Allegations of Misconduct Policy

Substantive concerns about possible misconduct are assessed before and after publication. This policy explains preservation and assessment of evidence, requests for explanations, cooperation with research institutions and proportionate editorial action to protect the reliability of the scholarly record.

01. Purpose and limits of authority

This policy applies to all content in “Irrigation and Melioration”, including special issues, and to possible misconduct by authors, reviewers, editors, board members, staff and the publisher. Assessment may take place at any stage of manuscript handling and after publication.

The journal determines whether the material and its assessment process can be trusted and decides what to do with the manuscript or published article. A research institution investigates research conduct, its staff’s actions and disciplinary responsibility. The journal does not replace those functions; equally, an institutional finding, or its absence, does not remove the journal’s duty to protect publication reliability.

An allegation warrants assessment; it is not proof of wrongdoing. Honest error, scholarly disagreement, insufficient support for a conclusion and deliberate manipulation are distinguished. Establishing intent is not necessary to correct an unreliable publication; a public assertion of misconduct requires its own evidential basis.

02. Concerns covered

  • Suspected fabrication or falsification of data, findings, images, calculations or methods, or material unjustified suppression of results.
  • Plagiarism, undisclosed redundant publication, unauthorised use of others’ material or misrepresentation of authorship and contributions.
  • Fabricated reviews, reviewer identities or contact details, collusion, citation manipulation or other interference with independent assessment.
  • False statements about ethical approval, consent, permissions, funding or material interests, or breaches of research-ethics requirements.
  • Use of AI tools contrary to the applicable policy, including presenting invented data or references as real.
  • Abuse of editorial authority, disclosure or appropriation of confidential material, pressure, obstruction of assessment or indications of systematic publication manipulation.

The list is not exhaustive. Authorship, text reuse, permitted AI use, interests and research ethics are defined in their respective policies. Service complaints and appeals against scholarly assessment without indications of misconduct follow the Complaints and Appeals Policy.

03. Reporting and initial assessment

Report through OJS or email i_m_jurnal@tiiame.uz. Assessment needs a manuscript identifier or the article title, DOI or link, a specific explanation and available supporting material, such as compared passages, the original source or an inconsistency in a table or image. The person reporting is not required to conduct a complete investigation or prove intent.

Substantive anonymous reports and supported concerns identified by the journal in public discussion are also assessed. The reporting channel, the reporter’s prominence or disagreement with an author does not replace assessment of the facts. Missing return contact details may limit clarification but do not end assessment of specific material concerns.

Registration, acknowledgement, initial-assessment targets and protection of the reporter follow the Complaints and Appeals Policy. There is no time limit for reporting a threat to publication reliability. Initial assessment considers whether the concern is verifiable and material, which rules apply and whether urgent safeguards are needed; general dissatisfaction without specifics requires clarification.

04. Independent oversight of the assessment

A competent editor without a conflict of interest handles the case. If their own decision or conduct is under scrutiny, they may provide explanations but neither lead the assessment nor approve its outcome. Recusal and appointment of another editor, external where necessary, follow the governance and conflicts-of-interest policies.

Complex cases may involve independent subject, statistical, image or methodological specialists and a panel appointed under the Editorial Governance and Editorial Independence Policy. Experts and the panel assess their assigned questions; the authorised independent editor makes the final publication decision.

Where the Editor-in-Chief, publisher or Institute leadership is implicated, the independent route in the Complaints and Appeals Policy applies, including access through the Institute’s official contacts at https://tiiame.uz/. Institutional dependency requires external handling; the person concerned does not select those assessing their own conduct.

05. Preserving and assessing evidence

The initial report, manuscript or article version under assessment, files, revision history, reviews, correspondence and related editorial records are preserved. The source and receipt date of each item are recorded; working copies and interpretations are distinguished from originals. Access is limited to participants with a professional need to know.

Where justified, the journal requests source data, measurement logs, original images, calculation files, code, protocols, permissions or evidence of contributions. Irrigation and melioration studies may require original sensor readings, field-trial records or model calibration and validation information. Requests must explain their connection to the specific concern and exclude unnecessary personal or commercially sensitive material.

Restricted data are assessed through an agreed secure channel or an authorised institution; confidential source material need not be made public. Inability to provide older data is assessed against the retention requirements applicable at the time, circumstances of loss and alternative evidence. It does not automatically prove falsification, but may leave important findings unverifiable.

Similarity scores, AI-detector flags and automated image-analysis signals prompt substantive checking and are not standalone proof. Findings are checked against source material, explanations and qualified expert assessment. Rules are evaluated for their applicability when the relevant actions occurred; new formal requirements are not imposed retrospectively.

06. Obtaining and evaluating explanations

The person concerned receives a neutral account of specific concerns, relevant material and the explanations requested, without a premature accusation. For an article, the corresponding author is normally contacted first; other co-authors may be contacted and asked to respond separately. One author’s position is not automatically attributed to all authors.

The response period and justified extensions follow the Complaints and Appeals Policy. If no reply is received, the journal sends a reminder, checks available current contacts and, where needed, contacts co-authors or the research institution. Silence is not an admission; decisions depend on available evidence and assessment of the material’s reliability.

Material new information that could support an adverse finding is offered for comment to the person concerned, to the extent compatible with protecting the reporter and third parties. Where there is a specific risk of evidence destruction or pressure, initial notification may be delayed for a limited period: the reason is recorded, information is referred to an independent competent body, and the opportunity to respond is provided as soon as the risk permits.

07. Cooperation with research institutions

Serious substantiated concerns, inadequate explanations or checks beyond the journal’s capabilities may require a reasoned referral to the research-integrity contact at the institution where the work was conducted or another competent body. Cooperation is coordinated where several institutions are involved. If an internal recipient has an interest in the outcome, independent handling is requested.

The referral separates established facts from questions requiring investigation. Only necessary material is shared; the journal requests acknowledgement, a responsible contact, expected timelines and findings relevant to publication reliability or attribution. Authors are normally informed of a referral; notification may be restricted in the circumstances described in section 6.

If an institution does not respond, cannot investigate independently or does not explain material inconsistencies, the journal seeks clarification, continues assessing the available information and, where appropriate, consults external experts or another competent body. Institutional silence or disagreement does not require the journal to leave clearly unreliable material unchanged.

Where facts affect publications in other journals, limited confidential exchange with their responsible editors may be needed to assess a shared concern. Verifiable information is shared, not lists of “guilty” people; the scope and purpose are recorded with due attention to data protection. A shared author or institutional affiliation alone does not establish misconduct in other papers.

08. Editorial measures and decision grounds

  • A satisfactory explanation resolves the concern: close the case with reasons and continue manuscript consideration under the usual criteria. Update any earlier public warning where necessary.
  • A limited error leaves the work reliable: request amendment before publication or issue a linked correction after publication.
  • A serious concern remains unresolved: manuscript assessment or publication may be paused; for published work, an expression of concern may be considered where justified, with subsequent status review.
  • Reliability is seriously compromised or a serious publication-policy breach is established: reject the manuscript or retract the article where warranted under the applicable policy, with specific reasons.
  • An editor, reviewer or staff member is involved in a breach: remove them from the affected process, consider independent reassessment of the work and refer their continuing responsibilities for review under governance rules.

Measures reflect the established impact and extent of the problem. Retraction is not a punishment and is not imposed solely because of an allegation, author silence or a missing document. Where findings have become seriously unreliable, an honest error may still warrant retraction. Each affected item is assessed individually, including cases of suspected systematic manipulation.

Selection and presentation of corrections, expressions of concern and retractions follow the Corrections, Retractions and Post-Publication Updates Policy. A public notice describes the substantiated problem without attributing equal blame to all co-authors without evidence. Reliable findings about the publication may require action before an institutional investigation concludes; author agreement is not a prerequisite for a justified editorial decision.

09. Continuing assessment and communication

Rejection, author withdrawal of a manuscript or withdrawal of the original report does not automatically end assessment of a material risk. Where the work is already published elsewhere, relevant information may be referred to its responsible editor as described in section 7. The process must not be used to withhold a manuscript unjustifiably or pressure an author.

Complex cases depend on the scope of assessment and expert or institutional responses. Acknowledgement, extension notices and status-update frequency continue under the Complaints and Appeals Policy; awaiting an external investigation does not end communication. The handling editor records the next steps and regularly considers whether an interim notice to readers is needed.

The reporter and affected participants receive the outcome and principal reasons to the extent permissible. A public correction does not make the whole investigation file public. Personal, disciplinary and other confidential details are shared only with appropriately authorised recipients.

10. Records, reconsideration and application

The final record identifies the questions assessed, evidence used, responses, declared interests, appointments and recusals, decision reasons and measures. If no definitive finding is possible, it records what remains unresolved and when the matter will be reviewed. Record security and personal-data handling follow the Privacy Statement.

The decision or assessment procedure may be challenged under the Complaints and Appeals Policy; the challenge is assessed by a person not involved in the disputed decision. Material new information may justify reopening. Reconsideration does not automatically delay a necessary notice to readers about reliability.

Protection of good-faith reporters and the prohibition of retaliation apply whether or not their concerns are substantiated. The journal uses identified weaknesses to improve procedures and participant training without unnecessary disclosure of personal information.

The policy applies after approval and official posting, with actions recorded on their actual dates. It may be used to assess earlier publications but does not create a false record of past checks or silently alter the published scholarly record.

Guidance

The policy takes account of DOAJ transparency principles and COPE guidance on possible misconduct, cooperation with research institutions and correction of publications. It defines the journal’s process and does not replace an institutional investigation.

Back to top


ISSN 2181-1369 (Online)