A strategic vision to ensure an adequate, safe and secure drinking water supply presents a challenge, particularly for such a small country as Jordan, faced with a critical supply-demand imbalance and a high risk of water quality deterioration. In order to provide sustainable and equitable long-term water management plans for the future, current and future demands, along with available adaptation options should be assessed through community engagement. An analysis of available water resources, existing demands and use per sector served to assess the nation’s historic water status. Taking into account the effect of both population growth and rainfall reduction, future per sector demands were predicted by linear temporal trend analysis. Water sector vulnerability and adaptation options were assessed by engaging thirty five stakeholders. A set of weighed-criterions were selected, adopted, modified, and then framed into comprehensive guidelines. A quantitative ratio-level approach was used to quantify the magnitude and likelihood of risks and opportunities associated with each proposed adaptation measure using the level of effectiveness and severity status. Prioritization indicated that public awareness and training programs were the most feasible and effective adaptation measures, while building new infrastructure was of low priority. Associated barriers were related to a lack of financial resources, institutional arrangements, and data collection, sharing, availability, consistency and transparency, as well as willingness to adapt. Independent community-based watershed-vulnerability analyses to address water integrity at watershed scale are recommended.
Satellite remote sensing provides a synoptic view of the land and a spatial context for measuring drought impacts, which have proved to be a valuable source of spatially continuous data with improved information for monitoring vegetation dynamics. Many studies have focused on detecting drought effects over large areas, given the wide availability of low-resolution images. In this study, however, the objective was to focus on a smaller area (1085 km2) using Landsat ETM+ images (multispectral resolution of 30 m and 15 m panchromatic), and to process very accurate Land Use Land Cover (LULC) classification to determine with great precision the effects of drought in specific classes. The study area was the Tortugas-Tepezata sub watershed (Moctezuma River), located in the state of Hidalgo in central Mexico. The LULC classification was processed using a new method based on available ancillary information plus analysis of three single date satellite images. The newly developed LULC methodology developed produced overall accuracies ranging from 87.88% to 92.42%. Spectral indices for vegetation and soil/vegetation moisture were used to detect anomalies in vegetation development caused by drought; furthermore, the area of water bodies was measured and compared to detect changes in water availability for irrigated crops. The proposed methodology has the potential to be used as a tool to identify, in detail, the effects of drought in rainfed agricultural lands in developing regions, and it can also be used as a mechanism to prevent and provide relief in the event of droughts.
While assessing the effects of climate change at global or regional scales, local factors responsible for climate change are generalized, which results in the averaging of effects. However, climate change assessment is required at a micro-scale to determine the severity of climate change. To ascertain the impact of spatial scales on climate change assessments, trends and shifts in annual and seasonal (monsoon and non-monsoon), rainfall and temperature (minimum, average and maximum) were determined at three different spatial resolutions in India (Ajmer city, Ajmer District and Rajasthan State). The Mann–Kendall (MK), MK test with pre-whitening of series (MK–PW), and Modified Mann–Kendall (MMK) test, along with other statistical techniques were used for the trend analysis. The Pettitt–Mann–Whitney (PMW) test was applied to detect the temporal shift in climatic parameters. The Sen’s slope and % change in rainfall and temperature were also estimated over the study period (35 years). The annual and seasonal average temperature indicates significant warming trends, when assessed at a fine spatial resolution (Ajmer city) compared to a coarser spatial resolution (Ajmer District and Rajasthan State resolutions). Increasing trend was observed in minimum, mean and maximum temperature at all spatial scales; however, trends were more pronounced at a finer spatial resolution (Ajmer city). The PMW test indicates only the significant shift in non-monsoon season rainfall, which shows an increase in rainfall after 1995 in Ajmer city. The Kurtosis and coefficient of variation also revealed significant climate change, when assessed at a finer spatial resolution (Ajmer city) compared to a coarser resolution. This shows the contribution of land use/land cover change and several other local anthropogenic activities on climate change. The results of this study can be useful for the identification of optimum climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies based on the severity of climate change at different spatial scales.
CropSyst (Cropping Systems Simulation) is used as an analytic tool for studying irrigation water management to increase wheat productivity. Therefore, two field experiments were conducted to 1) calibrate CropSyst model for wheat grown under sprinkler and drip irrigation systems, 2) to use the simulation results to analyse the relationship between applied irrigation amount and the resulted yield and 3) to simulate the effect of saving irrigation water on wheat yield. Drip irrigation system in three treatments (100%, 75% and 50% of crop evapotranspiration – ETc) and under sprinkler irrigation system in five treatments (100%, 80%, 60%, 40%, and 20% of ETc) were imposed on these experiments. Results using CropSyst calibration revealed-that results of using CropSyst calibration revealed that the model was able to predict wheat grain and biological yield, with high degree of accuracy. Using 100% ETc under drip system resulted in very low water stress index (WSI = 0.008), whereas using 100% ETc sprinkler system resulted in WSI = 0.1, which proved that application of 100% ETc enough to ensure high yield. The rest of deficit irrigation treatments resulted in high yield losses. Simulation of application of 90% ETc not only reduced yield losses to either irrigation system, but also increased land and water productivity. Thus, it can be recommended to apply irrigation water to wheat equal to 90% ETc to save on the applied water and increase water productivity.
According to the Nitrate Directive it is necessary to established a protective belt (ecotones) around lakes. Inside these belts, it is forbidden to use fertilize for agricultural purposes. It is believed that it is the most imported measure to protect water quality in the lake. The analysis were conducted to estimate the sources of nitrogen entering the waters of the lake. Some analysis were conducted to estimate the sources of nitrogen entering waters of the lake. It was proved that the biggest load (more than 80%) of contamination is entering the lake with water flowing in streams and ditches. Only 10% of the chemicals are entering the lake with the groundwater filtrating to the lake. It is very important to use a proper methods of agriculture with proper methods of fertilization in the whole area of river basin flowing to the lakes.
Imotsko-Bekijsko Polje has an area of 9 500 ha and is one of the biggest karst fields (polje) in the Dinaric Mountains, extending over the territory of two states: Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Many hydraulic structures (reservoirs, retentions, tunnels, etc.) have been built since the middle of 20th century in order to protect polje against floods. Therefore, the security from flooding has increased substantially. However, there is still periodical flooding in the southeastern lowest part of the polje. The largest flood in recent times was in January 2010, when 2676 ha (28% of the area) was flooded. The polje is a typical karst with very complex hydrological and hydrogeological relations. In this paper two hydrological stations, Nuga at the lowest part and Kamenmost in the central part of the polje with respectable hydrological series, are statistically analysed. In particular, the efficiency of existing hydraulic structures for flood mitigation is estimated. The research points out that floods in Imotsko-Bekijsko Polje are largely influenced by water management objects (reservoir, retention, tunnel) and only indirectly by precipitation.
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