Review Process | IMWA2026

IMWA 2026 Abstract and Full Paper Review How to review IMWA Abstracts How to review an IMWA Full Paper How to anonymise your MS Word review

Abstract Review

All abstracts are double-blind reviewed double-blind by three to five members of the International Scientific Committee (ISC).

Pre-Review Quality Check

Before abstracts are sent to reviewers, a quality check is performed based on the following criteria:

Abstract length (word count)
Number of paragraphs
Use of scientifically inappropriate or deprecated expressions, including:
- heavy metals
- Liquid units in ppm/ppb
- significant without statistical validation
- impact when not referring to environmental or meteorite impact

These criteria are based on prior IMWA conference experience. Abstracts not meeting these criteria may receive lower scores.

Review Categories and Scoring

Reviewers select one category and provide overall comments:

Strong Oral

Must-have oral presentation 100

Moderate Oral

Acceptable but not outstanding 90

Weak Oral

Barely acceptable 60

Poster

Interesting but not suitable for oral 40

Reject

Very poorly prepared 0

The final score is calculated by averaging the reviewer scores and dividing by 10, resulting in a 0–10 scale.

< 4 : Reject (≈ 3%)
4–6 : Poster (≈ 19%)
≥ 6 : Oral presentation (≈ 78%)

Reviewers may adjust results using the internal comment system, for example:

Downgrading a weak abstract to a poster
Recommending an abstract with lower quality but high academic relevance for oral presentation

After the review process, authors receive review results and reviewer comments.

Full Paper Review

Abstracts accepted for oral presentation must submit a full paper of 4–6 pages, which will be published in the IMWA 2026 Proceedings Volume. Full papers must follow the Mine Water and the Environment journal formatting guidelines.

Oral presentations are only assigned to authors who have paid full registration fees and submitted the full paper.
Poster presenters may optionally submit a full paper, which will also be included in the Proceedings Volume.

Paper Review Procedure

Each full paper is evaluated by two reviewers.

Authors are given the opportunity to revise their paper based on reviewer comments.

Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors.

Papers meeting IMWA quality standards will be published in the Proceedings Volume.

Papers failing to meet quality standards cannot be published or presented.

IMWA 2026 Guidelines for Abstract Reviewers

The abstract review process for IMWA conferences evaluates whether submissions meet high academic and topical standards. IMWA seeks abstracts that advance understanding, management, and sustainability of mine water systems.

While IMWA does not impose rigid rules on reviewers, the following guidelines aim to help evaluate abstracts fairly, accurately, and consistently.

Important: Do not use AI-based language models (e.g., ChatGPT) to generate review content. Any review generated in this way, along with reviewer information, will be deleted from the database.

Relevance to Mine Water Theory and Practice

First, verify whether the abstract falls within the conference scope.
Relevant topics include mine water hydrology, treatment, hydrogeology, geochemistry, environmental impacts, and innovative mine water management technologies (see conference topics page for details).
Assess whether the research topic is suitable for the conference and provides valuable insights to mine water professionals.
Ask yourself: Is this abstract meaningful to me? Would I want to attend this presentation?

Academic Quality and Originality

Evaluate the originality of the research. Does it introduce new approaches or make a scientific contribution?
Abstracts should reflect a systematic study design, valid methodology, and rigorous analysis.
Research objectives, methods, results, and conclusions must be clearly presented.
Abstracts that are overly vague or lack specific methodology may indicate insufficient academic quality.

Structure and Clarity

A well-structured abstract allows readers to quickly grasp the research objectives, results, and significance.
An ideal IMWA abstract includes the following four elements:
1. Background or problem statement
2. Approach or research methodology
3. Key results
4. Conclusions
Each section should be clear and concise, avoiding unnecessary jargon or ambiguous expressions.
Clear communication demonstrates the author’s ability to convey complex ideas effectively

Practical Contribution and Applicability to Mine Water Management

IMWA values research with real-world applicability.
Assess whether the solutions, frameworks, or technologies proposed can be applied in practice.
Abstracts should address practical challenges and have the potential to support decision-making, improve mine water quality, or enhance environmental sustainability.

Technical Accuracy and Writing Quality

Accurate and well-written abstracts enhance the credibility of the research.
Ensure there are no grammar errors, spelling mistakes, technical inaccuracies, or inconsistencies.
Poor language quality may disadvantage otherwise excellent research.
Indicate areas where clarity or accuracy requires improvement.
Avoid the following words in titles and abstracts:
- impact (allowed only as environmental impact or meteorite impact)
- significant (allowed only when supported by statistical analysis)
- heavy metals

Research Ethics

Abstracts must comply with research ethics.
Verify proper data handling, adherence to safety and environmental regulations, and integrity of research practices.
Ethical integrity reflects IMWA’s commitment to high academic standards.

Following these guidelines ensures that reviewers contribute to the success of the IMWA conference, guaranteeing that only meaningful research and case studies in mine water science and practice are presented.

IMWA 2026 Full Paper Review Guidelines

The review of full papers submitted to the International Mine Water Association (IMWA) conferences aims to ensure that manuscripts meet high scientific standards and are relevant to the conference topics. IMWA seeks high-quality papers that contribute to the understanding, management, and sustainability of mine water systems. While IMWA does not impose rigid rules for reviewers, the guidelines below will help ensure fair, accurate, and consistent evaluations.

Preparing Review Comments

After reading the manuscript, provide specific and constructive feedback to help authors improve their work.

Avoid simple statements such as “Reject this paper” or “Excellent, accept as is.” These are not helpful to authors or editors.
Clearly and respectfully point out areas for improvement in text, figures, and references.
Comments can be inserted directly in the Word manuscript or submitted via the ConfTool review form.
If using Word comments, ensure anonymity by removing personal information. (Refer to anonymization guidelines .)

AI Use Policy

To protect author rights and research confidentiality, IMWA does not allow the use of generative AI or AI-assisted tools (e.g., ChatGPT) for paper review. IMWA is reviewing AI tools and may update this policy in the future.

Any review confirmed to be generated with LLM-based AI will result in the removal of the review and reviewer from the database.

Evaluation Criteria

Relevance to Mine Water Theory and Practice

Ensure the paper fits within the conference scope: mine water hydrology, treatment, hydrogeology, geochemistry, environmental impacts, and new mine water management technologies.
Evaluate whether the topic is suitable for the conference and provides valuable insights to mine water professionals.

Scientific Quality and Originality

Assess originality and novelty of the research.
Verify that the study is well-designed, methodologically sound, and rigorously analyzed.
Objectives, methods, results, and conclusions should be clearly presented. Papers with unclear methodology may be considered scientifically weak.

Structure and Clarity

Papers should be clearly structured for rapid understanding by readers.
A typical IMWA full paper should include following sections:
1. Background or problem definition
2. Approach or methodology
3. Key results
4. Conclusion
5. Acknowledgments
6. References
Each section should be concise and unambiguous. Avoid excessive technical jargon.

Practical Implications and Contribution to Mine Water Management

IMWA values applied research with real-world relevance.
Evaluate whether the study proposes solutions, frameworks, or technologies that can be applied in practice.
Research that supports decision-making, water quality improvement, or environmental sustainability is rated highly.

Technical Accuracy and Writing Quality

Manuscripts must be free from grammatical, spelling, or technical errors.
Poor language quality can reduce perceived credibility and readability.
Mark unclear or ambiguous sections for revision.
Avoid using the following terms in titles or text unless scientifically justified:
- impact (allowed only as environmental impact or meteorite impact)
- significant (allowed only with statistical analysis)
- heavy metals

References Format

Confirm that references follow Mine Water and the Environment (MWEN) journal style.
MWEN uses author-year citations, not numbered references. Example:
Brown MC, Wigley TC, Ford DC (1969) Water budget studies in karst aquifers. J Hydrology 9:113–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022–1694(69)90018–3

Use of Conference Template

Verify that authors used the IMWA conference template.
Proper formatting is important for smooth publication.

Research Ethics Compliance

Full papers must comply with research ethics: data management, source acknowledgment, safety, and environmental regulations.
Ethically sound manuscripts reflect IMWA’s high publication standards.

Conclusion

Following these guidelines helps reviewers contribute to the success of the IMWA conference and ensures that only high-quality research and case studies advancing mine water theory and practice are presented.

How to Anonymize Comments in MS Word

Purpose:
To maintain comments while removing author information from the document, ensuring anonymity.

Inspect and Remove Hidden Metadata

Click File → Info

Select Check for Issues → Inspect Document

Check the option for Document Properties and Personal Information

Click Inspect, then select Remove All in the document properties section

This step removes metadata such as author name, company, and other personal information stored in the document.

Save As a New File

Before closing the original file, select Save As to save it as a new file

Close the original file and open the new file to verify that personal information has been removed

This process preserves all comments while removing personal data from the document.

Following this method allows safe sharing of reviewer comments or submission for anonymous review.