Complaints and Appeals Policy

The journal provides a clear and fair process for handling concerns. This policy distinguishes complaints about conduct in the publishing process from appeals against editorial decisions and sets out submission, independent assessment, response and further review arrangements.

01. Purpose and types of concern

This policy applies to “Irrigation and Melioration”, its editorial office, reviewers, editorial board members, guest editors, staff, and the Institute as founder and publisher. It covers regular and special issues, manuscript handling and published content.

A complaint concerns conduct, omissions, editorial service or compliance with policies, such as an unexplained delay, inappropriate communication, a confidentiality breach or a conflict of interest. An appeal is an author’s reasoned request to reconsider a specific editorial decision on a manuscript, including rejection before external peer review.

Concerns about plagiarism, data reliability, authorship or other possible misconduct are received through the same channels but investigated under the relevant policies. Where a concern raises several issues, the journal coordinates their handling and tells the complainant which procedure applies to each.

02. Who may contact the journal and on what grounds

An author, reviewer, reader, staff member or other interested person or organisation may submit a complaint. Substantive anonymous reports are also assessed where they identify the material and circumstances sufficiently. An absent name is not by itself grounds for dismissal; without a return contact, clarification and outcome notification may be limited.

An appeal against a manuscript’s editorial decision is submitted by the corresponding author with all co-authors’ agreement. This requirement does not restrict any co-author’s right to report misconduct, an authorship dispute or another co-author’s conduct separately.

  • A material factual or technical error in the assessment of the manuscript.
  • Relevant material already supplied during consideration that was overlooked and could have affected the decision.
  • Departure from the stated procedure, unjustified inconsistent application of rules or evidence of bias.
  • An unmanaged editor or reviewer conflict of interest that could have affected the decision.

Disagreement with an assessment of novelty or importance alone, a need for career advancement or expenditure incurred is insufficient. Substantially revised research with new results is normally treated as a new submission if the journal permits it; it does not establish that assessment of the earlier version was wrong.

03. How and when to submit

Submit through the manuscript correspondence in OJS or email i_m_jurnal@tiiame.uz. Put “Complaint” or “Appeal” and the manuscript number in the subject line; for a published article, provide its title and DOI or link. A duplicate manuscript submission is not needed to register a concern.

  • Provide a reply contact, your connection to the material and the date of the disputed decision or event.
  • Describe the specific circumstances and, if known, the rule that may have been breached.
  • Attach relevant documents, correspondence, links and an orderly explanation of the arguments; for an appeal, respond point by point to the disputed editorial or reviewer comments.
  • State the remedy sought, such as correction of a technical error, an explanation for a delay or independent reconsideration of a decision.

Submit an appeal within 30 calendar days of receiving the decision. An independent handling editor may accept a later appeal for a justified reason, such as late discovery of a material circumstance or a documented obstacle, and records the reason. Complaints about publication reliability, ethics or misconduct have no such time limit; prompt reporting after discovery is encouraged.

Submissions are accepted in Russian, English and Uzbek. Complaints and appeals are handled without a fee. A complainant may request confidential treatment of their identity and explain any risks associated with disclosure.

04. Responsibility and independent handling

After checking interests, a competent person is appointed who did not participate in the disputed decision and is not the subject of the complaint. A scholarly appeal is handled by an authorised independent editor; registering correspondence does not give an administrator authority to decide scientific matters. Original participants may explain their actions but do not determine a concern about their own conduct.

A concern about the Editor-in-Chief is referred to an unconflicted board member to arrange independent handling under the Editorial Governance and Editorial Independence Policy. A deputy may act only without a conflict or prior involvement; an external editor is appointed where reporting or institutional dependency arises. An interested leader neither selects the handler nor approves their findings.

If referral through the editorial office is difficult, the Institute’s official contacts at https://tiiame.uz/ may be used, specifying the need for independent handling. Where the publisher or Institute leadership is implicated, external assessment and, where needed, an independent panel are arranged as provided in the governance policy. An administrative decision of the founder does not replace the editor’s scholarly decision.

The complainant is told who is responsible and may raise a reasoned objection to that person’s independence. Another unconflicted person assesses the objection; the complainant does not appoint the editor or panel.

05. Registration and initial assessment

The journal records receipt, assigns a case number, acknowledges the concern and explains the next step. It checks relevance, adequacy of information, the applicable procedure and any need for urgent measures. An incorrectly labelled concern is assigned to the appropriate procedure with notification, rather than rejected for its label.

If information is insufficient, specific clarification is requested with a reasonable deadline, normally 10 working days; justified extension requests are considered. If the complainant does not respond, the case may be closed with an explanation of the evidential gap. Silence does not establish bad faith, and material risks to publication reliability are assessed using the information available.

An apparent threat to confidentiality, participant safety or the reliability of material awaiting publication is assessed without waiting for the ordinary deadline. Temporary access restrictions or a publication pause must be proportionate and documented; they do not establish wrongdoing.

06. Substantive assessment of an appeal

The independent editor compares the original manuscript version, decision, reports, author responses and appeal arguments with the rules applicable when the work was considered. Clarification and fresh expert assessment may be requested. An opinion from someone whose impartiality is disputed is not the sole basis for the outcome.

An appeal does not reveal anonymous reviewers’ identities or bypass quality requirements. Reopening consideration does not guarantee acceptance: the Peer Review Policy, including the required number of independent reports, continues to apply. Where an appeal succeeds on procedural grounds alone, the procedure is corrected and the scholarly outcome follows subsequent assessment.

Authors must not submit the manuscript to another journal while its appeal is under consideration. To submit elsewhere, the corresponding author sends written notice withdrawing the appeal; the journal records and acknowledges closure without requiring permission for the withdrawal itself. If the manuscript is already under consideration elsewhere, this must be disclosed and the appeal seeking renewed consideration is discontinued. A related ethics concern may still be examined.

07. Assessment of a complaint and the evidence

The handler examines correspondence, OJS records and relevant documents. The person whose conduct is questioned is informed of the substance of the concern and given an opportunity to respond, normally within 10 working days, with justified extensions possible. The complainant’s identity and third-party information are shared only as necessary.

Parties can comment on material new information that may support a finding adverse to them, subject to confidentiality and participant protection. An allegation, a participant’s status or a missing response does not replace assessment of the evidence. Research-misconduct issues are referred under the allegations-of-misconduct policy; the journal does not replace an investigation by the competent research institution.

A service complaint may lead to resolution of a delay, correction of a technical error or a change in working practices. Problems in a published article are addressed under the Corrections, Retractions and Post-Publication Updates Policy. Making or withdrawing a complaint, or submitting an appeal, does not automatically suspend necessary action to protect the scholarly record.

08. Target timeframes and updates

  • Acknowledgement: within 5 working days of receipt.
  • Initial assessment and notification of the handling route: within 10 working days of receipt.
  • Ordinary substantive decision: a target of 30 working days after sufficient information for assessment is received.
  • If extended: the complainant is told the reason, steps taken within confidentiality limits and the next expected response date; status updates are provided at least every 30 calendar days.

These are the journal’s operational targets, not guaranteed external-investigation times or article-acceptance dates. Working days are Monday to Friday excluding official non-working days in Uzbekistan. Expert assessment or an institutional response may require more time, but updates remain necessary.

Missing information is identified specifically; minor clarification is not used to restart the clock without justification. If an acknowledgement or scheduled update is overdue, the complainant may follow up with the case number and then use the independent route in section 4.

09. Outcome, further review and closure

The complainant receives a written response explaining the principal findings, assessment of the arguments, reasons, measures and further-review route. Full confidential expert records, personal data and details of personnel measures are not disclosed. Affected participants receive the information relevant to them.

  • Uphold the editorial decision or find the complaint unsubstantiated, with reasons.
  • Uphold the concern wholly or partly: correct an error, replace a participant, reopen consideration or arrange independent reassessment.
  • Refer a specific issue to the appropriate procedure or competent organisation, explaining why and providing the next contact where known.

Normally, one substantive appeal is permitted against a particular editorial decision. Repeating the same arguments after completion does not start another assessment. However, material new evidence, a previously unknown conflict or a serious defect in the appeal process itself may justify reopening; another independent person decides whether to do so.

A complaint about the handling of a complaint or appeal follows the independent route in section 4. Completion of the internal process does not restrict recourse to a competent external organisation or prevent correction of the publication when new grounds arise. Closure and its reasons are recorded; repeated communications without new facts may be consolidated with the completed case.

10. Protection, records and application

Raising a concern in good faith does not lead to rejection of future submissions, adverse treatment, threats or other retaliation. An unsubstantiated complaint is not itself abuse. If communication becomes threatening or abusive, the journal may restrict its format while maintaining a safe channel and assessing the substantive concern; reasons are communicated and recorded.

Case materials are accessed on a professional need-to-know basis. The journal protects the complainant’s identity where possible but cannot promise absolute anonymity: identity may be apparent from the circumstances or disclosure needed for a fair assessment or a binding requirement. Where possible and permissible, necessary identity disclosure is discussed with the complainant beforehand; only the minimum necessary information is shared.

Protected records retain the concern, dates, documents, recusals, appointments, responses and decision reasons. Retention periods and personal-data handling are governed by the Privacy Statement. Aggregated anonymised findings inform improvements; complaint records do not automatically become public.

This policy applies after approval and official posting. Actions and updates carry their actual dates. Changes to the rules are not used to shorten a response period already granted or retrospectively justify a procedural breach.

Guidance

The policy considers DOAJ and COPE transparency principles and publishers’ general approaches to appeals. The scope, timeframes and organisational arrangements below are the journal’s own rules; other publishers’ rules are not adopted automatically.

Back to top


ISSN 2181-1369 (Online)