Submissions

Submission Preparation Checklist

All submissions must meet the following requirements.

• The submission has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal for consideration (or an explanation has been provided in Comments to the Editor).
• The submission file is in OpenOffice, Microsoft Word, or RTF document file format.
• Where available, URLs for the references have been provided.
• The text is single-spaced; uses a 12-point font; employs italics, rather than underlining (except with URL addresses); and all illustrations, figures, and tables are placed within the text at the appropriate points, rather than at the end.
• The text adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines.

Policy on the Use of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies

To ensure transparency and uphold the integrity of scientific authorship, the Journal of Hydrology and Hydromechanics requires all authors to disclose any use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) or AI-assisted tools during the preparation of their manuscripts. These technologies, such as ChatGPT or similar tools, may be used only to improve the readability, grammar, or style of a manuscript. They must not be used to generate original scientific content, conduct data analysis, or perform any task that constitutes substantive intellectual contribution. The use of AI must be guided by human oversight at all times. Authors are fully responsible for reviewing, verifying, and editing any AI-generated content to ensure its accuracy, originality, and scientific integrity. AI tools may not be listed as authors or co-authors. Authorship requires intellectual responsibility, critical judgment, and accountability, criteria that can only be met by human contributors. If generative AI or AI-assisted technologies were used during manuscript preparation (beyond standard spelling or grammar checks), this must be clearly disclosed in a dedicated section titled: “Declaration of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in the Writing Process” This declaration should appear before the reference list. If no such tools were used, no declaration is necessary. At this time, reviewers and editors are not permitted to use generative AI tools during the peer-review or editorial decision-making process. This measure is essential to maintain author confidentiality and uphold the rigor and objectivity of peer review. The journal will continue to monitor technological developments and revise this policy as necessary in accordance with best practices and ethical guidelines.

Peer Review Process

The Journal of Hydrology and Hydromechanics (JHH) operates a single-blind peer review system. Reviewers know the identity of the authors, but authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. This model ensures objectivity while allowing reviewers to assess the manuscript in the context of the authors’ previous work.

All manuscripts submitted to JHH undergo a rigorous and fair peer-review process to maintain the highest scientific standards.

Overview of the Peer Review Process

1. Manuscript Submission and Initial Editorial Assessment Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief archives the manuscript and performs an initial check for suitability. Manuscripts that clearly fall outside the scope of the journal (e.g., topics unrelated to hydrology, hydromechanics, or related fields) are rejected and returned to the corresponding author without further review.
2. Editorial Screening The Editor-in-Chief or a Co-Editor checks the manuscript for completeness, adherence to journal guidelines, and basic scientific quality. Manuscripts that do not meet minimum standards may be rejected at this stage (desk rejection).
3. Reviewer Selection Suitable manuscripts are assigned to a competent Associate Editor based on the subject area. The Associate Editor invites minimally two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest.
4. Review Process Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript within 21–30 days and submit their reports using the official Review Sheet. The review focuses on scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, clarity, and relevance to the journal’s scope.
5. Editorial Decision-Making After receiving the reviews, the Associate Editor prepares a letter with initial decision and the reviewers’ comments (blind) and additional editorial remarks. The letter is sent to the corresponding author.
6. Manuscript Revision Procedures
   1. Minor Revision: Authors are usually asked to submit a revised version within 2–3 weeks.
   2. Major Revision: Authors are typically given up to 1 month to resubmit.

The revised manuscript is re-evaluated by the Associate Editor (and reviewers if necessary) to ensure that all comments have been adequately addressed. The Associate Editor then recommends acceptance or next revision.

7. Final Acceptance or Rejection Once all revisions are satisfactorily completed, the Associate Editor makes a suggestion to the Co-Editor or the Editor-in-Chief, who makes the final decision on publication. The corresponding author is notified of the outcome. The entire review process is expected to take no longer than 6 months from initial submission.

Additional Information

• Number of Reviewers: Normally two reviewers per manuscript. In cases of highly contradictory recommendations, the Associate Editor may invite a third reviewer or consult with the Editor-in-Chief.
• Handling Contradictory Recommendations: If reviewers provide strongly opposing opinions, the Associate Editor carefully weighs the arguments. The manuscript may be sent to an additional reviewer, accepted conditionally, returned for major revision, or rejected if it does not meet the journal’s standards.
• Review-Related Costs: There are no fees associated with the peer review process.
• Confidentiality: Manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share or discuss the content with others without permission.

Review Sheet

All reviewers are required to complete the official Review Sheet, which is available for download here. This ensures structured, consistent, and transparent evaluations.

Ethical Statement

Journal of Hydrology and Hydromechanics (JHH) is firmly committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and academic integrity. In alignment with the best practices recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), all stakeholders in the publication process – including authors, reviewers, and editors – are expected to follow strict ethical guidelines to ensure the scientific quality, transparency, and trustworthiness of the research published in the journal.

1. Originality and Plagiarism: Manuscripts submitted to JHH must be entirely original. Authors are responsible for ensuring that the work does not contain plagiarized material, including self-plagiarism, and that all sources are properly cited or quoted. Submitted manuscripts are subject to plagiarism detection tools. Any form of academic misconduct will result in immediate rejection or retraction of the manuscript.
2. Authorship and Acknowledgment: Authorship should reflect substantial contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the research. Individuals who made lesser contributions should be listed in the Acknowledgments. All authors must agree on the final version of the manuscript and on its submission to JHH.
3. Conflicts of Interest: All authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose any financial, personal, or professional conflicts of interest that could potentially influence the interpretation or evaluation of the manuscript. A conflict-of-interest statement must be included with every submission.
4. Integrity and Accuracy of Data: Authors are expected to report data truthfully and accurately. Data fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate manipulation are serious violations of ethical standards. Underlying data should be preserved and made available to editors or reviewers upon request.
5. Duplicate or Redundant Publication: Authors must not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. Duplicate publication, or division of a study into multiple parts, is considered unethical unless clearly justified and properly cross-referenced.
6. Error Notification and Corrections In the event that authors discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work, they are obliged to promptly inform the JHH editorial office. The journal will collaborate with the authors to issue corrections, retractions, or editorial notes as appropriate.
7. Participant Consent and Data Privacy: When publishing research involving identifiable data from human participants (e.g., survey or interview data), authors must ensure that proper informed consent for publication has been obtained and that participant confidentiality is protected.
8. Editorial Responsibilities: Editors of JHH are entrusted with ensuring the academic integrity, fairness, and quality of the peer review process. Editorial decisions are based solely on scholarly merit, relevance to the journal’s scope, and adherence to ethical principles. Editors must recuse themselves in cases of conflicts of interest and maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.