THE REVIEWING PROCESS FOR ISPRS EVENTS

<p><strong>Abstract.</strong> Following the first initiatives taken by the International Programme Committee of the XXIII^rd ISPRS Congress in Prague (Czech Republic) in 2016, modifications of the reviewing process of ISPRS events were further considered during the years 2017 and 2018. This evolution first targets to better fit such a process to the currents requirements and expectations of the ISPRS community. Secondly, it aims to provide unified guidelines for the different steps of the process. Under the aegis of the 2020 Congress Director and ISAC (International Science Advisory Committee) chair, several discussions were held in-between September 2017 and June 2018 with ISAC members, Technical Commission Presidents (TCP), council members, 2016 and 2020 Congress Programme Chairs. This document serves as a unique transparent basis that applies for all kinds of ISPRS events (from Congress and Geospatial Week to smaller workshops), and all categories of people that are bound to be involved in the evaluation process of scientific contributions (authors, reviewers, TCPs, &amp;hellip; ). It also specifies the evaluation criteria for the works submitted to ISPRS events, both for full papers and abstracts. Subsequently, it helps authors to improve the content and shape of their contributions. Eventually, this paper is targeted to help new chairs to smoothly prepare their future event. The following guidelines were first adopted for the 2018 Technical Commission Symposia.</p>

Science and status of the Electron Ion Collider

The US Nuclear Science Advisory Committee (NSAC) recently recommended the construction of a high-luminosity, high-energy Electron Ion Collider (EIC), with polarized beams capable of colliding polarized electrons with polarized proton and light ion beams, and with any nucleus. The [Formula: see text] range between 40[Formula: see text]GeV and 140[Formula: see text]GeV, and luminosity range from [Formula: see text] were recommended. It is anticipated that under the current guidance from the DOE, the collider could become operational in the second half of the 2020’s. This paper summarizes its science and the scope of this over all project.

The policy worker and the professor: understanding how New Zealand policy workers utilise academic research

How do policy workers actually use academic research and advice? While there are several recent studies regarding this question from other Westminster jurisdictions (e.g. Talbot and Talbot, 2014, for the UK; Head et al., 2014, for Australia; Amara, Ouimet and Landry, 2004 and Ouimet et al., 2010, Canada), similar academic studies have been rare in New Zealand. So far, most of the local research in this field has been conducted by the prime minister’s chief science advisor and the Office of the Prime Minister’s Science Advisory Committee, with the particular instrumental purpose of improving the government’s ministries and agencies’ ‘use of evidence in both the formation and evaluation of policy’. However, none of these studies have asked how, and to what extent, policy workers in government are utilising academic research in their everyday work.

Constructing Science and Dealing with Denial

Climate science has a long history. The Swede Svante Arrhenius in 1896 recognized that the burning of fossil fuels could add CO2 to the atmosphere in sufficient quantities to warm the Earth, though he thought it would take millennia for that to become apparent. Arrhenius himself thought this would be beneficial to agriculture, anticipating some contemporary emphatic climate change deniers for whom CO2 is nothing more or less than “plant food.” The twentieth century saw anthropogenic (i.e. caused by humans) climate change gradually progress from a scientific curiosity likely to arise only in a very distant future to something more pressing (see Weart, 2008 for a history). Charles Keeling began monitoring atmospheric CO2 on Mount Mauna Loa in the middle of the Pacific Ocean in 1958, providing strong evidence that CO2 levels were rising. In 1965 the Science Advisory Committee to the US president raised the specter of changes in the climate appearing by 2000. Climate science gradually grew in extent and prominence, aided by advances in satellite monitoring and computing power. One watershed moment occurred in 1988, on a hot day in Washington DC, when James Hansen of NASA testified to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee of the US Senate that global warming had arrived. The same year British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (who had a degree in chemistry) announced in a speech to the scientists of the Royal Society that she was convinced of the need to act—embracing environmental concern she had until then derided. Since the 1980s climate research has exploded, exploring ever more facets of the issue. The role of the IPCC, established by the United Nations in 1988, has become crucial. The Panel does not actually conduct or sponsor research itself, but rather summarizes the weight of scientific opinion in periodic assessment reports aimed at policy makers, especially those participating in the negotiations of the UNFCCC. With literally thousands of scientists from diverse disciplines participating in the assessment, it has a significant impact on how scientists connect their subsequent research to discoveries by others and learn how to communicate with each other, building an ever greater capacity to both assess and synthesize climate science into a more cohesive whole (Edwards, 2010).