GUIDELINES FOR REFEREES

Referees are asked to adjudicate on the suitability of a paper for publication inthe Journal of the Southern
African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (The Journal).

Papers that are accepted will generally contain work of a scientific research and development nature which
reports advances in mining, minerals and metals technology. Papers may have been sourced from
conference and seminar presentations of the Institute. Papers that are descriptive in nature should
provide a new contribution to technology that is of economic importance.Papers thatcontain updates and
reviews of current research work, processes and equipment should have a clear description of the current
position and a resume of the likely future direction with respect to the technology and/or the economics.

There are three criteria which apply with slightly differing interpretations as follows:

1. IMPORTANCE AND SIGNIFICANCE
Referees are asked to provide a quantitative rating between 0 - 10 for this criterion.
The paper should make a new contribution by scientific research and development to basic or applied
knowledge. At the other end of the scale, papers that are trivial in content, i.e. that merely replicate
known results and conclusions, or are obvious or inconsequential, should not be accepted. Papers that
merely record data without deriving useful conclusions are, in general, also unacceptable. Reporting
negative results or work that proved to be unsuccessful is also generally not acceptable unless these
represent a surprising or unusual departure from accepted concepts. However, controversial results and
conclusions if scientifically well founded are of great importance in publications and should receive a high
rating.

The referees must carefully watch for attempts to use the publication merely as a means of advertising
known products or services. In this instance, the paper should represent a new contribution to technology
of economic importance. Long detailed descriptions of mines or plants comprising standard and well know
components or techniques are not acceptable.

In the case of a review article, it should be reasonably comprehensive and indicate worthwhile new
advances, new directions for research and deficiencies in knowledge. A review article merely recording
published work without any critical comments and conclusions is not acceptable.

2. VALIDITY OF METHODS
Referees are asked to provide a quantitative rating between 0 - 10 for this criterion.
The scientific community is increasingly concerned with the number of fraudulent results and conclusions
being published. However, it is impossible for most referees to check in detail the scientific validity of all
papers but the following guidelines will help to assess the validity of results.

2.1 Sufficient details of the experimental methods should be given to enable those skilled in the art to
      repeat the experiments that are reported.
2.2 When appropriate, the precision, accuracy and repeatability of results should be clearly indicated and
      discussed in terms of standard statistical methods.
2.3 There should be a clear indication of the original work of the author as compared with that of others
       and appropriate references should be given to the work of others.
2.4 The origin of samples and the text to which they are adequately representative should be indicated
2.5 Where computerised recording and interpretation of data are used the precautions taken to calibrate,
       standardise and check the accuracy of these systems should be indicated.
2.6 The relevance of conclusions derived by extrapolation and interpolation of data in the form of graphs
      and figures should be discussed.
2.7 Records of data from plants and processes should be available for inspection and certification of
      summarised results.
2.8 The variability of feed and processed materials and of plants operating characteristics should be
      indicated.
2.9 Sampling and analytical methodsand their validity should be indicated.
2.10 Important operating parameters such as on-line factors, breakdown problems and the durability of
       plants should be discussed and where appropriate, economic considerations should be referred to.
2.11 Critical comment should be made on the validity of the work under review.
2.12 Accuracy and precision of results should be discussed with an error analysis where appropriate.

3. CONFORMITY WITH ACCEPTED NORMS FOR SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS
Referees are asked to provide a qualitative ratingbetween 0-5 for this criterion.
The Institute has publishing standards for papers that are submitted to the Journal. It is important that
these standards be maintained. The Institute is prepared to undertake a reasonable amount of
grammatical editorial work on papers that are received from non-English speaking countries. Spelling and
grammatical/idiomatic errors should not be heavily penalised. However, it is the responsibility of the
author(s) to provide a manuscript in acceptable English. The amount of editorial work that will be
undertaken depends on the "value" of the paper. If the paper would be of great interest to Members then
it is worthwhile for the Institute to attend to the grammar and English. Please comment as necessary.

Nevertheless all categories of papers should conform to the following requirements:
• An abstract of no more than 200 words giving a clear and meaningful summary of the nature of the work
   and the range of results that are contained in the paper. This is of particular importance should the
   abstract be made available on the SAIMM web site.
• No more than six keywords.
• Conciseness and avoidance of long-winded and repetitive writing.
• Appropriate phraseology and clarity of concepts.
• Correct use of scientific terminology, units and conversions regarding equations and references.
• Properly presented diagrams and tables with appropriate headings, designation of axes and legibility of
   data.

4.MEDALS AND CERTIFICATES
Papers that are written by Members of the Instituteand are published in the Journal are eligiblefor
recognition by the awarding of the Institute's Gold or Silver Medal and a Certificate of Merit.

5.1Criteria for the award of a Gold Medal
The Gold Medalwill be awarded to Members of the Institute who have submitted papers of distinction. The
papers should be of world class standard, and judged to be publications that will become key future
references in either the mining or metallurgical field. They will usually display a considerable degree of
originality in their subject matter, but this is not an essential criterion for the award. The presentation
should be of a very high order and should do credit to the proceedings of the Institute.

5.2 Criteria for the award of a Silver Medal
The Silver Medal will be awarded to members of the Institute who have submitted papers which have
made a considerable contribution to the industry but did not necessarily display a particular degree of
originality or research. It is recognised that the very high standards needed to justify the award of a gold
medal must not be compromised. On the other hand, it is equally important to recognize that there will be
important papers presented which make a major contribution to the professions of mining and metallurgy
and to the prestige of our Institute which falls short of the gold medal standard in spite of their merit. The
topics that might be covered will also be broader than highly innovative papers to be considered for the
award of gold medals.

5.3 Certificate of Merit
The Certificate of Merit would be awarded, in conjunction with agold orsilver medal, to
co-authors of prize-winning papers who are not members of the Institute.

If you feel that the paper you are refereeing meets any of the above criteria then please include your
appropriate comments.

6. GENERAL
Referees are required to make available their comments and ratings on the attached Adjudication Form.
The referee's comments only will be sent to the author(s) to assist the author(s) with the final preparation
of the paper. If the paper is adjudged by the referees and the Publications Committee to be unacceptable,
then the referee's comments as to the reason for non acceptance would be supplied to the author(s).
It is suggested that an aggregated rating of lessthat 13 by more than one of the referees would be
regarded as reason to reject the paper.Referees will remain unknown to the author, but they should be
prepared to discusstheir comments with members of the Journal Publications Committee. If the referee
wishes todiscuss a paper with the author, he/she may do so at his/her discretion. Please notify the Journal
co-ordinatorof such a decision.

Updated Date: March 2013