The paper characterizes the status, trends and perspectives of irrigation in Poland after the reforms in agriculture and technology. Irrigation in Poland has supplemental character. It is used in short periods during the growing season and plays an important role in mitigating the effects of drought on crop production. Sub-irrigation from ditches is applied on permanent grasslands, sprin-kling – in field cultivation of arable crops, sprinkling and drip irrigation – in vegetable growing in open areas, micro-jets and drip irrigation systems – in orchards. Drip irrigation and micro-jets sys-tems are also applied in plant cultivation in greenhouses.
Under the economic conditions of Polish agriculture irrigation is often an unprofitable measure. The existing irrigation systems and facilities are only used to a small extent. After changes in the forms of ownership in agriculture, the large-area sprinkling systems were degraded. Small irrigation systems, mainly drip irrigation and micro-sprinkler irrigation, have recently become more common in private farms. Sub-irrigation systems are largely degraded and used only to a small extent if at all. In order to use these systems more effectively, it is necessary to reconstruct and modernize them. In many cases the factor preventing the use of irrigation systems is the deficit of water of required qual-ity and its availability. Besides unfavourable economic conditions, it is one of the main limitations in the development of irrigation in Poland.
The study presents the critical evaluation of existing drainage systems from legal, eco-nomical, environmental and technical viewpoints. Nearly 80% of agricultural land in Lithuania drained by underground drainage systems covers around 3 million hectares. The prevailing large scale drainage systems with a complex of engineering structures such as conducting ditches, drains and collectors, local roads, bridges or farm road-crossings, dikes, dams, water reservoirs, pumping stations for irrigation and for drainage need today an efficient management solution in a new economic situation. The detailed analysis of legal and economic instruments adopted in transferring the management responsibilities of drainage systems to users has been carried out. The study resulted in a number of practical contributions towards the amendments in the Law on Land Reclamation in Lithuania and the establishment of a system of indicators that would allow rationalisation of subsidy allocations for the maintenance and improvement of the drainage systems. These subsidies from the state budget make at the moment the largest share among the investment sources. The financial and in kind contribution of drainage users is permanently increasing as are the allocations of the structural funds for public projects. The EU pre-accession programme SAPARD started in 2000 has supported some investments in rural areas. Unfortunately, it did not support the drainage infrastructure properly. A critical review of previous measures allowed suggesting new actions within the framework of the actual support from EU structural funds.
In order to maintain and improve water quality, man has an increasing need to understand the relations among basin land use and in stream water quality. Being concerned about quality and quantity status of European waters European Union has adopted Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EU). The process of pressure and impact analyses and water status assessment is termed, in short, as “first characterisation” of water bodies. In accordance to WFD programmes of measures have to be developed by 2009. In WFD programmes existing measures for water protection directed by other EU directives such are Nitrate, Urban Waste Water, Dangerous Substances and IPPC will be further developed and new added. In the paper, we describe the first characterisation of the Slovene waters and show cross compliance of the Nitrate and Water Framework Directives in Slovenia
Flooding in the northern part of The Netherlands has caused serious economic threats to densely populated areas. Therefore a project has been carried out in a pilot area to assess the retention of water in two river basins as a way to reduce flooding. The physically-based groundwater and sur-face water model SIMGRO was used to model the hydrology of the basins. The model was calibrated using discharges and groundwater levels. Scenarios of measures to assess the possibility of retaining water in the basin were then defined and tested. The first measure was the retention of higher dis-charges using culverts or gates in the upstream part of the basin. The second measure was to make the streams shallower and thereby, increase flood plain storage. The last measure was flood water storage in a designated area in the downstream part of one basin. The analysis indicates that holding water in the upstream parts of the basins proved to be feasible and can result in significant reductions of peak flows.
The very wet conditions of recent years in Europe have made it clear that measures will have to be taken in this century to prevent flooding. The question is how to manage groundwater in order to reduce the anticipated increased hydrological risk. Furthermore the surface water quality in the Netherlands is insufficient to meet the standards of the Water Framework Directive. The required improvements are difficult to reach, because the diffuse loads of nutrients from agricultural land can not be easily reduced. This demands for innovative solutions with respect to improve the surface wa-ter quality. In this pilot study the focus is on the purification in reed fields and use it as well to reduce the effects of the anticipated climate change. An experimental evidence on a practical scale is lacking and therefore in the woodland area of Lankheet in the eastern part of the Netherlands, 3 ha has been planted with reeds to purify the river water. The aim of the study is further to store the purified water in the groundwater in order to reduce climate change effects. For the hydrological situation a scenario study was set up, using a regional hydrological model to simulate the groundwater flow together with the water flow in a network of water courses. The analysis will give knowledge on the multifunc-tional use of such a system.
The relative relationships “yield – evapotranspiration” were used long time ago. The well known linear relationship yi = 1 – ky (1 – ei), where yi is relative yield, ky – yield response factor and ei – relative evapotranspiration was proposed. It’s usually assumed that ky is constant for a given crop and climatic conditions. It was found, however, that ky for late variety of maize H 708 varied through the study years (1984–1990) in the Plovdiv region (South Bulgaria, altitude 150 m). During the dry years it was significantly higher than in the medium and humid years. The range of ky for maize in this location was 1.12–1.90, the average value being 1.50. The climate in the Sofia region (the ex-perimental field of Chelopechene, altitude 550 m) is comparatively more humid. The two regions approximately outlined the boundaries of the appropriate economical conditions for grain maize pro-duction. The experiments in the Sofia region were carried out in the years 1994–2000. The seven years results for mean variety maize showed that the relationships “yield – evapotranspiration” and, respectively, ky varied at these climatic conditions too. The highest ky value was 1.41 for the driest year (2000) and the lowest value – 1.05 for the most wet years (1995, 1999). The value of ky for av-erage years was 1.21. The yield response factor ky is of more significance when the relative evapotranspiration is less than 0.7–0.8. Thus, the extreme or the average values of ky could be used for the corresponding climatic regions. The relationships between ky and relative yield were estab-lished without considering irrigation.
Water is a sensitive and limited resource, mainly in intensively used agricultural areas in Austria, where groundwater is used as drinking water as well as for irrigation purposes. In order to guarantee a sustainable use of irrigation water, soil water measurement devices can be used to opti-mise irrigation, which means that controlling the soil water content in the entire root system may prevent water stress due to water deficiency on the one hand, and over wetting on the other hand. Furthermore, losses of nutrients due to leaching can be avoided. Several research studies on that topic were initiated during the last few years. The soil water status on selected fields planted with different crops (onions, carrots, sugar beets, sweet maize, zucchini) was monitored continuously by FDR (Fre-quency Domain Reflectometry) soil water measurement devices. Sensors in different depths measure the plant water uptake in the root zone under standard irrigation practices on different sites and dif-ferent soils, respectively. The deepest sensor is installed to avoid deep percolation caused by over irrigation. By means of these data, irrigation could be regulated based on the actual plant water re-quirements to keep the soil water content within an ideal range for crop development.
The objective of the study was to characterise the quality of surface waters in order to de-termine their vulnerability to pollution by nitrogen compounds from agricultural activity, as well as to specify the areas with increased exposure, where nitrogen runoff from agricultural sources has to be reduced. It was necessary to determine surface waters liable to pollution by these compounds due to the fact that agricultural production should be carried out in the way which limits and prevents water pollution by nitrogen compounds of agricultural origin. The study addressed the following is-sues: the concentration of nitrogen compounds in the surface waters of the Middle Odra Basin, and the extent of eutrophication in flowing inland waters (with nitrogen as the main nutrient). The results have been plotted in figures and gathered in tables.
No adequate reaction has been observed of the decreased contaminant loads discharged by Łódź, particularly the loads of phosphorus, on its concentration in the Ner River. That’s why the im-pact of sediment on phosphorus content in the water was evaluated. Not only was the amount of phosphorus taken under consideration but also the equilibrium phosphate concentration (EPCo). The meaning of EPCo is that any phosphate concentration in the water below this value will lead to phos-phorus release from sediments. Performed study shows that in the Puczniew cross-section EPCo is higher then phosphorus concentration in water, thus with mean concentration of PO4 equal to 9.5 mg PO4·dm–3 phosphorus could be released from sediments. This concentration in Lutomiersk cross-section, however, equals 1.2 mg PO4·dm–3.
There are 40 coal mines in Poland now. One of them (coal mine “Bogdanka”) is situated in Lublin Coal Basin, other are localised in Silesia and Małopolska regions. Coal mining is a source of large amounts of wastes. Mean annual production of wastes in only Lublin Coal Basin exceeds 2 million Mg, 65% of which is disposed on a heap. The rest is used to restore opencast excavations, to construct and repair local roads and to produce building materials. It seems that large amount of these wastes could be used to construct or modernize flood embankments and dykes. Using mine wastes as building materials requires the knowledge of their geotechnical parameters. A characteristic feature of mine wastes is their gradual weathering which affects geotechnical parameters largely determined by their mineral and petrographic composition.
This paper describes analyses of geotechnical parameters of mine wastes from Lublin Coal Basin (heap near coal mine “Bogdanka”) of various storage times and of samples collected after 10 years of exploitation of a dyke between ponds made of these wastes at the break of 1993 and 1994. Detailed analyses involved: grain size distribution, natural and optimum moisture content, maximum dry den-sity, shear strength and coefficient of permeability. Obtained results were compared with literature data pertaining to mine wastes from Upper Silesian Coal Basin and from other European coal basins.
Performed studies showed that coal mining wastes produced in Lublin Coal Basin significantly differed in the grain size distribution from wastes originating from Upper Silesian Coal Basin and that weathering proceeded in a different way in wastes produced in both sites.
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