Details
Title
Effect of long-term fertilization of the permanent dry meadow on the zinc content in soil and meadow swardJournal title
Journal of Water and Land DevelopmentYearbook
2020Numer
No 47Authors
Keywords
fertilization ; irrigation meadow ; non-irrigation meadow ; permanent meadow ; soil ; sward ; zincDivisions of PAS
Nauki Biologiczne i RolniczeCoverage
61-65Publisher
Polish Academy of Sciences Committee on Agronomic Sciences Section of Land Reclamation and Environmental Engineering in Agriculture; Institute of Technology and Life SciencesDate
2020.12.21Type
ArticleIdentifier
DOI: 10.24425/jwld.2020.135032Source
Journal of Water and Land Development; 2020; No 47; 61-65Abstracting & Indexing
Abstracting & Indexing
Journal of Water and Land Development is covered by the following services:
AGRICOLA (National Agricultural Library)
AGRIS
AGRO
Arianta
Baidu Scholar
Cabell's Whitelist
CABI (over 50 subsections)
Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) - CAplus
Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) - SciFinder
CNKI Scholar (China National Knowledge Infrastructure)
CNPIEC - cnpLINKer
Current Geographical Publications Dimensions
DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals)
EBSCO (relevant databases)
EBSCO Discovery Service
Engineering Village
Genamics JournalSeek
GeoArchive
GeoRef
Google Scholar
Index Copernicus
Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST)
J-Gate
JournalGuide
JournalTOCs
KESLI-NDSL (Korean National Discovery for Science Leaders)
Microsoft Academic
MyScienceWork
Naver Academic
Naviga (Softweco)
POL-index
Polish Scientific Journals Contents
Primo Central (ExLibris)
ProQuest (relevant databases)
Publons QOAM (Quality Open Access Market)
ReadCube
Reaxys
SCImago (SJR)
SCOPUS
Semantic Scholar
Sherpa/RoMEO
SIGZ
Summon (ProQuest)
TDNet
Ulrich's Periodicals Directory/ulrichsweb
WanFang Data
WorldCat (OCLC)
Publication Ethics Policy
ETHICAL PRINCIPLESEditors of the "Journal of Water and Land Development" pay attention to maintain ethical standards in scientific publications and undertake any possible measure to counteract neglecting the standards. Papers submitted for publication are evaluated with respect to reliability, conforming to ethical standards and the advancement of science. Principles given below are based on COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors, which may be found at:
http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/Best_Practice.pdf
Authors’ duties
Authorship
Authorship should be limited to persons, who markedly contributed to the idea, project, realization and interpretation of results. All of them have to be listed as co-authors. Other persons, who affected some important parts of the study should be listed or mentioned as co-workers. Author should be certain that all co-authors were enlisted, saw and accepted final version of the paper and agreed upon its publication.
Disclosure and conflict of interests
Author should disclose all sources of financing of his/her study, the input of scientific institutions, associations and other subjects and all important conflicts of interests that might affect results and interpretation of the study.
Standards in reporting
Authors of papers based on original studies should present precise description of performed work and objective discussion on its importance. Source data should be accurately presented in the paper. The paper should contain detailed information and references that would enable others to use it. False or intentionally not true declarations are not ethical and are not accepted by the editors.
Access to and storage of data
Authors may be asked for providing raw data used in the paper for editorial assessment and should be prepared to store them within the reasonable time period after publication.
Multiple, unnecessary and competitive publications
As a rule author should not publish papers describing the same studies in more than one journal or primary publication. Submission of the same paper to more than one journal at the same time is not ethical and prohibited.
Confirmation of sources
Author should cite papers that affected the creation of submitted manuscript and every time he/she should confirm the use of other authors’ work.
Important errors in published papers
When author finds an important error or inaccuracy in his/her paper, he/she is obliged to inform Editorial Office about this as soon as possible.
Originality and plagiarism
Author may submit only original papers. He/she should be certain that the names of authors referred to in the paper and/or fragments of their texts are properly cited or mentioned.
Ghostwriting
Ghost writing/guest authorship are manifestation of scientific unreliability and all such cases will be revealed including notification of appropriate subjects. Signs of scientific unreliability, especially violation of ethical principles in science will be documented by the Editorial Office.
Duties of the Editorial Office
Editors’ duties
Editors know the rules of journal editing including the procedures applied in case of uncovering non-ethical practices.
Decisions on publication
Editor-in Chief is obliged to apply present legal status as to defamation, violation of author’s rights and plagiarism and bears the responsibility for decisions. He/she may consult thematic editors and/or referees in that matter.
Selection of referees
Editorial Office provides appropriate selection of referees and takes care about appropriate course of peer –reviewing (the review has to be substantive).
Confidentiality
Every member of editorial team is not allowed to disclose information about submitted paper to any person except its author, referees, other advisors and editors.
Discrimination
To counteract discrimination the Editorial Office obeys the legally binding rules.
Disclosure and conflict of interests
Not published papers or their fragments cannot be used in the studies of editorial team or ref-erees without written consent of the author.
Referees' duties
Editorial decisions
Referee supports Editor-in-Chief in taking editorial decisions and may also support author in improving the paper.
Back information
In case a selected referee is not able to review the paper or cannot do it in due time period, he/she should inform secretary of the Editorial Office about this fact.
Objectivity standards
Reviews should be objective. Personal criticism is inappropriate. Referees should clearly ex-press their opinions and support them with proper arguments.
Confidentiality
All reviewed papers should be dealt with as confidential. They should not be discussed or revealed to persons other than the secretary of the Editorial Office.
Anonymity
All reviews should be made anonymously and the Editorial Office does not disclose names of the authors to referees.
Disclosure and conflict of interests
Confidential information or ideas resulting from reviewing procedure should be kept secret and should not be used to gain personal benefits. Referees should not review papers, which might generate conflict of interests resulting from relationships with the author, firm or institution involved in the study.
Confirmation of sources
Referees should indicate publications which are not referred to in the paper. Any statement that the observation, source or argument was described previously should be supported by appropriate citation. Referee should also inform the secretary of the Editorial Office about significant similarity to or partial overlapping of the reviewed paper with any other published paper and about suspected plagiarism.
Peer-review Procedure
Reviewing procedureProcedure of reviewing submitted papers agrees with recommendations of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education published in a booklet: „Dobre praktyki w procedurach recenzyjnych w nauce”.
http://www.nauka.gov.pl/g2/oryginal/2014_02/307f933b1a75d6705a4406d5452d6dbf.pdf
Reviewing form may be downloaded from the Journal’s web page.
1.Papers submitted to the Editorial Office are primarily verified by editors withrespect to merit and formal issues. Texts with obvious errors (formatting other than requested, missing references, evidently low scientific quality) will be rejected at this stage.
2.Primarily accepted papers are sent to the two independent referees from outside the author’s institution, who:
- have no conflict of interests with the author,
- are not in professional relationships with the author,
- are competent in a given discipline and have at least doctor’s degree and respective scientific achievements,
- have unblemished reputation as reviewers.
4.Reviewing proceeds in the double blind process (authors and reviewers do notknow each other’s names) recommended by the Ministry.
5.A number is attributed to the paper to identify it in further stages of editorial procedure.
6.Potential referee obtains summary of the text and it is his/her decision upon accepting/rejecting the paper for review within a given time period.
7.Referees are obliged to keep opinions about the paper confidential and to not use knowledge about it before publication.
8.Review must have a written form and end up with an explicit conclusion about accepting or rejecting the paper from publication. Referee has a possibility to conclude his/her opinion in a form:
- accept without revision;
- accept with minor revision;
- accept after major revision,
- re-submission and further reviewing after complete re-arrangement of the paper,
- reject.
10.Editors do not accept reviews, which do not conform to merit and formal rules of scientific reviewing like short positive or negative remarks not supported by a close scrutiny or definitely critical reviews with positive final conclusion and vice versa. Referee’s remarks are presented to the author. Rational and motivated conclusions are obligatory for the author. He/she has to consider all remarks and revise the text accordingly. Referee has the right to verify so revised text.
11.Author of the text has the right to comment referee’s conclusions in case he/she does not agree with them.
12.Editor-in Chief (supported by members of the Editorial Board) decides upon publication based on remarks and conclusions presented by referees, author’s comments and the final version of the manuscript.
13.Rules of acceptation or rejection of the paper and the review form are available at the web page of the Editorial House or the journal.
14.Once a year Editorial Office publishes present list of cooperating reviewers.
15.According to usual habit, reviewing is free of charge.
16.Papers rejected by referees are archived at the Editorial Office for 5 years.