Skip to content
Home » Authors » Abstract Submission » Quality Control

Quality Control

Each abstract will be reviewed anony­mous­ly by three experts of the Inter­na­tion­al Sci­en­tif­ic Com­mit­tee. They will score your abstract by using their expert knowl­edge and six cat­e­gories (con­tent, sig­nif­i­cance, orig­i­nal­i­ty, rel­e­vance, pre­sen­ta­tion and rec­om­men­da­tion). Based on their results, your abstract will get between 0 and 10 points and will be clas­si­fied into: accept­ed as oral pre­sen­ta­tion (≈ 6 – 10 points), poster pre­sen­ta­tion (≈ 3.5 – 6 points) or reject­ed (≈ 0 – 3.5 points). Review­ers have the oppor­tu­ni­ty to over­rule the point-based-deci­sion if they think a very good abstract should become a poster or a not so good abstract should be improved and pre­sent­ed oral­ly if the sub­ject is of high inter­est. This can be done through an inter­nal com­ment­ing sys­tem.

Before we send out the abstracts to the review­ers, your abstract under­goes a qual­i­ty con­trol, which is based on the review results of ear­li­er WVTF | IMWA con­fer­ences. The qual­i­ty con­trol checks the fol­low­ing:

  • Is your abstract short­er than 270 words?
  • Has your abstract less than 3 para­graphs?
  • Did you avoid the word “heavy met­als”?
  • Did you avoid the expres­sion “ppm” or “ppb”?
  • Did you avoid the word “sig­nif­i­cant” unless you used a sta­tis­ti­cal test?
  • Did you use the word “impact” unless you mean an “envi­ron­men­tal impact”?

As this is an auto­mat­ed process, and you might get a wrong “false” – for which we want to apol­o­gize. Yet, the large num­ber of abstracts we will receive does not allow us to man­u­al­ly ver­i­fy each result.