Editorial Governance and Editorial Independence Policy

This policy defines the allocation of authority among the founder, publisher and editorial office, the procedures for making and delegating editorial decisions, and safeguards protecting scientific assessment from administrative, financial and personal influence.

01. Purpose and organisational framework

The founder of Technosphere Safety is the Tashkent Institute of Irrigation and Agricultural Mechanization Engineers National Research University (hereinafter the University), and its publisher is I-EDU GROUP LLC. The University and publisher provide the organisational framework for the journal, while the editorial office is responsible for scientific assessment and editorial decisions.

Editorial independence means the ability to make justified decisions under the journal's published rules without improper interference by interested parties. It is accompanied by accountability for the quality of decisions, compliance with procedures and correction of identified errors.

This policy applies to all editorial materials and publication formats, including special issues and invited articles. An author's affiliation with the University or publisher, position or relationship with the editorial office does not create a preferential route to acceptance.

02. Separation of responsibilities

  • The University and publisher provide funding, personnel and technical support, formal appointment procedures, publishing infrastructure and fulfilment of publishing obligations within their respective authority.
  • The Editor-in-Chief leads scientific and editorial activities, ensures implementation of policies, allocates editorial authority and is responsible for quality-control procedures.
  • Authorised editors make decisions or prepare recommendations within documented assignments.
  • The editorial board advises on scientific development and quality; its composition and responsibilities are governed by the separate Editorial Board Policy.

The University and publisher may discuss budgets, resources, overall strategy and organisational performance with the editorial office. These powers do not include determining the desired outcome for a particular article, requiring acceptance or suppressing scientifically justified conclusions to protect reputational or commercial interests.

Changes in resources are discussed with the Editor-in-Chief, including their implications for existing commitments. Funding, personnel decisions and technical access must not be used to compel a particular editorial decision.

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

The Editor-in-Chief is appointed by the University following a documented assessment of subject expertise, editorial experience, professional integrity and capacity to perform the role. Opinions are sought from specialists without relevant conflicts of interest. Before appointment, the candidate discloses significant interests and other editorial commitments.

New appointments and renewals after this policy takes effect have a three-year term. Authority, duties, reporting procedures, renewal conditions, termination and dispute-resolution arrangements are recorded in writing. Reappointment may follow a performance assessment; automatic renewal does not apply.

Performance is assessed at least annually, taking into account procedural quality, justification of decisions, adherence to deadlines, handling of concerns and accuracy of information about the journal. Revenue, acceptance rates and citation growth are not used as independent measures of editorial success.

Early termination requires documented grounds, notice to the editor and an opportunity to provide an explanation. Good-faith rejection of a weak manuscript, publication of justified criticism or reporting misconduct are not grounds for removal. Disputed circumstances are addressed through the independent procedure in Section 7.

04. Editorial decisions and delegation

Decisions to send a manuscript for peer review, request revisions, accept or reject it are made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorised editor without a conflict of interest. Decisions are based on relevance to technosphere safety, scientific validity, quality of evidence and compliance with ethical requirements. Expert assessment procedures are established in the Peer Review Policy.

Delegation records the responsible editor, specific manuscript or subject area, scope of authority and any requirement for additional approval. Authors must be able to identify who is responsible for the communicated decision. Delegating a task does not relieve the editorial office of responsibility for procedural compliance.

Recommendations from the editorial board, reviewers and invited specialists are considered on their merits but do not turn editorial decisions into administrative voting. Invited submissions, special-issue agreements or management instructions do not replace the established evaluation process.

A decision may be reconsidered where significant new information, an identified error or a justified appeal arises, with reasons documented. When the Editor-in-Chief is recused, they must not approve or overturn the decision of the appointed independent editor. The publisher must not replace an editorial appeal with an administrative directive.

05. Separation of financial and technical functions

Editors making decisions on an article do not handle its payment, fee waivers or individual financial agreements. These functions are performed by a separately designated administrative employee or department of the University or publisher. Even with limited staffing, the functions must be allocated to different individuals.

The amount of support, source of funding and an author's financial circumstances do not influence reviewer selection, manuscript evaluation or decisions. Editors and staff are not remunerated for accepting individual articles. Fee and funding arrangements are published in the relevant separate policy.

Technical personnel perform authorised operations involving the platform and materials. Administrative access to OJS does not confer authority to change scientific decisions, substitute reviews, delete objections or publish manuscripts without editorial approval.

06. Independent handling of conflicts of interest

Where a conflict of interest exists, authority is transferred to another qualified editor. The Deputy Editor-in-Chief may assume this role only where independence is verified; a job title does not replace examination of actual relationships.

If the author is the Editor-in-Chief, their direct 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 substantially concerns the institutional interests of the University or publisher and internal recusal cannot ensure independence.

A non-conflicted board member organises the selection of an external editor, verifying expertise, relationships and written consent. The appointment, authority and grounds for recusal are documented. The interested person does not select the replacement editor or control the decision; the secretariat provides technical support.

Definitions of conflicts and disclosure obligations are established in the Conflicts of Interest Policy. Independent peer review and the identification of such handling in published articles 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 scientific assessment, threats of employment consequences, attempts to conceal significant errors and interference in selecting independent participants must be recorded. Editors retain relevant correspondence and report interference through an official channel.

If a concern involves the Editor-in-Chief, it is referred to a non-conflicted responsible person rather than to the Editor-in-Chief for substantive review. For complex disputes concerning editorial independence, a panel of at least three specialists is established; a majority, including the chair, must be external to both the University and publisher and free of conflicts of interest. If the dispute concerns the University or publisher's leadership, the panel must consist entirely of external specialists.

Parties are informed of the panel's composition and the procedure for submitting explanations; reasoned objections based on conflicts of interest are examined before substantive review. Organisational support from the University or publisher does not entitle either to predetermine the panel's findings.

The panel assesses compliance with authority and procedures 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 documented, and participants are informed within confidentiality requirements. Good-faith reporting must not result in retaliation.

08. Access management and documentation

Editorial appointments, recusals, grounds for decisions and significant changes are retained in OJS or another protected editorial record system. Corrections to records must preserve a traceable history; fabricated reviews, dates and confirmations are prohibited.

Access is granted on a need-to-know basis and reviewed when roles change, recusals occur or service ends. Administrators' technical capabilities are constrained by organisational rules and action logs; they do not constitute scientific authority. Confidential materials are not disclosed to management or financial staff solely because of their positions.

Automated tools may be used within the relevant policy and under human oversight. A tool does not become an independent editorial decision-maker. Detailed rules on AI use, confidentiality and preservation are set out in separate documents.

09. Quality control and transparency

At least annually, the Editor-in-Chief provides the University, publisher and editorial board with an aggregate assessment of operations: procedural compliance, workload, timelines, concerns, corrections and required improvements. Reporting does not involve revealing anonymous reviewers' identities or providing unrestricted access to manuscripts.

The website maintains current information about the founder, publisher, editors, their affiliations and official contacts. Statements concerning timelines, membership, indexing and services must be verifiable. Public information reflects actual conditions rather than merely planned capabilities.

Deviations from the announced publication schedule are recorded and explained on the basis of documentation. The history of issues is disclosed in the relevant website section; unknown reasons for missing issues are not replaced with speculation. Scientific standards are not lowered to fill an issue.

10. Continuity and implementation of the policy

When the Editor-in-Chief changes or is temporarily unable to perform their duties, the University formally appoints a qualified acting editor with a defined term and authority. Unfinished manuscripts, concerns and necessary records are transferred with documentation. The appointment does not cancel existing recusals or justify arbitrary reconsideration of decisions.

Changes to editorial rules are prepared with the participation of the Editor-in-Chief and board, coordinated with the organisational capacities of the University and publisher, and published with their actual effective dates. Substantial changes affecting manuscripts already submitted are communicated to the relevant authors. New rules must not be used to portray earlier work as having complied with requirements that did not exist at the time.

This policy applies following approval and official publication. Procedures for peer review, board membership, conflicts of interest, complaints, ethics investigations and corrections are established in the corresponding separate policies.

Official contact channel: technosphere@tiiame.uz

The enquiry should indicate whether it concerns editorial governance or independence. Where use of the editorial channel creates a conflict, the matter may be submitted through the official contact channels of the University, requesting independent review under Section 7.

Methodological references

This policy takes relevant international recommendations into account. Specific governance procedures and terms of appointment are internal rules of the journal.

Back to top


ISSN 2181-3981 (Online)