Members & Speakers


Paper Selection Committee



Prof. Ron Cox  -  Chairman (Australia)

Prof. Dr. Han Ligteringen  -  Member (Netherlands)

Prof. Charita Pattiaratchi  -  Member (Sri Lanka)

Prof. Tomoya Sgibayama  -  Member (Japan)

Dr. Gary Mocke  -  Member (South Africa)

Vacant  -  Member (Philippine)

Dr. Lessandro Estelito O. Garciano - PSC Member (Philippines)

Dr. Eric C. Cruz - PSC Member (Philippines)

Dr. Mario P. De Leon - PSC Member (Philippines)

Mr. Christopher H. Ornum - Secretariat (Philippines)

Mr. Juluis Izhrael Villena   -  Secretariat (Philippines)




  • The Secretariat will receive, group and distribute to the PSC all abstracts of papers received from and inform authors of selection or non-selection of their papers;

  • Based on experience, some 300-400 abstracts can be expected;

  • The abstracts will be evaluated by the PSC;

  • The final goal is to have some 200 to 220 accepted abstracts for presentation and some 30 abstracts for poster presentation;


  • The PSC Secretariat will receive, group and distribute to the PSC members all abstract of papers received (all abstract will be distributed to all PSC members with indication for which abstracts they should give remarks;

  • Each abstract will be reviewed by two members of the PSC, giving a scale of 1 to 5 eventually making recommendations on the content and suggesting in the improved use of English language as well as on the combining of papers having similar subject matter or site locations;

  • In the event that a member feels the paper is to specialized, he may pass it on the Secretary of the PSC, who will in turn with the guidance of the Chairman PSC take appropriate action;

  • The Rating can be described as follows:

  • “5” – Excellent paper, well written, presents new data or a new view, Must be presented at the Conference. Qualifies for a best paper award

  • “4” – Good paper, valuable contribution to the designated subjects of the conference, but not good for presentation and should be presented for a poster sessions

  • “3” – Acceptable paper, either a valuable contribution, but not so well written, or well written and technically/scientifically questionable

  • “2” – Paper that is not acceptable, either because it is based on questionable concepts or because it is a mere repetition of old stuff

  • “1” – Paper must be rejected because it is not within the scope of the conference, because it is based on faulty concepts, or because it intends to open a political or commercial discussion about specific product or project.

  • The reviewers are requested to submit their judgement in the form of a spread sheet to the Secretary, preferably two weeks before the meeting of the PSC

  • The spread sheet includes the nationality of the main author(s) and the conference theme under which it is submitted for each paper

  • It is recommended that the Secretariat  of the PSC prepares the presentation of the list of abstracts in such a way that they are already sorted according to the following:

    •   a) number of papers per theme

    •   b) number of papers accepted and rejected per country

    •   e) flagging of papers by authors from poorly represent regions

    •   d) flagging of papers that fall into a poorly represented theme

    •   c) papers that require language assistance


©PIANC-COPEDEC X 2020 by PPA. - designed by E.A.Lopez