ethical concerns. The author receives reasons. Initial editorial assessment does not count as one of the two external reviews.

04. Reviewer selection and independence

The editor appoints at least two specialists with verifiable expertise in the topic or methods. They must not belong to the journal’s editorial staff or work at the same organisation as any author. Selection considers relevant publications, qualifications and the ability to provide an independent assessment; reviewers from different organisations are preferred.

Individuals with significant personal, financial or professional conflicts are excluded, including close relationships, direct reporting relationships, recent co-authorship or joint research with the authors. Co-authorship and close research collaboration within the preceding three years are grounds for recusal; earlier relationships are also assessed if they remain influential. Reviewers disclose relevant circumstances before accepting and report any conflict discovered later.

Authors may suggest experts or give reasons for excluding particular reviewers, but do not determine appointments. The editor independently verifies identities, qualifications and contact details; at least one reviewer is selected outside the authors’ suggested list. Automated recommendations may assist discovery, but invitations are sent only after editorial verification. False contact information and coordinated reviews are addressed under the misconduct policy.

If a reviewer declines, is delayed or provides an inadequate report, a replacement or additional expert is appointed. An invitation without a completed report does not count. A scholarly article must not be accepted on the basis of a single review.

05. Content of the expert assessment

Reviewers assess the validity and usefulness of the work, rather than author status or predicted citations. Negative results or failure to confirm a hypothesis are not, by themselves, grounds for rejection. The report must give reasons and specific comments on:

  • Relevance to the journal, clarity of the research question and scholarly contribution.
  • Soundness of design, methods, sampling, measurements, calculations and statistical analysis; for models, appropriate calibration, validation and uncertainty assessment where relevant.
  • Support for conclusions in the data, acknowledgement of limitations and sufficient detail to verify or reproduce the research.
  • Quality of tables, figures, measurement units and supplementary material; relevance of references and appropriate acknowledgement of earlier research.
  • Significant ethical concerns, potentially unreliable information or possible misconduct requiring the editor’s attention.

Key scientific comments belong in the author-facing report. Confidential comments to the editor are used for sensitive matters and must not conceal remediable scientific weaknesses from authors. Requests for additional references require scholarly justification; personal insults and demands for irrelevant citations are unacceptable.

06. Editorial decisions and revision

The editor-in-chief or an authorised, conflict-free editor makes the decision. Reports provide expert advice; the decision is not a vote. Where reviews differ materially, the editor considers their reasoning, requests clarification or an additional independent review, and records the basis for the decision.

  • Accept: scientific and ethical requirements are met, at least two substantive independent reports have been obtained, and major concerns have been resolved.
  • Minor revision: limited changes are needed without fundamental reworking of the study.
  • Major revision: changes to analysis, argument or presentation of results are needed; reassessment is required.
  • Reject: the work does not meet the journal’s requirements, or its weaknesses cannot be resolved within the manuscript under consideration.

Authors receive the decision and substantive comments without reviewer identities. A revision must include a revised manuscript, a version showing changes and a point-by-point response. Authors may disagree with a comment if they provide a scientific explanation. An invitation to revise does not guarantee acceptance.

Substantially revised work is returned to the original reviewers or, if they are unavailable, to new independent experts. An editor may check minor corrections. Changes requiring further scientific expertise are reviewed regardless of the revision label. After acceptance, changes affecting results or conclusions require renewed editorial assessment and, where necessary, peer review.

07. Target timeframes and communication

The editorial office uses the following working targets. They are process objectives, not statistics from past publications or guarantees of an acceptance date:

  • Initial checks of a complete manuscript: within 10 working days.
  • Preparation of a review: normally 21 calendar days after the invitation is accepted; a different deadline may be agreed with the editor.
  • Author revision: normally 14 calendar days for minor changes and 30 calendar days for major changes; the decision letter specifies the deadline, which may be extended on a justified request.
  • Editorial decision after all necessary reports and responses are received: a target of within 10 working days.

Total processing time depends on finding reviewers, the complexity of the research and the number of rounds. For substantial delays, the editorial office explains the reason and expected next stage. Authors may request an update through OJS or i_m_jurnal@tiiame.uz and submit a written request to withdraw. Simultaneous submission elsewhere is not permitted before confirmation that consideration has ended; ethical concerns may still be assessed after withdrawal.

08. Editor-authored papers and special issues

A manuscript by the editor-in-chief, a board member or another person able to influence the process is assigned to an independent handling editor. The interested person does not select reviewers, participate in the decision or use editorial privileges to access confidential records. Where institutional influence is a risk, an editor from another organisation is appointed. The published article states that independent handling was used without identifying anonymous reviewers.

Special or thematic issues follow the same requirements for anonymity, two independent reports and scientific criteria. Guest editors’ qualifications and interests are checked, and their work is overseen by the editor-in-chief or another independent authorised editor. A guest editor does not handle their own manuscript. Conference participation, an invitation or administrative approval does not replace peer review.

09. Confidentiality and AI use

Manuscripts and reports are used solely for assessment. Reviewers must not contact authors directly, share material with third parties or exploit unpublished findings. Assistance from another specialist requires the editor’s prior permission, a competing-interest check and protection of confidentiality.

The scientific judgement and review report must reflect the reviewer’s own assessment. Delegating assessment to generative AI, having it prepare a report in place of the expert, or uploading confidential material to public AI services is prohibited. Local spell-checking without transmitting material to an external service may be used if meaning is preserved. Other supporting AI use requires prior agreement with the editor, data protection and disclosure in the report; the human reviewer remains responsible.

Editorial automated tools may assist technical checks and overlap detection but do not decide acceptance or rejection. Reports, correspondence and reviewer identities are not published by default; disclosure requires separate consent from the relevant participants.

10. Records, appeals and related policies

The editorial office retains manuscript versions, reviewer assignments and responses, reports, author replies and reasons for decisions in the editorial system with restricted access. Published articles show actual submission, acceptance and publication dates; these must not be changed to suggest a faster process.

An appeal must identify a specific factual error or procedural failure and is referred to someone who did not participate in the original decision. The Complaints and Appeals Policy sets out the detailed process. Suspected misconduct is addressed under the Allegations of Misconduct Policy, while overarching duties are set out in the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Policy. Competing interests, AI and data are additionally governed by their dedicated policies.

Payment, fee waivers and financial support do not affect reviewer selection or editorial decisions. This policy’s provisions apply after approval and official posting; completed reviews must not retrospectively be represented as having followed new rules.

Guidance

The editorial office draws on applicable COPE guidance and the principles of transparency in scholarly publishing when organising peer review.

Back to top


ISSN 2181-1369 (Online)