Editorial Board Policy

The editorial board supports the journal’s scholarly expertise and professional development. This policy sets requirements for its composition, appointments, participation and performance assessment, as well as the renewal of responsibilities and public presentation of board members.

01. Purpose and standing of the board

The editorial board of “Irrigation and Melioration” brings together specialists who contribute to its scholarly direction, publication quality and improvement of editorial practice. Membership entails substantive participation, rather than simply having a name displayed on the website.

The founder and publisher is the National Research University “Tashkent Institute of Irrigation and Agricultural Mechanization Engineers” (the Institute). The Institute formally records board appointments on a reasoned proposal from the Editor-in-Chief. Appointment of the Editor-in-Chief and the relationship between the editorial office and the founder are governed by the Editorial Governance and Editorial Independence Policy.

This document governs board membership. The named membership is published separately on the “Editorial Board” page. Membership alone does not confer authority to decide on every manuscript or access to the entire editorial archive.

02. Composition and selection criteria

The board is to include at least five specialists with verifiable qualifications and must not consist solely of staff from one institution. Its size and range of expertise are matched to the journal’s scope, manuscript volume and actual workload.

  • Subject expertise: research and publication experience in irrigation, melioration or related fields covered by the journal’s aims and scope, including methodological, modelling or data-analysis expertise where needed.
  • Professional integrity: willingness to follow editorial rules, disclose relevant interests and provide reasoned scholarly assessments.
  • Capacity to participate: sufficient time for agreed tasks, effective communication with the editorial office and the language skills required for assigned work.
  • Diversity of scholarly approaches: participation from different institutions, regions and research traditions appropriate to the journal’s scope and readership. International participation must involve actual work.

A degree, position, citation metric or reputation does not replace assessment of relevant competence and willingness to contribute. Membership cannot be purchased and is not conditional on recruiting paying authors, publishing one’s own articles or promising to increase journal citations.

03. Nomination, verification and consent

Candidates may be proposed by the Editor-in-Chief, current board members or research organisations; specialists may also express their own interest. Consideration requires a professional biography, current affiliation, research interests, examples of relevant publications and details of other editorial commitments.

The editorial office verifies identity and qualifications through available institutional profiles, publications and direct correspondence. ORCID and other identifiers help resolve identity but do not replace substantive verification. An unresolved allegation is assessed on its merits and does not, by itself, establish misconduct.

Before appointment, the candidate receives a description of the role, expected workload, limits of authority, term, renewal conditions and grounds for ending participation. Written consent, including confirmation by email, is required. Name, affiliation and role are published only after consent and formal appointment. Honorary or former membership, if shown, is distinguished from the active board and must not be presented as current editorial work.

04. Term and induction

New appointments and renewals made after this policy takes effect have a three-year term. The appointment record states the start and end dates. Reappointment may occur more than once following an assessment of contribution and journal needs; renewal is not automatic. Existing appointment arrangements are clarified at the next board review without backdating changes.

Before work begins, the editorial office introduces the member to the journal’s scope, current policies and working procedures. For manuscript-handling roles, decision-making limits are explained separately and necessary OJS training is provided. Access is personal and restricted to assigned responsibilities; sharing an account is prohibited.

Agreed tasks and expected workload are recorded on appointment and adjusted as necessary. Members promptly report extended unavailability, affiliation changes or inability to complete a task so that work can be reassigned.

05. Roles and allocation of responsibilities

  • The Editor-in-Chief coordinates board activity, identifies expertise needs, proposes membership and organises participation reviews. Responsibility for editorial decisions and delegation is defined in the governance and peer review policies.
  • The Deputy Editor-in-Chief carries out specifically delegated duties and coordinates designated areas. Holding this position does not itself establish independence in a conflict of interest.
  • A subject or handling editor, where appointed, deals with assigned material within their expertise and recorded authority. The appointment specifies whether the editor makes recommendations or final decisions.
  • Board members without decision-making authority advise on subject coverage and methods, suggest suitable experts, discuss publication quality and contribute to policy reviews. Their advice does not replace the authorised editor’s decision.
  • The editorial secretariat supports correspondence, assignment records and accurate public information; technical processing does not confer authority to make scholarly decisions.

Tasks are allocated according to expertise, independence and availability. A board vote does not replace the established process for deciding on an individual article. Participation in organisational discussions does not entitle members to access confidential manuscripts outside their assignments.

06. Practical participation and professional boundaries

The board holds a working discussion at least once a year, in person, remotely or through documented written consultation. It considers the alignment of published work with scope, expertise needs, editorial practice and proposals for journal development. Outcomes, responsible persons and agreed actions are recorded.

Members help identify qualified experts and inform the scholarly community about the journal without intrusive messaging or promises of acceptance. They must not demand scientifically unjustified citations to their own work or the journal, or assess colleagues by acceptance rates or publication revenue.

Information from unpublished work is used only for the assigned editorial task. Confidentiality and digital-tool requirements are governed by the relevant policies and continue after membership ends. Members may not transfer their authority to an assistant or use the board’s name to approve publication without authorisation.

07. Other commitments and participation as authors

On appointment and after material changes, members disclose other editorial roles, related commitments and relevant interests to the Editor-in-Chief. Concurrent roles are permitted where agreed duties can be fulfilled and no unmanageable conflict arises. Taking part in decisions on the same manuscript at different journals or using confidential information to solicit its transfer is prohibited. Matters involving the Editor-in-Chief are referred to an independent responsible person under the governance policy.

Board members’ own articles are handled under the Peer Review Policy by an independent handling editor, without the interested person’s participation in processing or decisions. Membership gives no advantage in acceptance or publication scheduling.

The editorial office monitors the proportion of published research articles with at least one author who is an editor, editorial board member or reviewer of the journal; it must not exceed 25% in either of the latest two issues, assessed separately. An article is counted once regardless of how many such authors it has. This is checked during issue preparation; board membership and its history must not be altered to circumvent the limit. The limit does not replace scholarly assessment or create a guaranteed allocation for authors connected to the journal.

08. Assessment, renewal and ending membership

At least annually, the Editor-in-Chief organises a review of participation: delivery of agreed tasks, quality of advice, timeliness, disclosure of interests and relevance of expertise. Actual workload, availability and justified breaks are considered. The review informs changes of role, further training, renewal or board refreshment; numbers of accepted articles and personal citation metrics are not standalone measures of performance.

Membership may end by written resignation, expiry without renewal, sustained inability to perform duties, an unmanageable conflict of interest or an established serious breach of responsibilities. Where participation is insufficient, the circumstances and possible reassignment of tasks are explored first. Before an adverse decision, the member is informed of the reasons and given a reasonable opportunity to respond.

Access may be restricted or a particular assignment suspended during an assessment to protect the process; this does not establish wrongdoing. The Institute formally records the final membership decision following a documented assessment that excludes interested persons. Good-faith scholarly disagreement, refusal to accept a weak paper or raising a concern is not a ground for removal. Objections are addressed under the Complaints and Appeals Policy.

When membership ends, unfinished assignments are transferred to an authorised editor, access is reviewed and the public roster is updated. Editorial records remain under restricted access; a member’s departure is not a reason to delete the history of editorial decisions.

09. Public information and an accurate roster

The “Editorial Board” page provides each active member’s full name, editorial role, current institution and country. Where available, an institutional profile and verified ORCID are added; areas of expertise help readers understand alignment with the journal’s scope. The page shows its update date and an official contact route.

Membership and roles must agree across all language versions of the website. The secretariat checks details at least annually and updates confirmed changes without waiting for the next annual check. Private contact information and other non-public details are not posted without consent. Where a member prefers contact through the editorial office, relevant professional correspondence is forwarded through that channel.

10. Related policies and application

The Peer Review Policy sets out the review model and manuscript decisions; the Editorial Governance and Editorial Independence Policy allocates management authority; the Conflicts of Interest Policy governs recusal. Ethical concerns and challenges are addressed under the separate policies on misconduct allegations, complaints and appeals. This page does not replace those procedures.

Questions about membership, corrections to public information or agreed responsibilities should be sent to i_m_jurnal@tiiame.uz. This document applies after approval and official posting. Approval and revision dates are recorded in editorial records; a new version must not be used to misrepresent previous membership or earlier work.

Guidance and reference criteria

Board recruitment and assessment take account of applicable COPE guidance and published criteria for transparency and journal quality. The appointment and working arrangements set out below are the journal’s own rules.

Back to top


ISSN 2181-1369 (Online)