XXVth International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference
Surveying, Geology and Mining, Ecology and Management – SGEM 2025
28 Jun - 7 Jul, 2025
P L A T F O R M
for development of multi-national projects in education and research
PLATFORM project
The Swedish Institute (SI) has funded our pilot project to develop tools and networking infrastructure for international cooperation.
Contact person: Rod Stevens, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. tel: 46-709892750
Website:https://kermitcooperation.wixsite.com/platform
Overview
The system perspective of this conceptual modeling is important for understanding the complexity and for identifying the feasible steps to improve scenario predictions and decision support.
Although the focus of the SI program is on countries in the “European Eastern Partnership” (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Russian Federation, Sweden, Ukraine), we expect to include other partners with an interest in developing cooperation. In addition to Univ. Gothenburg (Sweden; coordinating) the initial PLATFORM consortium included Khazar Univ. (Azerbaijan), Nizhny Novgorod State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering (Russia), and SWS Scholarly Society (Austria).
The main activities are:
We do not begin with building project consortia for specific case studies because we believe the tools for integrating the correct expertise with the relevant stakeholders is essential for addressing complex issues and providing decision support.
Participants In PLATFORM will hopefully come away with both tools and networks for this process of project initiation. Specific case studies (depending upon partner interests) will become increasingly in focus once the methods have been introduced. The initiation and development of the case-study group project activities will illustrate the PLATFORM methodology for new project development.
The scope of the SGEM Conferences on Earth & Planetary Sciences combines 6 main sections: Science and Technologies in Geology, Exploration and Mining; Informatics, Geoinformatics and Remote Sensing; Water Resources, Forest, Marine and Ocean Ecosystems; Energy and Clean Technologies; Ecology, Economics, Education and Legislation Ecosystems; Nano, Bio, Green and Space - Technologies for a Sustainable Future (see all details here).
The Scientific and Program Committee selects researchers, part of the Reviewers list, to be reviewers for every SGEM event. If you are selected, you will receive an invitation from the Scientific and Program Committee for the paper’s peer review process. Then you will have an access to the Abstract & Manuscript Management System (AMMS).
A modern Abstract & Manuscript Management System (AMMS), will help each Reviewer review and evaluate abstracts and manuscripts in the easiest way in a user-friendly environment. There will be a double-blinded peer-review - very important, in order to assure a completely fair peer-review process, without any conflict of interests.
The estimated criteria in the AMMS: Within scope, Originality, Structure, Title, Abstract/Introduction, Methods, Figures and Tables, Results, Conclusion, Language.
The reviewer as well as the Scientific and Program Committee will decide:
- If the author followed the paper’s guidelines?
- If the chosen conference section is right?
- If the delegates, other lecturers and readers will find it interesting and useful?
Normally you would be expected to evaluate the paper according to the following:
- If the abstract is original or new?
- If the study design and methodology are appropriate and described so that others could replicate what is done?
- If the presented results are clear and appropriate?
- If the conclusions are reliable and significant?
- If the work is of a high enough standard to be published in the Conference Proceedings and to be presented at the Conference?
The fair and timely review process done by the reviewers is the key factor for the selection of high-quality papers for presentation and publication. We greatly appreciate reviewers for their contribution to the success of the conference.
What experience you will need to prove?
- Educational qualification and a degree in these fields – PhD and/or be Professor of an accredited academic institution;
- Active researchers in the field of Earth & Planetary Sciences;
- Review experience in other Conference Proceedings or Journal in these fields;
- At least two or more recent publications in peer-reviewed journals or proceedings;
What will be your responsibilities?
- To review the abstract/manuscript objectively and to contribute to the decision-making process from the Scientific and Program Committee;
- To assist in improving the quality of the published papers, in a timely manner;
- To maintain the confidentiality of any information supplied by the editor or author. To make a copy of the manuscript is forbidden;
- To alert the Scientific and Program Committee for any published or submitted content that is substantially like (or similar) to the reviewed paper;
- To be aware of any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative, or other relationships between the reviewer and author) and to alert the Committee.
What will be your benefits?
- You will touch the high-level scientific papers in the field of Earth & Planetary Sciences;
- You will refresh your knowledge and gain experience in the field of Earth & Planetary Sciences;
- You will be involved in the peer review and decision-making process;
- You will be part of SGEM Scientific Committee – section Reviewers;
- You will receive a Certificate and will be included in the main Reviewers section of the SGEM WORLD SCIENCE (SWS) Society (https://sgemworld.at). You will set up your reputation;
- You will earn points and will have special bonuses if you want to publish papers in SGEM Proceedings and/or SWS Journal of Earth & Planetary Sciences.
What to do, if I want to apply for a Reviewer?
- Copy of your educational qualification and degree – PhD etc. in these fields;
- Proof of your review experience in other Conference Proceedings or Journal in these fields;
- Certificates for excellent English, if you are not English native speaking;
- Your recent photo (with proof) and your contact/address details.
- Excellent English (verbal and written) language;
- Wish to be part of the SGEM Scientific and Program Committee – section Reviewers.
If you think you could fulfill these requirements and are interested in becoming a SGEM Proceedings reviewer, send us email to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. with all the needed documents as attached files.
We are expecting you! Be part of the big scientific SWS Society of Earth & Planetary Sciences.
If you are already a member of the big SGEM Conferences family, please write us the exact year, your published paper title and SGEM ID (preferably).
The SWS Scholarly Society International Scientific Committee dedicates itself to the broad dissemination and recognition of your scholarly work. We prioritize elevating the impact and accessibility of all articles published within our network, and do our best ensuring their prominence across a wide array of abstracting and citation databases. Our efforts aim to make these contributions readily accessible and influential within the global scientific community.
We collaborate closely with esteemed databases such as Elsevier's databases / Scopus, Clarivate Analytics' databases, ProQuest, EBSCO (Academic Search Complete), Crossref, GeoRef, Petroleum Abstracts, Google Scholar, Mendeley and RSCI (part of Web of Science), among others. The evaluation and indexation of our proceedings and journals in these and other databases are vital in presenting comprehensive insights into research trends and citation impacts, thus shaping the academic discourse.
Working with these databases and having contracts with part of them, we ensure that our authors' research receives global recognition. This commitment involves submitting conference proceedings for evaluation annually on these platforms. It’s important to note, however, that the timeline for evaluation and indexation is not within our control. It varies according to the databases’ procedures, submission volumes, and specific scientific interests of the specific databases.
We try to navigate these complexities with a nuanced understanding of the databases' expectations and timelines, ensuring that our authors' works are positioned for maximum visibility and impact. While the journey from submission to indexation may differ in length, our team remains dedicated to monitoring and facilitating every step of the process. Our proactive approach and continuous communication with these databases underscore our commitment to advancing the reach of the research we champion.
The entire peer review process takes within 2 or 3 weeks after abstract/manuscript submission, according to the number of submitted manuscripts.
All the Reviewers are independent scientists and experts in their respective fields.
MAIN STEPS -
from abstract submission to full paper acceptance and publication process:
- The abstracts/extended abstracts must be submitted through the platform (website). Email submissions are accepted by exception only;
- Before submission, each author first should register himself by filling in My Profile section and giving short professional information. This information is confidential, but allows the Scientific and Program committee to control the workflow process and to maintain an audit trail of reviews despite the anonymity of both sides - authors and peer reviewers;
- By submitting his paper electronically/or by email, each author confirms that he is aware of the Publication Ethic & Malpractice Statement and the Privacy Policy of the event;
- After submissions, the abstracts/extended abstracts automatically go in the pipeline for peer review - a process controlled by the Abstract & Manuscript Management System (AMMS);
- Each abstract is reviewed in a double-blind peer-review process by 2 reviewers minimum. The double-blind review process ensured that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous during the whole process. The authors do not know their reviewers and the reviewers don’t know the author/s of the reviewed abstracts;
- Reviewers complete their tasks in the Abstract & Manuscript Management System (AMMS). They should be prepared to provide some detail, particularly for negative evaluations. The reviewers could provide comment/feedback in AMMS, and private feedback for the other members of the EPS Scientific and Program Committee;
- Some of the submitted abstracts could be rejected, due to quality reasons or because the research is not within the scope of the conference. The abstracts are evaluated on academic validity, their adherence to the conference papers rules, conference topics, sub-topics, and conference scope;
- When the review process is completed, authors are informed about the final decision of the review committee. There is a possibility the author to me asked to make some minor or major modifications of the abstract, the full paper or the chosen section;
- Full papers must be uploaded in needed formats (see main requirements). A special template is also provided here, in order to help authors, while preparing their full manuscript. Full papers must be uploaded directly throughout the platform (web site My Article section). Authors could update their abstract or full paper, any time till the final stage of the pre-printing process. Papers that do not correspond to the abstracts will be rejected;
- After full paper submission, there is a second peer-review process (with peer review criteria), that insured the academic validity and relevance of the paper. During this stage, authors could be encouraged to revise the papers in case: - full paper does not correspond to the initially submitted abstract, references are incorrectly formatted, grammar issues or there is a need for the academic aspect of the paper to be improved;
- After the acceptance of the papers, they are copy-edited by the copy-editing team for final corrections. The authors also could review the proof for any final corrections. The copy-editing team reserves the right for style edit, format and length;
- The complete process should be finished prior to the oral/poster presentations at the conference venue. The accepted papers must be presented during the conference by the corresponding author - registered as a Lecturer. Every lecturer may join the event together with a co-lecturer/co-author, who is involved in the research and also registered as a Co-Lecturer;
- The authors/speakers are responsible for the quality of their oral/poster presentations.
Impact Factor
Measuring Your Impact - how it will be calculated? Some basic help with Impact Factor, Citation Analysis, and other Metrics...
OVERVIEW: The term Bibliométrie was first used by Paul Otlet in 1934 and defined as "the measurement of all aspects related to the publication and reading of books and documents" The English version of this term bibliometrics was first used by Alan Pritchard in a paper published in 1969, titled Statistical Bibliography or Bibliometrics? He defined the term as "the application of mathematics and statistical methods to books and other media of communication". Bibliometrics also has a wide range of other applications, such as in descriptive linguistics, the development of thesauri, and the evaluation of reader usage.
OVERVIEW: Citation analysis has a long history, the Science Citation Index began publication in 1961 and Derek J. de Solla Price discussed the citation graph describing the network of citations in his 1965 article "Networks of Scientific Papers". However, this was done initially manually until large-scale electronic databases and associated computer algorithms were able to cope with the vast numbers of documents in most bibliometric collections. The first such algorithm for automated citation extraction and indexing was by CiteSeer.
Citing & Ranking
Journal and Proceedings ranking is widely used in academic circles in the evaluation of an academic journal's and Conference Proceedings impact and quality. Journal and Proceedings rankings are intended to reflect the place of a journal within its field, the relative difficulty of being published in that journal/proceedings, and the prestige associated with it. They have been introduced as official research evaluation tools in several countries. Consequently, several Journal and Proceedings-level metrics have been proposed, most citation-based:
- Impact factor – Reflecting the average number of citations to articles published in science and social science journals and proceedings.
- Eigenfactor– A rating of the total importance of scientific journals and proceedings according to the number of incoming citations;
- SCImago Journal Rank (SJR)– A measure of scientific influence of scholarly journals and proceedings that accounts for both the number of citations received by journals and proceedings and the importance or prestige of the journals and proceedings where such citations come from;
- h-index– The h-index (Hirsch index) is defined as the maximum value of h such that the given author/journal and proceedings have published h papers that have each been cited at least h times;
- Publication power approach (PPA)– The ranking position of each journal is based on the actual publishing behavior of leading tenured academics over an extended time period;
- Altmetrics– Rate journals and proceedings based on scholarly references added to academic social media sites. .
- diamScore– A measure of scientific influence of academic journals and proceedings based on recursive citation weighting and the pairwise comparisons between journals and proceedings.
- Expert survey– A score reflecting the overall quality or contribution of a proceeding or journal is based on the results of the survey of active field researchers, practitioners and students (i.e., actual journal contributors or readers), who rank each journal/proceedings based on specific criteria;
- h5-index– This metric, calculated and released by Google Scholar, is based on the h-index of all articles published in a given journal/proceedings in the last five years.
The measure is calculated as:
SNIP=RIP/(R/M),
where RIP=raw impact per paper,
R = citation potential and
M = median database citation potential.
SGEM GeoConferences Rank
METRICS from SCOPUS - SJR ELSEVIER:
SGEM GeoConference (results 2013-2019):
H-index: 17 SJR: 0.23 Impact: 0.4 Papers: 12,478
SGEM Proceedings H-index=17
Average citation per item (Impact factor):0.45
Sum of times cites: 30000
Where is SGEM GeoConference
In the World / all fields
There are 8725 titles (Proceedings) indexed in SCOPUS
SGEM Proceedings level by SJR: at 940 position (from 8725 titles) with SJR = 0.232.
SGEM Proceedings level by H-index: at 359 position (from 8725 titles) with H-Index = 17.
Where is SGEM GeoConference
In the World / “Earth & Planetary Sciences”
There are 352 titles (Proceedings) indexed in SCOPUS in the field of Earth & Planetary Sciences.
SGEM Proceedings level by SJR: at 37 position (from 352 titles) with SJR = 0.232.
SGEM Proceedings level by H-index: at 19 position (from 352 titles) with H-Index = 17.
METRICS from Web of Science:
Clarivate Analytics citation results (2012 - 2016)
H-index: 16 Impact: 0.64 Topics: 28 Papers: 7 849
