Editorial Team

Patrick Lynett, Chair, University of Southern California
Jennifer Irish, Vice-Chair, Virginia Tech
Daniel T. Cox, Secretary, Oregon State University
Christopher Bender, Taylor Engineering
Javier Lara, IH Cantabria, University of Cantabria
Nobuhito Mori, Kyoto University
Robert J. Nichols, University of Southampton
Ioan Nistor, University of Ottawa
Ad Reniers, Delft University of Technology

Eco W. Bijker, Delft University of Technology
Ida Broker, DHI
Robert A. Dalrymple, Johns Hopkins University
Kee D’Angremond, Delft University of Technology
Dr. Robert G. Dean, University of Florida
Billy Edge, North Carolina State University
Yoshimi Goda, Yokohama National University
Kiyoshi Horikawa, The University of Tokyo
James R. Houston, U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center
J. W. Johnson, University of California, Berkeley
J. W. Kamphuis, Queen's University
David L. Kriebel, U.S. Naval Academy
Iñigo J. Losada, IH Cantabria, University of Cantabria
Orville Magoon, Coastal Zone Foundation
Jeff Melby, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research & Development Center
Masaru Mizuguchi, Chuo University
Ronald M. Noble, Noble Consultants, Inc.
Morrough P. O'Brien, University of California, Berkeley
Shinji Sato, Kochi University of Technology
Thorndike Saville, Jr., U. S. Beach Erosion Board, Corps of Engineers
Jane McKee Smith, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research & Development Center
Marcel Stive, Delft University of Technology
D. H. Swart, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research of South Africa
Robert L. Wiegel, University of California, Berkeley


Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Below is a summary of the ethics expectations of the Proceedings. Our publication ethics and publication malpractice statement are mainly based on the Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. For more information, please visit: https://publicationethics.org/



The editors ensure that all submitted papers being considered for inclusion undergo peer-review by at least two reviewers who are experts in the field. The editor is responsible for deciding which of the papers submitted to the Proceedings will be published. The editor will evaluate papers without regard to the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy. The decision will be based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the Proceeding’s scope. Current legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism should also be considered. Decisions to edit and publish are not determined by the policies of governments or any other agencies. The editors have full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content.

The editors must not disclose any information about a submitted paper to anyone other than the corresponding author and reviewers as appropriate.

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted paper will not be used by the editor or the members of the editorial board for their own research purposes without the author's explicit written consent.

Editors will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised about a submitted or published paper. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior will be investigated, even if it is discovered years after publication. If, on investigation, the ethical concern is well-founded, a correction, retraction, expression of concern or other note as may be relevant, will be published in the Proceedings.



The reviewing process assists the editor and the editorial board in making editorial decisions and may also serve the author in improving the paper.

Any papers received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be disclosed to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

When reasonable, reviewers should identify cases in which relevant published work referred to in the paper has not been cited in the reference section. They should point out whether observations or arguments derived from other publications are accompanied by the respective source. Reviewers will notify the editor of any substantial similarity or overlap between the paper under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.



Authors should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Authors should be prepared to make the presented data publicly available if practicable. In any event, authors should ensure accessibility of such data to other competent professionals provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release.

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author ensures that all contributing co-authors and no uninvolved persons are included in the author list. The corresponding author will also verify that all co-authors have approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor and to cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper in form of an erratum.