How to review IMWA Abstracts

When review­ing abstracts for an Inter­na­tion­al Mine Water Asso­ci­ation (IMWA) con­fer­ence, it’s import­ant to ensure that sub­mis­sions meet high sci­entif­ic and top­ic­al stand­ards. IMWA seeks high-qual­ity abstracts that con­trib­ute to the under­stand­ing, man­age­ment and sus­tain­ab­il­ity of mine water sys­tems. Although IMWA does­n’t have strict guidelines for abstract review­ers, the fol­low­ing tips will help you to eval­u­ate abstracts fairly, accur­ately and con­sist­ently in line with IMWA’s object­ives. Do not use arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence-based LLMs, such as Chat­G­PT, as we will delete both the review and the review­er from our data­base.

  1. Rel­ev­ance to mine water sci­ence and prac­tice Begin by assess­ing wheth­er the abstract is with­in the scope of the Con­fer­ence, which includes top­ics such as mine water hydro­logy, water treat­ment, hydro­geo­logy, geo­chem­istry, envir­on­ment­al impacts, and emer­ging tech­no­lo­gies in mine water man­age­ment (detailed list on the Con­fer­ence web page). Ensure that the top­ic is appro­pri­ate for the Con­fer­ence and that the research provides insights that are valu­able to pro­fes­sion­als in the mine water com­munity. Ask your­self, if the abstract is of rel­ev­ance and if you would like to listen to the talk.
  2. Sci­entif­ic qual­ity and ori­gin­al­ity Eval­u­ate the ori­gin­al­ity of the research. Look for innov­at­ive approaches or nov­el find­ings that advance the field. Abstracts should rep­res­ent well-designed stud­ies, sound meth­od­o­logy and rig­or­ous ana­lys­is. Look for clar­ity in the present­a­tion of object­ives, meth­ods, res­ults and con­clu­sions. Abstracts that are too vague or lack detailed meth­od­o­logy may indic­ate insuf­fi­cient sci­entif­ic qual­ity.
  3. Struc­ture and clar­ity A well-struc­tured abstract will help review­ers and par­ti­cipants to quickly under­stand the pur­pose, res­ults and rel­ev­ance of the study. IMWA abstracts should ideally con­tain four parts: the back­ground or prob­lem state­ment, the approach or meth­od­o­logy, the main res­ults and the con­clu­sions. Each part should be clear, con­cise and free from jar­gon or ambi­gu­ity. Clar­ity of com­mu­nic­a­tion is essen­tial as it demon­strates the author’s abil­ity to com­mu­nic­ate com­plex ideas effect­ively.
  4. Prac­tic­al implic­a­tions and con­tri­bu­tions to mine water man­age­ment IMWA places a high value on applied research that can bene­fit mine water prac­ti­tion­ers. Con­sider the prac­tic­al applic­a­tions of the research, par­tic­u­larly if it pro­poses solu­tions, frame­works or tech­no­lo­gies that could be adop­ted by the industry. Abstracts should ideally address real-world issues and present find­ings that could aid decision mak­ing, improve mine water qual­ity or sup­port envir­on­ment­al sus­tain­ab­il­ity.
  5. Tech­nic­al accur­acy and writ­ing qual­ity Accur­ate and pol­ished abstracts enhance cred­ib­il­ity. Ensure that the abstract is free of gram­mat­ic­al errors, spelling mis­takes, tech­nic­al inac­curacies and incon­sist­en­cies. Poor lan­guage qual­ity can detract from oth­er­wise good research and hinder under­stand­ing. Flag any sec­tions that need rewrit­ing for clar­ity or accur­acy. Ensure that the terms impact (except for envir­on­ment­al or met­eor­ite impact), sig­ni­fic­ant (except for stat­ist­ic­al ana­lys­is) and heavy metals are not used in the title or abstract.
  6. Respect eth­ic­al stand­ards Finally, ensure that the abstract meets eth­ic­al stand­ards in research, such as prop­er data hand­ling, acknow­ledg­ment of sources (this is not required in abstracts) and, where rel­ev­ant, adher­ence to safety and envir­on­ment­al pro­to­cols. Abstracts that demon­strate eth­ic­al integ­rity reflect the high stand­ards upheld by IMWA.

By fol­low­ing these guidelines, review­ers can con­trib­ute to the suc­cess of IMWA con­fer­ences and ensure that only the highest qual­ity and rel­ev­ant research or case stud­ies are presen­ted to advance mine water sci­ence and prac­tice.