Editorial Governance and Editorial Independence Policy

This policy defines the responsibilities of the founder, publisher and editorial team, the making and delegation of editorial decisions, and safeguards that protect scholarly assessment from administrative, financial and personal influence.

01. Purpose and organisational framework

The founder and publisher of “Irrigation and Melioration” is the National Research University “Tashkent Institute of Irrigation and Agricultural Mechanization Engineers” (the Institute). The Institute provides the journal’s organisational foundation, while the editorial team is responsible for scholarly assessment and editorial decisions.

Editorial independence means the ability to make reasoned decisions within the journal’s published rules without improper interference by interested parties. It is accompanied by accountability for decision quality, procedural compliance and correction of identified errors.

This policy applies to all editorial content and publication formats, including special issues and invited articles. An author’s affiliation with the Institute, position or relationship with the editorial team does not create a preferential acceptance process.

02. Allocation of authority

  • The Institute provides funding, staffing and technical support, formally records appointments, maintains publishing infrastructure and fulfils agreed publishing responsibilities.
  • The Editor-in-Chief leads scholarly and editorial activity, ensures that policies are applied, allocates editorial authority and is responsible for the quality-control system.
  • Authorised editors make decisions or recommendations within a documented assignment.
  • The editorial board advises on scholarly development and quality; its membership and duties are governed by the separate Editorial Board Policy.

The Institute may discuss budgets, resources, overall strategy and organisational performance with the editorial team. This authority does not extend to choosing a desired outcome for an individual article, requiring acceptance or preventing publication of scientifically supported findings to protect reputational or commercial interests.

Resource changes are discussed with the Editor-in-Chief, including their effects on existing commitments. Funding, staffing decisions and technical access must not be used to compel a particular editorial outcome.

03. Appointment and accountability of the Editor-in-Chief

The Institute formally appoints the Editor-in-Chief following a documented assessment of subject expertise, editorial experience, professional integrity and capacity to perform the role. Opinions are sought from specialists without a conflicting interest. Before appointment, the candidate discloses relevant interests and other editorial commitments.

New appointments and renewals made after this policy takes effect have a three-year term. Authority, duties, reporting arrangements, renewal, termination and dispute-resolution conditions are recorded in writing. Reappointment is permitted following assessment; renewal is not automatic.

Performance is assessed at least annually, considering procedural quality, reasons for decisions, timeliness, handling of concerns and accuracy of journal information. Revenue, acceptance rates and citation growth are not used as standalone measures of editorial success.

Early termination requires documented grounds, notification to the editor and an opportunity to respond. A good-faith refusal to accept a weak paper, publication of substantiated criticism or reporting a concern is not a ground for removal. Disputed circumstances are considered through the independent process in Section 7.

04. Editorial decisions and delegation

The Editor-in-Chief or an authorised editor without a conflict of interest decides whether a manuscript proceeds to review, requires revision, is accepted or is rejected. Decisions depend on relevance to scope, scholarly validity, the quality of evidence and compliance with ethical requirements. Expert assessment is governed by the Peer Review Policy.

Delegation records identify the responsible editor, manuscript or subject area, scope of authority and any requirement for further approval. Authors must be able to identify who is responsible for the decision communicated to them. Delegation does not remove the editorial team’s responsibility for procedural compliance.

Advice from the board, reviewers and invited specialists is considered substantively but does not turn the decision into an administrative vote. An invitation, special-issue agreement or instruction from a senior official does not replace the established assessment.

A decision may be reconsidered when significant new information, an identified error or a substantiated appeal warrants it, with reasons recorded. A recused Editor-in-Chief does not approve or overturn the appointed independent editor’s decision. The publisher must not replace an editorial appeal with an administrative instruction.

05. Separation of financial and technical functions

Editors deciding on an article do not handle its payment, fee-waiver decision or individual financial arrangement. These functions are assigned to a separate administrative employee or Institute unit. Even where staffing is limited, different people perform these functions.

The amount of support, the source covering publication costs and the author’s financial circumstances do not influence expert selection, manuscript assessment or the decision. Editors and staff are not compensated for accepting individual articles. Charges and cost-coverage arrangements are published in the relevant separate policy.

Technical staff carry out authorised platform and content operations. Administrative access to OJS does not confer authority to change a scholarly decision, substitute a review, delete objections or publish a manuscript without editorial authorisation.

06. Independent handling of conflicts of interest

Where a conflict exists, authority is transferred to another qualified editor. The Deputy Editor-in-Chief may undertake this role only when independence is established; a job title does not replace an assessment of actual relationships.

If an author is the Editor-in-Chief, their immediate supervisor or another person on whom an internal editor depends professionally, a suitable editor from another institution is appointed. The same approach applies where the research materially concerns institutional interests and internal recusal cannot ensure independence.

A board member without a conflicting interest arranges the selection of the external editor, checking competence, relationships and written consent. The appointment, authority and reason for recusal are recorded. The interested person does not select the replacement or control the decision; the secretariat provides technical support.

Definitions and disclosure obligations are set out in the Conflicts of Interest Policy. The independent review process and its disclosure in the published article are governed by the Peer Review Policy.

07. Protection from pressure and dispute resolution

Demands to accept or reject an article for reasons unrelated to scholarly assessment, threats of professional consequences, attempts to conceal a material error and interference in the selection of independent participants must be recorded. The editor retains relevant correspondence and reports the interference through an official channel.

A concern involving the Editor-in-Chief is referred to a responsible person without a conflicting interest, rather than to the Editor-in-Chief for substantive assessment. A complex dispute about editorial independence is referred to a panel of at least three specialists; a majority, including the chair, must be external to the Institute and free of conflicts. If the dispute concerns the Institute’s leadership, the assessment is assigned to an entirely external panel.

The parties are informed of the panel’s membership and the procedure for submitting explanations. Reasoned objections concerning conflicts are assessed before substantive consideration. Organisational support from the Institute does not entitle it to predetermine the panel’s findings.

The panel assesses compliance with authority and procedure and recommends measures such as ending interference, replacing a responsible person, restoring access or arranging independent reconsideration. It does not accept an article by administrative decision. Findings and measures are recorded, and outcomes are communicated to the parties subject to confidentiality. Good-faith reporting must not lead to retaliation.

08. Access management and records

Editorial assignments, recusals, reasons for decisions and material changes are retained in OJS or another protected editorial record system. Corrections to records must leave a traceable history; fabricated reviews, dates and confirmations are prohibited.

Access is granted according to professional need and reviewed when a role changes, a person is recused or their work ends. Administrators’ technical capabilities are subject to organisational rules and activity records; they are not scholarly authority. Confidential material is not disclosed to management or financial staff merely because of their position.

Automated tools may be used within the relevant policy and under human oversight. A tool does not become an independent editorial decision-maker. Detailed requirements for AI use, confidentiality and retention are governed by separate documents.

09. Quality oversight and transparency

At least annually, the Editor-in-Chief provides the Institute and board with an aggregate assessment of procedural compliance, workload, timeliness, concerns, corrections and necessary improvements. Reporting does not entail disclosure of anonymous reviewers or unrestricted access to manuscripts.

The website maintains accurate information about the founder, publisher, editors, affiliations and official contacts. Claims about processing times, membership, indexing and services must be verifiable. Public information describes actual arrangements rather than planned capabilities alone.

Departures from the announced publication schedule are recorded and explained using documentary evidence. Issue history is disclosed in the appropriate website section; unknown reasons for gaps are not replaced with assumptions. Scholarly standards are not lowered to fill an issue.

10. Continuity and application

When the Editor-in-Chief changes or is temporarily unable to serve, the Institute formally appoints a qualified acting editor with a defined term and authority. Pending manuscripts, concerns and necessary records are transferred through a documented handover. Appointment does not cancel existing recusals or justify arbitrary reconsideration of decisions.

Changes to editorial rules are developed with the Editor-in-Chief and board, aligned with organisational capacity and published with their actual effective date. Material changes affecting submitted manuscripts are communicated to the relevant authors. New rules must not be used to portray earlier work as having complied with requirements that did not then exist.

This policy applies after approval and official posting. Detailed procedures for peer review, board membership, conflicts of interest, complaints, ethical investigations and corrections are governed by their respective policies.

Official contact: i_m_jurnal@tiiame.uz

Please indicate whether the concern relates to editorial governance or independence. If using the editorial channel creates a conflict, the concern may be sent through the Institute’s official contacts, requesting independent consideration under Section 7.

Guidance

This policy takes account of applicable international guidance. Specific governance arrangements and appointment terms are the journal’s own rules.

Back to top


ISSN 2181-1369 (Online)