Evaporation and evapotranspiration is crucial part of hydrological and water resource management studies e.g. water footprinting. Proper methods for estimating evaporation/potential evapotranspiration using limited climatic data are critical if the availability of climatic data is extremely limited. In a large scale studies are very often used generalized (modelled or gridded) input data. For a large scale water footprint studies is also important to find methods as simple as possible with quantifiable error. In our study, nine simple temperature-based empirical equations were compared with a long term time series of real evaporation data from a 20 m2 tank at Hlasivo station. In the first step, we used real temperature measured at Hlasivo station for validation of equations. In the second step, the gridded temperature data (interpolated datasets) derived from the meteorological stations were used. For both datasets, the differences between observed and predicted values were categorized into three groups of accuracy and the statistical indices of each equation were calculated. Very good results were achieved with the Hamon equation from 1961 and the Oudin equation for both datasets with index of agreement (d) higher than 0.9, cross-correlation coefficient (R2) around 0.7 and root mean square error (RMSE) around 0.5 mm∙(24 h)–1The Kharrufa equation, which was developed for semi-arid or arid areas, also provides results with sufficient accuracy. Comparison of the results with similar studies showed a lower accuracy of very simple equations against more complex equations, which have RMSE lower than 0.25 mm∙(24 h)–1. But for some kind of studies, quantifiable errors with sufficient accuracy can be more important than the absolute accuracy.
Green roofs play a significant role in sustainable drainage systems. They form absorbent surfaces for rainwater, which they retain with the aid of profile and plants. Such roofs therefore take an active part in improving the climatic conditions of a city and, more broadly, the water balance of urbanized areas. One of the factors influencing the hydrological efficiency of green roofs is the drainage layer. In the article, column studies were carried out under field conditions involving the comparison of the retention abilities of two aggregates serving as the drainage layer of green roofs, i.e. Leca® and quartzite grit. The average retention of the substrate was 48%; for a 5 cm drainage layer of Leca® retention was 57%, for a 10 cm layer of Leca average retention was 61%. For a 5 cm layer of quartzite grit average retention was 50%, for 10 cm layer of quartzite grit 53%. The highest retention was obtained for the column with the substrate and 10-centimeter layer of Leca®. At the same time, it was shown that Leca® is a better retention material than quartzite grit. The initial state of substrate moisture content from a green roof appears to be a significant factor in reducing rainfall runoff from a green roof; the ob-tained values of initial moisture content made for a higher correlation than the antecedent dry weather period.
The materials mining from rivers have a variety of negative and positive effects. Currently, one of the most important issues in river engineering is the proper management of materials mining. In this research, global experiences and interna-tional standards for managing sand and gravel mining have been applied to evaluate the mining area in the Zohreh River in Khuzestan province (Iran). One of the evaluation methods in this field is the river matrix method. In this method, which is defined on the basis of river pattern, river characteristics such as river size, site location of materials, associated channel and type of deposit are being considered. In this research, a segment of the Zohreh River between Sardasht Zeydun bridge and Mohseniyeh village in which has good potential for gravel mining was selected and evaluated for river characteristics, mining potential and application of river matrix method. The study indicates that the Zohreh River has a braided pattern in the range. The volume of sediment materials in the target area is about 10 000 m3, the length and width of the mining area are 125 and 80 m respectively, and surface extraction with a maximum depth of 1 m was recommended for extraction of materials. At the end of the research, management solutions and solutions for mining of river materials were presented using various standards.
The paper discusses the use of multiclustering statistical analysis in the assessment of domestic wastewater filtration effectiveness. Calculations included data collected over four months of experiments with using waste as filling material of vertical flow filters for domestic sewage treatment. The effectiveness of pollutants removal was analysed in case of me-chanically shredded waste in the form of PET flakes, PUR foam trims, shredded rubber tires and wadding. The organic compounds (CODcr, BOD5) removal, suspend solids, biogens (as NH4+, PO43– ions) and oxygen saturation changing com-pared with sand filling was analysed. Multiclustering statistical analysis allowed to divide pollutants removal efficiency of analysed materials into 3 clusters, depending on the hydraulic loading. The first group consisted in quality parameters of treated sewage: the highest reduction of BOD5 and NH4-N. It included the values of quality parameters and indicators for the filtrates obtained at the lowest hydraulic load from columns filled with 60 cm of rubber tires or sand. The second group comprised the results for fillings containing foam, PET and rubber tires (the other hydraulic loads).It featured the highest reduction of total suspended solids and PO43–. Removal of easily biodegradable organic compounds was at a similar level in both cluster groups. The filter filled with polyester waste (wadding), which was as effective as 30 cm layer of sand, and the filters filled with 60 cm of sand working at the highest hydraulic load. Third group showed the lowest values of parameters and indicators for analysed filtrates.
Wonji Shoa Sugar Estate (WSSE), located in the flood plain of the Awash River (Ethiopia), has been under long-term (>60 years) irrigation, industrial activities and agro-chemical usage. In this study, the hydrochemical properties of ground-water bodies available at WSSE have been characterized for quality compositions. Water samples were collected from groundwater monitoring piezometers distributed in the sugarcane plantation and then analysed for physico-chemical quality parameters (pH, EC,major cations and anions) following standard procedures. Other chemical indices (e.g., total dissolved solids (TDS),total hardness(TH),magnesium absorption ratio(MAR), base exchange (r1), meteoric genesis(r2)) were de-rived from the measured water quality parameters. The compositional variability and groundwater classification has been presented using the Box and Piper plots. The potential sources of minerals were suggested for each of the considered water sources based on their quality characteristics. Both trilinear Piper plot and meteoric genesis index revealed that groundwaterof the area is shallow meteoric water percolation type with a changing of hydrochemical facies and mixing trend. Ground-water of the area, is group 1 (Ca-Mg-HCO3) type, with no dominant cations and HCO3 are the dominant anions. Overall, the study result elucidates that the chemical composition of GW of the area showed spatial variability depending upon the variations in hydrochemical inputs from natural processes and/or anthropogenic activities within the region. The local an-thropogenic processes could be discharges from sugar factory, domestic sewage and agricultural activities.
The increasingly stringent requirements for wastewater treatment enforce the adoption of technologies that reduce pol-lution and minimize waste production. By combining the typical activated sludge process with membrane filtration, biolog-ical membrane reactors (MBR) offer great technological potential in this respect. The paper presents the principles and ef-fectiveness of using an MBR at the Głogów Małopolski operation.Physicochemical tests of raw and treated wastewater as well as microscopic analyses with the use of the FISH (fluorescence in situ hybridization) method were carried out. More-over, the level of electric energy consumption during the operation of the wastewater treatment plant and problems related to fouling were also discussed. A wastewater quality analysis confirmed the high efficiency of removing organic impurities (on average 96% in case of BOD5 and 94% in case of COD) and suspension (on average 93%).
In this paper we studied the intensification of the water clarification process on contact clarifiers with quartz sand fil-tering bed, which was modified with a solution of aluminum sulphate coagulant. The modification of the quartz sand filter-ing bed was carried out by applying to the surface of grains of quartz sand solution of coagulant aluminum sulphate with different doses. Investigation of the electrokinetic potential of the filtering material (quartz sand) was carried out by the percolation potential method.
The influence of electrical properties (size and sign of the charge) of the filtering bed itself and suspended solids in the water on the filtration process was studied. The filter material – quartz sand used in contact clarifiers has a negative electric charge. When the electric charge of the particles decreases, that is, as the ζ-potential decreases, the repulsive forces de-crease and it the adhesion of particles becomes possible. This is the process of coagulation of the colloid. The forces of mu-tual gravity between the colloidal particles begin to predominate over the electric repulsive forces at the ζ-potential of thesystem less than 0.03 V.
Modification of quarts filtering bed with a solution of coagulant aluminum sulphate recommended for the purification of surface water allows: to intensify the process of water clarification, to reduce the consumption of reagents by 25–30%, with the obtaining purified water of the required quality, to reduce the production areas necessary for reagent management of treatment facilities, and to reduce the cost of water treatment by 20–25%.
Time of concentration, Tc, is defined as time elapsed from the beginning of rainfall infiltrated into soil layer until it reaches a constant infiltration rate (fc) which is indicated an equilibrium subsurface flow rate. In hydrological view, time of concentration plays a significant role in elaboration of transformation of rainfall into runoff in a watershed. The aims of this research are to define influence of soil density and soil water content in determining time of concentration using infiltration concept based on water balance theory, and to find out the effect of land slope this time. Watershed laboratory experiment using rainfall simulator was employed to examine time of concentration associated with infiltration process under different slope, soil density and soil water content based on water balance concept. The steady rainfall intensity was simulated using sprinklers which produced 2 dm3∙min–1. Rainfall, runoff and infiltration analysis were carried out at laboratory experiment on soil media with varied of soil density (d) and soil water content (w), where variation of land slopes (s) were designed in three land slopes 2, 3 and 4%. The results show that relationship between soil density and land slope to time of concentra-tion showed a quadratic positive relationship where the higher the soil density address to the longer time of concentration. Moreover, time of concentration had an inverse relationship with soil water content and land slope that means time of con-centration decreased when the soil water content increased.
The paper presents the results of analysis of duration of precipitation sequences and the amounts of precipitation in in-dividual sequences in Legnica. The study was aimed at an analysis of potential trends and regularities in atmospheric pre-cipitations over the period of 1966–2015. On their basis a prediction attempt was made for trends in subsequent years. The analysis was made by fitting data to suitable distributions – the Weibull distribution for diurnal sums in sequences and the Pascal distribution for sequence durations, and then by analysing the variation of the particular indices such the mean value,variance and quartiles. The analysis was performed for five six-week periods in a year, from spring to late autumn, ana-lysed in consecutive five-year periods. The trends of the analysed indices, observed over the fifty-year period, are not sta-tistically significant, which indicates stability of precipitation conditions over the last half-century.
The analysis of the current state of weather and climatic conditions and evaluation of their predicted changes for im-mediate and distant prospect in the drained areas of Ukrainian Polissia region was carried out in the article. The main trendsin changes of meteorological characteristics and their possible effect on the conditions of functioning water management and ameliorative objects and complexes as well as on the natural and ameliorative state of drained areas were identified. The research uses a method of predictive-simulation modelling with used predictive assessment models of normalized dis-tribution of the basic meteorological characteristics in the long-term and one-year vegetation context. According to the re-sults of the research it was established that, for today a high variability in meteorological characteristics can lead to the sig-nificant deterioration of operation conditions of water management and ameliorative objects and units, as well as natural and ameliorative conditions of drained lands in Polissia region as a whole. Core measures regarding the adaptive potential enhancement and development in the region under the conditions of climate change were examined.
OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT
The ownership and management of the “Journal of Water and Land Development” (JWLD) belong to the Institute of Technology and Life Sciences – National Research Institute (https://www.itp.edu.pl/) and Polish Academy of Sciences (https://pan.pl/).
Editor-in-Chief – Professor Dr Hab. Mohamed Hazem KALAJI
Managing Editor – PhD, DSc, Associate Professor Adam BRYSIEWICZ
Authors’ duties
Authorship should be limited to individuals who have significantly contributed to the conception, project, execution, and interpretation of the results. All such contributors must be listed as co-authors. Other individuals who influenced key aspects of the study should be acknowledged or mentioned as co-workers. The author must ensure that all co-authors have been properly included, have reviewed and approved the final version of the paper, and have agreed to its submission for publication.
When it comes to changes in authorship, it is crucial that authors carefully consider the authorship list and order before the original submission, as changes are generally not considered by the editors of the “Journal of Water and Land Development” once the manuscript has been submitted. According to the journal’s policy, all authors must be listed in the manuscript and entered into the submission system. Any addition, removal, or rearrangement of authors should be made only prior to acceptance and only with the approval of the journal editor. Requests to change authorship must come from the corresponding author, who must provide a valid reason along with written confirmation from all authors, including those being added or removed, stating their agreement with the proposed changes. These requests must be submitted through a designated form (FORM), and those that fail to follow the instructions in the form will not be considered. Only under exceptional circumstances will changes be considered after acceptance. During the evaluation of such requests, publication may be paused. If approved after publication, changes will be documented through a corrigendum. Unauthorized changes to authorship may lead to rejection of the article.
Authors must disclose all sources of funding for their study, as well as the involvement of scientific institutions, associations, and any other entities. They must also disclose any significant conflicts of interest that could influence the outcomes or interpretation of the study.
In the case of applying AI and AI-assisted technologies in the work, the author is obliged to make a proper declaration within the manuscript. This declaration must include the name of the AI tool or service used and the reasons for its use. Importantly, AI cannot be credited as an author of the manuscript. Since texts generated with the use of AI may be fragmentary or incorrect, the author—who remains fully responsible for the entire submitted article—is obliged to carefully review any AI-generated content and make necessary corrections before submission.
Authors reporting original research should provide an accurate and detailed account of the work performed, along with an objective discussion of its significance. All source data must be accurately presented in the manuscript, and sufficient detail and references should be included to allow others to replicate the study. Deliberate falsification or misrepresentation is unethical and will not be tolerated by the editors.
Authors should also be ready to provide the raw data used in their study for editorial review if requested and must retain this data for a reasonable period after publication.
In terms of publication ethics, authors should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Simultaneous submission of the same paper to multiple journals is considered unethical and is prohibited.
Proper citation is essential; authors must always acknowledge and cite all works that influenced the development of the manuscript and confirm any use of other authors’ work.
If an author identifies a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work, it is their responsibility to promptly notify the Editorial Office.
Only original works should be submitted. Authors must ensure that all cited authors and quoted material are properly credited and referenced. Any instances of ghostwriting or guest authorship are considered forms of scientific misconduct and will be addressed accordingly, including notification of relevant authorities. All indications of scientific dishonesty or breaches of ethical standards will be thoroughly documented by the Editorial Office.
Editors’ duties
Editors assess submitted manuscripts solely based on their academic value, including significance, originality, validity of the study, and clarity, as well as their alignment with the journal’s focus. This evaluation is conducted without consideration of the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic background, nationality, religion, political beliefs, or affiliations. Editorial decisions regarding publication are independent of governmental policies or any external influences. The Editor-in-Chief of JWLD holds complete authority over the journal’s editorial content and the scheduling of its publication.
Editors refrain from utilising AI or AI-assisted technologies for decisions that require critical analysis or the formulation of substantive opinions. They and the editorial team will keep all information related to a submitted manuscript confidential, only sharing it with the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, relevant editorial advisers, and the publisher as necessary.
Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information from a submitted manuscript for personal research purposes without the explicit written permission of the authors. Any privileged information acquired during the manuscript review process will remain confidential and not be exploited for personal gain. In cases where there is a conflict of interest, such as competitive or collaborative relationships with authors, editors will recuse themselves and assign the manuscript to another editorial board member.
All manuscripts under consideration for publication will undergo peer review by at least two experts in the relevant field. The Editor-in-Chief will determine which manuscripts are published based on the validation of the work, its relevance to researchers and readers, feedback from reviewers, and adherence to legal standards regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may consult with fellow editors or reviewers in this decision-making process.
Additionally, journal editors may seek guidance on submitted papers beyond technical reviews, particularly regarding ethical concerns or issues involving data or materials accessibility. This advisory process typically occurs concurrently with the technical peer-review.
Reviewers’ duties
Peer review plays a crucial role in aiding editors with their decision-making and can also help authors enhance their manuscripts through communications facilitated by the editorial team.
If any reviewer feels unqualified to assess a manuscript or realises they cannot complete the review promptly, they should inform the editor and withdraw from the process.
All manuscripts reviewed must be regarded as confidential and should not be shared or discussed with anyone unless authorised by the editor.
Reviews need to be conducted impartially. Personal criticisms of the author are not acceptable. Reviewers should clearly articulate their opinions and back them up with solid reasoning.
Reviewers are also responsible for identifying relevant works that have not been referenced by the authors. Any claim that a finding, derivation, or argument has been previously noted should include the appropriate citation. Additionally, reviewers should inform the editor if they notice significant similarities or overlaps between the manuscript in question and any other published work they are aware of.
Reviewers must refrain from using AI to make decisions that require critical thinking or to form substantive opinions regarding the manuscript.
Any privileged information or insights gained during the peer review process must remain confidential and should not be exploited for personal gain. Reviewers should avoid evaluating manuscripts where there exist conflicts of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or any other relationships with the authors, organizations, or institutions involved.
Editors treat any misconduct by reviewers with seriousness and will address any claims of confidentiality breaches.
Publishers’ duties
In instances of alleged or confirmed scientific misconduct, fraudulent publications, or plagiarism, the publisher will work closely with the editors to address the issue and amend the article in question. This may involve the swift publication of an erratum, a clarification, or, in the most serious cases, retraction of the affected work. Furthermore, alongside the editors, the publisher will take responsible measures to identify and prevent the publication of papers involving research misconduct, and will never condone or knowingly permit such misconduct to occur.
The publisher is dedicated to the ongoing availability and preservation of scholarly research and ensures accessibility by collaborating with organisations and maintaining a digital archive.
Corrections, retractions and updates after publication
Sometimes after an article has been published it may be necessary to make a change. This change will be made after careful consideration by the journal’s editorial team to make sure if there are grounds for these changes.
Aside from cases where a minor error is concerned, any necessary changes will be accompanied by a post-publication notice, which will be permanently linked to the original article. These changes can be in the form of a Correction notice, an Expression of Concern, a Retraction, and in rare circumstances, a Removal.
The purpose of linking post-publication notices to the original article is to provide transparency around any changes and to ensure the integrity of the scholarly record. Note that all post-publication notices are free to access from the point of publication.
Authors should notify us as soon as possible if they find errors in their published article, especially errors that could affect the interpretation of data or reliability of information presented. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to ensure consensus has been reached between all listed co-authors prior to requesting any corrections to an article.
If, after reading the guidance, you believe a correction is necessary for your article, please contact the Editorial Office journal@itp.edu.pl.
Correction notice
A Correction notice will be issued when it is necessary to correct an error or omission, where the interpretation of the article may be impacted but the scholarly integrity or original findings remains intact.
A correction notice, where possible, should always be written and approved by all authors of the original article.
Please note that correction requests may be subject to full review, and if queries are raised, you may be expected to supply further information before the correction is approved.
Major and minor errors could be distinguished. For correction notices, major errors or omissions are considered changes that impact the interpretation of the article, but the overall scholarly integrity remains intact. Minor errors are considered errors or omissions that do not impact the reliability of, or the readers’ understanding of, the interpretation of the article.
Major errors are always accompanied by a separate correction notice. The correction notice should provide clear details of the error and the changes that have been made to the published version. Under these circumstances, Editorial team will:
Minor errors may not be accompanied by a separate correction notice. instead, a footnote will be added to the article detailing to the reader that the article has been corrected.
Concerns regarding the integrity of a published article should be raised via email to the Editorial Office journal@itp.edu.pl.
Retractions
A Retraction will be issued where a major error (e.g., in the methods or analysis) invalidates the conclusions in the article, or where it appears research or publication misconduct has taken place (e.g., research without required ethical approvals, fabricated data, manipulated images, plagiarism, duplicate publication, etc.).
The decision will follow a full investigation by the journal’s editorial team. Authors and institutions may request a retraction of their articles if they believe their reasons meet the criteria for retraction.
Retractions are issued to correct the scholarly record and should not be interpreted as punishments for the authors.
The COPE guidance can be found here https://publicationethics.org/guidance/guideline/principles-transparency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing
Retraction will be considered in cases where:
Where the decision has been taken to retract an article, Editorial team will:
Article removal
An Article Removal will be issued in rare circumstances where the problems cannot be addressed through a Retraction or Correction notice. Editorial team will consider removal of a published article in very limited circumstances where:
In the case of an article being removed from “Journal of Water and Land Development” website, a removal notice will be issued in its place.
Expressions of concern
In some cases, an Expression of Concern may be considered where concerns of a serious nature have been raised (e.g., research or publication misconduct), but where the outcome of the investigation is inconclusive or where due to various complexities, the investigation will not be completed for a considerable time. This could be due to ongoing institutional investigations or other circumstances outside of the journal’s control.
When the investigation has been completed, a Retraction or Correction notice may follow the Expression of Concern alongside the original article. All will remain part of the permanent publication record.
Expressions of Concern notices will be considered in cases where:
The Expression of Concern will be linked back to the published article it relates to.
EDITORIAL PROCEDURE
Preliminary evaluation
All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by the Editors to ensure they meet the requirements and editorial policy of the “Journal of Water and Land Development” (JWLD). Submissions that are incomplete or not formatted according to the journal’s guidelines will be returned to the authors with recommendations for correction. Upon successful registration on the editorial platform, authors will receive a reference number for their manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief or a designated Section Editor reviews every submission and assigns it a priority status, resulting in one of the following decisions: (a) the manuscript is forwarded directly for peer review; (b) the manuscript is returned to the authors with suggestions for revising the presentation of data; or (c) the manuscript is rejected. If the authors revise the manuscript adequately, it will be sent to at least two independent reviewers. This preliminary evaluation phase typically takes 1 week.
Authorship statement
As part of the submission process through the editorial platform, authors must confirm the originality of their work, validate the listed authorship, agree to copyright transfer, and accept the terms of the peer review process.
Conflict of interest
Authors are required to disclose any financial or personal relationships that could be viewed as potential conflicts of interest at the time of submission. This information is treated confidentially during the review process and does not influence editorial decisions. Similarly, reviewers and editors must disclose to the Editor-in-Chief any relationships that could be perceived as conflicts of interest in relation to a manuscript under review.
Review process
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent to independent experts for peer review. The Editorial Office retains the right to select appropriate reviewers. Typically, reviewers return their feedback within 3–4 weeks of submission. Authors are expected to address and respond to all reviewer comments thoroughly.
The objective of the peer review is to provide a qualified evaluation of the manuscript’s scientific quality. Reviewers offer constructive feedback to help authors improve their work and enhance its suitability for publication. While confidential remarks to the editors are considered, comments intended to improve the manuscript should also be shared with the authors.
It is important to note that review times can vary depending on factors such as the availability and responsiveness of reviewers, the complexity of the manuscript, and the extent of revisions needed.
Acceptance
The review process at JWLD follows a double-blind model, ensuring that both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous. Manuscripts are accepted for publication only after receiving favourable recommendations from independent reviewers. Reviewers are asked to complete a standardised "Reviewer’s Questionnaire" and provide a clear recommendation regarding the manuscript’s suitability for publication.
If there is a significant difference of opinion among reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief may: (a) share all reviews among the reviewers for additional insight, (b) seek further opinions from additional reviewers, or (c) carefully weigh all feedback and make a balanced final decision. To support this process, reviewers are encouraged to provide detailed justifications for their recommendations. Reviews that clearly outline both strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript are especially valuable.
If a revised manuscript is submitted or if authors believe their arguments were misunderstood during review, reviewers may be asked for further comments. However, the Editorial Office is cautious about repeated reviewer contact to avoid undue pressure and will assess the necessity and relevance of any follow-up requests.
In the case of rejection, authors have the right to appeal if they believe the reviewers have misunderstood or overlooked key aspects of the manuscript. Editors will then evaluate whether the appeal justifies reconsideration.
Common reasons for rejection
Manuscripts may be rejected outright—without being sent for peer review—if they are of insufficient quality. Common reasons for rejection include:
Complaints and appeals
A complaint may arise over the conduct of editors and/or peer reviewers. Some possible reasons for complaints are:
An appeal is a formal request to reconsider a decision taken by the journal. It might be related to decisions in regular journal operation (e.g. a manuscript being rejected) or to a verdict taken by a team investigating a particular situation (e.g. a published manuscript being retracted due to suspected data manipulation).
The authors submit a formal complaint/appeal to the journal principal contact by email or post (journal@itp.edu.pl). Within a week, the journal will form an investigation group consisting of at least three Editorial Team members (not previously involved in handling the manuscript in question) and report back their names and how they can be contacted.
The actual investigation time may vary depending on the complexity of the case. The investigation team provides fair opportunities to all parties involved to explain their motives and actions. The purpose of the investigation is to establish whether misconduct took place (as reported or in the light of new circumstances discovered), whether it was performed deliberately or as a genuine mistake, and to estimate the scale of its negative consequences.
Based on the facts collected, the investigation team decides on the corrective actions to be taken as well as whether some penalty is to be applied to the person who performed the misconduct. Depending on the misconduct severity, the penalty may range from a reprimand to an expulsion from the reviewer pool/editorial board and a report being sent to the institution to which the person in question is affiliated.
The authors are informed about the investigation outcome upon its completion.
In its work, the investigation group relies on the recommendations and guidelines provided by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE): https://publicationethics.org/appeals
In complex cases, an external ethical advisor might be called for.
Guidance from COPE ( https://publicationethics.org/ ):
Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers (English)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9
Sharing of information among editors-in-chief regarding possible misconduct
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.7
How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2018.1.1
Text recycling guidelines for editors
URL: http://publicationethics.org/text-recycling-guidelines
A short guide to ethical editing for new editors
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.8
Guidelines for managing the relationships between society owned journals, their society, and publishers
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2018.1.2
Retraction guidelines
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4
Journal of Water and Land Development List of reviewers 2024