Journal of Irrigation Sciences and Engineering (JISE) reviewers guide
This text provides information about manuscripts revision’s prime considerations when submitted to the Journal of Irrigation Sciences and Engineering (JISE) for reviewers, and it also contains journal’s editorial standards. Other relevant information about the journal’s aims and scope and editorial policies can be found within the Persian guidance at the JISE website. Submitted manuscripts are usually reviewed by two or more experts. Peer reviewers will then make a decision regarding acceptance, revision or rejection of the submitted manuscripts. They should also express their suggestions to the editors, concerning any related issues to the author misconduct like plagiarism or unethical behavior.
The Journal of Irrigation Sciences and Engineering (JISE) operates using a Double Blind peer review procedure. Publication of research articles by the Journal of Irrigation Sciences and Engineering (JISE) is dependent essentially on their validity and coherence, as judged by peer reviewers and editors. The manuscript should be comprehensible and of high standard. Submitted manuscripts will be sent to peer reviewers, unless they are out of scope or below the interest of the Journal, or if the article of an unacceptably low standard.
Reviewers will be asked to give detailed, constructive comments that will contribute the editors’ decision on publication and the author(s) improvement of their manuscript. A key issue is whether the work has serious flaws that should preclude its publication, or whether there are additional experiments or data required to support the conclusions drawn. Where possible, reviewers should provide references to corroborate and substantiate their comments.
Reviewers indicate whether they consider any required revisions to be 'major compulsory revisions', 'minor essential revisions' or 'discretionary revisions'. Generally, revisions are likely to be 'Major compulsory revisions' if additional data are required to support the claims or the interpretations are not supported by the data, if further analysis is required that may change the results and conclusions, or if the methods used are insufficient, inadequate or statistical errors have been made.