Peer review declaration

Abstract

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Double-blind All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. In order to maintain and ensure the highest quality in the conference proceedings and comply with the requirements for subsidy of the South African Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET), a rigorous two-stage system of peer review by no less than two acknowledged experts in the field was followed. In terms of this process, each abstract received was twice blind reviewed in terms of: ○ Relevance to overall conference theme and objectives; ○ Relevance to selected sub-theme; ○ Originality of material; ○ Academic rigour; ○ Contribution to knowledge; and ○ Research methodology. Authors whose abstracts were accepted after a blind peer review process was completed were provided with anonymous reviewers’ comments and requested to submit their full papers noting and addressing these comments. Evidence was required relative to the actions taken by authors regarding the comments received. These resubmitted papers were twice blind reviewed again in terms of: ○ Relevance to overall conference theme and objectives; ○ Relevance to selected sub-theme; ○ Originality of material; ○ Academic rigour; ○ Contribution to knowledge; ○ Research methodology and robustness of analysis of findings; ○ Empirical research findings; and ○ Critical current literature review. Authors whose papers were accepted after the second review were provided with additional anonymous reviewers’ comments and requested to submit their revised full papers. These final papers were only included in both the conference presentation schedule and the conference proceedings after evidence was provided that all comments were appropriately responded to, having been multiple peer-reviewed for publication. At no stage was any member of the Scientific and Technical Committee or the editor of the proceedings involved in the review process relative to their own authored or co-authored papers. To be eligible for inclusion these papers were required to receive one of three recommendations from at least two reviewers, namely; • Accepted for publication or • Provisional acceptance provided minor changes / corrections are made or • To re-submit for publication provided author/s reconsider/s the areas of concern • Conference submission management system: Easy Chair Conference Management System • Number of submissions received: 63 • Number of submissions sent for review: 63 • Number of submissions accepted: 39 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 62% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 reviews per paper • Total number of reviewers involved: 33 reviewers • Any additional info on review process: • Contact person for queries: Mariam Akinlolu Mangosuthu University of Technology [email protected]