Research Ethics Policy

Research must be scientifically justified, conducted with integrity and responsible towards people, animals, the natural environment and society. This policy sets requirements for the planning, authorisation, conduct and ethical justification of research submitted to the journal.

01. Purpose and fundamental principles

This policy of Irrigation and Melioration covers research on water resources, irrigation, land reclamation, soils, hydraulic structures, ecosystems and related technologies. It applies to field, laboratory, computational and social research, secondary analyses and special issue materials according to their actual ethical risks.

The fundamental principles are scientific justification, honesty, respect for human rights and dignity, responsible treatment of animals and the natural environment, proportionality between risk and expected benefit, and research-team accountability. Publication ambitions, funding or anticipated economic benefits do not justify breaches of these principles.

Research ethics primarily concerns how a study is conceived and carried out. Authorship, plagiarism, conflicts of interest and editorial decisions are addressed in related policies. Ethics approval alone does not establish the reliability of results, and good results do not remove breaches in how they were obtained.

02. Responsible planning and risk assessment

Before work begins, the research team defines the scientific question, justifies the method and scale, considers available lower-risk alternatives and identifies the permissions needed. The design must support a meaningful result without unjustified use of water, samples, participants’ time or other resources.

Assessment covers possible harm to participants and staff, crops and property, water users, neighbouring areas, animals and ecosystems. Interventions require designated responsibilities, harm-prevention measures, stopping criteria and response arrangements in advance. Reference to routine practice does not replace assessment of a new experiment’s specific risks.

Work is undertaken by people with the necessary competence and training. Students, technical staff and recruited assistants receive appropriate instruction and supervision. The research leader ensures clear responsibilities and the ability to report unsafe or improper practices without pressure.

03. Ethical review, approval and exemption

Where the nature of the research and applicable requirements call for independent ethical review, authors obtain a decision from a competent committee before the relevant procedures begin. The decision must cover the actual protocol, participants or research subjects, sites and material interventions. Approval for another project or a letter of support does not replace that decision.

Report the committee’s full name, institution and country, decision number where assigned, and date. An exemption requires its basis and a documented determination by the competent authority. Authors must not declare themselves exempt simply because they consider the work safe. Where their institution has no suitable committee, review by a competent independent body is arranged in advance; absence of a committee is not general permission to bypass review.

Theoretical work, modelling or analysis of genuinely public anonymised data does not require artificial procurement of ethics approval when the work and applicable rules do not call for it. The article explains why the requirement does not apply. Uncertainty, identifiable data or a changed purpose of use requires an appropriate determination by the competent body. Secondary analyses take account of permissions for the new use, not just approval of the original collection.

Approval obtained later must not be represented as preceding the research. A reissued copy of a pre-existing decision is acceptable with accurate identification of its original date and provenance. If required prospective approval was absent, authors inform the editorial office openly; obtaining a letter after completion does not remedy the original deficiency.

04. Site access, sampling and permissions

Authors establish in advance which permissions are needed to access fields, canals, water bodies, structures, private and protected areas, and to collect, transfer or export samples. Mandatory permissions are obtained from the competent authority and, where needed, the owner or lawful user of the site. A farm manager’s agreement does not replace a government permit where one is required.

The article identifies material permissions, issuing authorities and identifiers where available. Authors ensure traceable provenance of water, soil, plants and other research materials. International collaborations take account of requirements at the study sites and lawful transfer of samples and information between organisations.

Researchers respect the rights of local communities and lawful land and water users. Use of local knowledge and biological resources follows the permissions and arrangements for recognising contributions and sharing benefits applicable to the particular case. Research must not be moved elsewhere simply to evade justified protective requirements.

05. Environmental and technical safety

Experiments involving irrigation regimes, drainage, fertilisers, soil amendments, wastewater or other interventions require assessment of pollution, salinisation, waterlogging, biological-agent spread and off-site damage risks. The intervention’s scale and monitoring of consequences must match the justified risk. An experiment must not create unauthorised changes to water supply or structural safety.

Potentially hazardous substances, organisms and equipment are used only with the necessary permissions, staff training and suitable conditions. Waste, contaminated samples and experimental residues are disposed of safely; release into the environment must not be assumed acceptable by default. Protected species and sites require particular safeguards and permissions where applicable.

Authors describe material safeguards and identify adverse consequences affecting assessment of the method. Environmental-safety or sustainability claims must match the measurements performed and the observation scale. Absence of recorded harm in a short experiment must not be presented as proof of no long-term risk. Sensitive technologies are addressed in detail in the separate policy on specialised research materials and technologies.

06. Research involving people and communities

Farmer surveys, expert interviews, workplace observation, studies of water-user behaviour and use of identifiable information about people require assessment of ethical conditions even when the research is non-medical. Voluntariness, understandable information, fair recruitment and pressure on workers, students or people dependent on the researcher must be considered.

Permission from management, an employer or a community representative does not replace necessary individual consent. Participation in research and permission to publish identifiable information are separate matters. Detailed rules appear in Ethical Requirements for Research Involving Human Participants, the Informed Consent Policy and the Privacy Statement.

Medical research involving people, where within the journal’s scope, follows the relevant ethical standards, including the current WMA Declaration of Helsinki. The Declaration is not a universal substitute for subject-specific requirements for every engineering experiment. Public availability of personal information does not in itself remove obligations concerning its ethical use.

07. Animals and biological materials

Research involving animals, including aquatic organisms, requires the necessary ethics approval and permissions before the relevant work. The 3Rs apply: replace animal use with suitable alternatives, reduce numbers appropriately without undermining scientific validity, and refine procedures to lessen suffering and harm. Simply abandoning sufficient observations is not responsible reduction.

Where applicable, describe animal provenance, housing, welfare safeguards, humane stopping criteria and necessary professional oversight. Reports of in vivo research should follow ARRIVE 2.0, including the necessary design and ethics-authorisation information. Reporting guidance does not replace permission. For non-interventional observation, explain whether requirements apply rather than assuming automatic exemption.

For plants, microorganisms and other biological materials, establish provenance, usage rights and necessary biosafety conditions. Reuse of collection specimens must respect the terms of acquisition and transfer. Human materials and associated data are considered under human-research requirements where applicable; possession of a specimen does not by itself confer unrestricted rights to use it.

08. Oversight, changes and responsible conduct

Research remains within the agreed protocol and permissions. Material changes affecting risk, research subjects, participants or interventions are submitted for the required review before implementation. Urgent action to remove an immediate danger is taken without waiting for a formal procedure, documented and promptly reported to the responsible oversight body.

Unexpected harm, serious deviations and reasons to stop must not be concealed. Researchers assess whether suspension is needed and notify the appropriate responsible bodies according to the risk. Consequences and changes material to readers are reported in the manuscript. A funder may not require suppression of adverse results or obstruct necessary reporting of risk.

Collaborations agree in advance on responsibility for permissions, oversight, material retention and communication; outsourcing tasks does not remove the research team’s responsibility. Data recording, processing and availability are governed by the Data and Reproducibility Policy, and AI use by its separate policy. These tools cannot replace an ethical determination by a competent person or body.

09. Manuscript statement and supporting documents

Every manuscript includes a “Compliance with research ethics” statement identifying the applicable status: approval, documented exemption or justified non-applicability. It appears in the methods or a separate declarations section. Site-access and sampling permissions are additionally reported where required. One type of review being inapplicable does not remove all other obligations.

  • Approval: “Protocol [identifier] was approved by [committee, institution, country], decision [number if assigned] dated [date], before the relevant procedures began. Material permissions for the work: [details, if applicable].”
  • Exemption: “[Competent body] determined exemption from [type of review] on [basis], document [number/date]. Other necessary permissions: [details, if applicable].”
  • Non-applicability: “This work consists of [precise description]. [Type of ethics approval] was not required because [verifiable basis matching the actual work].” Necessary rights and restrictions for the data or materials used are additionally explained.

Examples are completed from actual records; numbers, dates and names must not be invented. If the description identifies authors during double-anonymous review, identifying details are supplied separately to the editorial office and restored in the published article. The editor must have the information needed to check that the decision matches the actual study.

The editorial office may confidentially request the committee decision, permit, relevant protocol extract or evidence of material-use conditions. Complete signed consent forms containing personal data are not placed in public supplements; only necessary information is supplied securely for verification. Retention of research documentation follows related policies and applicable restrictions.

10. Editorial assessment and concerns

The editor checks the applicability of ethical requirements, consistency of approval dates and scope with the work performed, and adequacy of safeguards. Clarification may be sought from authors or a competent body while respecting confidentiality. The journal does not authorise the conduct of research or replace an independent ethics committee.

A formal document does not preclude scrutiny of justified concerns. A manuscript may be rejected for serious unresolved breaches of rights, welfare or approval conditions even when results are technically correct. Incomplete reporting is clarified first; it does not by itself establish absence of approval or deliberate misconduct.

Reports may be sent through OJS or to i_m_jurnal@tiiame.uz. Pre- and post-publication enquiries follow the Allegations of Misconduct Policy, with an opportunity for authors to respond and independent handling; changes to the published record and appeals follow the respective policies. Where necessary, the editorial office contacts the responsible institution while retaining its own responsibility for the publication decision.

Each policy version records the actual approval and posting dates. Ethical circumstances of earlier studies are assessed in light of requirements and conditions at the time of the work; new declaration-format requirements are not represented as having applied previously. This does not prevent examination of serious concerns about research already published.

Guidance informing this policy

This policy takes account of DOAJ transparency principles and the ALLEA European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. The WMA Declaration of Helsinki, the 3Rs and ARRIVE guidelines inform the relevant types of research. Requirements are adapted to the journal’s scope and do not replace applicable permissions or independent ethical review.

Back to top


ISSN 2181-1369 (Online)