scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2096 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002

Abstract All papers published in this volume of Journal of Physics: Conference Series has been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Double-blind • Conference submission management system: 1. Sending materials to the organizers of the conference; 2. Verification of compliance with the subject of the conference; 3. Checking materials for plagiarism using two systems; 4. Submitting for double blind review; 5. Checking the quality of translation of the article into English; 6. Checking for the correct design of materials; 7. Submission of materials to the Publisher. • Number of submissions received: 558 • Number of submissions sent for review: 505 • Number of submissions accepted: 252 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 50% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 118 • Any additional info on review process: To be accepted for publication, the material must have the following requirements: compliance with the conference theme; positive expertise of reviewers; good level of English and well-formed material. The article should have: - the relevance (subject matter of the article should be interest to the scientific community in terms of the current development of science and technology); - the scientific character (the article should deal with considered the scientific aspects of the problem, even if the task itself has a practical bias); - the originality (results that presented in the article should have a scientific novelty, survey articles to be approved by the special decision of The International Program Committee). The article must be clearly structured to be generally accepted in scientific publications sections, namely: - introduction; - relevance, scientific significance of the question with a brief review of the literature; -setting of the problem; - the theoretical part; - practical significance, suggestions and case studies, the results of experiments; - conclusions. The results that presented in this paper must be justified by particular scientific tools: experimental mathematical conclusion, mathematical modeling, etc., in order to be considered them as sufficiently reliable. We do not accept materials containing only a hypothesis or untested proposals. The presented results should be formulated in the form of scientific statements, which clearly define a contribution to science. The article should be written in an understandable language for an expert in the relevant field. Generally accepted technical terms should be used. The manuscripts should contain the following information: - paper title; - author(s) data (name, title, affiliation, full mail address, phone and fax numbers, e-mail address); - abstract; - keywords; - references. Contact person for queries: D B Solovev ([email protected])

2021 ◽  
Vol 2061 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002

Abstract All conference organisers/editors are required to declare details about their peer review. Therefore, please provide the following information: • Type of peer review: Double-blind peer review • Review criteria: Consistency with the conference scope and JPCS fields of interests; Technical content; Presentation style and clarity; Academic value. Each position was assessed with the following scale: Unsatisfactory, To be Improved, Good Enough. All papers marked as unsatisfactory by two referees were declined, all other papers were either accepted as is or send for the revision. Editorial board is responsible for the final decision regarding the publishing of manuscripts. • Conference submission management system: submissions were received and handled via e-mail • Number of submissions received: 262 • Number of submissions sent for review: 181 • Number of submissions accepted: 153 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 60% • Average number of reviews per paper: 3 • Total number of reviewers involved: 29 • Any additional info on review process: three independent peers, one of whom invited from outside the committee were assigned to each paper. The editors supervised the review process. Contact person for queries: Igor Boychuk , co-chairman of the organizing committee, co-editor, associate professor of Admiral Ushakov State Maritime University, Novorossiysk, Russia. E-mail: [email protected]. Sergey Bakhmutov , co-chairman of the program committee, co-editor, vice executive office for research and development of Central Scientific Research Automobile and Automotive Engines Institute (FSUE “NAMI”), Moscow, Russia. E-mail: [email protected]. Artyom Butsanets , secretary of the editorial board, head of the department of intellectual property and technical information, Admiral Makarov State University of Maritime and Inland Shipping, Saint Petersburg, Russia, [email protected].


2022 ◽  
Vol 2155 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002

The Organiser and/or the Editor(s) are required to declare details about their peer review processes. Therefore, please provide the following information: • Type of peer review: Single-blind / Double-blind / Triple-blind / Open / Other Single-blind review Single-anonymous: authors’ identities are known to the reviewers, reviewers’ identities are hidden from authors; • Describe criteria used by Reviewers when accepting/declining papers. Was there the opportunity to resubmit articles after revisions? The following criteria were applied: 1. Quality assessment Significance, novelty, correctness Special attention was paid to repetition and Plagiarism. 2. Technical Criteria Clarity of expression; readability and discussion of concepts Sufficient discussion of the context of the work, and suitable referencing. 3. Presentation Criteria 1. Is it clearly presented, well organized, and clearly written?( clear presentation, well organized, clearly stated) 2. Is the English satisfactory? (satisfactory english) 3. Is the title appropriate? (Title matches) 4. Does the abstract include the important points of the paper?( abstract contains important information on the article) 5. Are references to related work adequate, up to date and readily available? (links are relevant, relevant, available) 6. Are figures and tables necessary and adequate?( tables and figures are necessary and appropriate) 7. Are the conclusions satisfactory? (conclusion is appropriate) During the review process, the authors were given a one-time opportunity to re-submit the article for review. • Conference submission management system: • The peer review was carried out by the Forum Program Committee, organized according to the order of the General Director of the RSE INP No. 182 dated 22.24.2021. The Program Committee carried out a preliminary selection of articles to be sent to the reviewers. • Number of submissions received: 44 • Number of submissions sent for review: 42 • Number of submissions accepted: 35 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 79,54 • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 40 • Any additional info on review process (eg Plagiarism check system): • Review process consisted from few steps: • 1) submission by editorial committee • 2) 2 reviewers received publication (anonymously, author did not know any of reviewer) • 3) after check, authors fixed all mistakes and requirements from reviewers) Checking for plagiarism, showed no repeat or copy of submitted material. • Contact person for queries (Full name, affiliation, institutional email address) Name : Nassurlla Maulen Affiliation: Institute of Nuclear Physics Republic of Kazakhstan Email : nassurlla [email protected] ( additional: [email protected])


2021 ◽  
Vol 882 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002

Abstract All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single-blind / Double-blind / Triple-blind / Open / Other (please describe) All accepted papers from ISMCT 2021 conference have been peer reviewed with triple-blind review type through processes administered by the proceedings Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Conference submission management system: We use conference submission management system electronically with link https://seminar.tekmira.esdm.go.id/index.php/registration. This management system was affiliated with https://edas.info. • Number of submissions received: 137 papers • Number of submissions sent for review: 103 papers • Number of submissions accepted: 86 papers • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 62.77% • Average number of reviews per paper: three reviewers • Total number of reviewers involved: 97 reviewers • Any additional info on review process: Review description need to check: 1. Paper template (Title, affiliation, abstract, paper content, figure and table format, equation, references) 2. Originality 3. Novelty 4. Paper quality 5. Language quality (structure and grammar) • Contact person for queries: Name : Dr. Agus Wahyudi, M.T. Affiliation: R&D Centre for Mineral and Coal Technology (Tekmira), Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, Republic of Indonesia E-mail : [email protected]


2021 ◽  
Vol 2052 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002

The present document contains details on the procedure for reviewing the materials of the third International Scientific and Practical Conference MATHEMATICAL MODELING, PROGRAMMING AND APPLIED MATHEMATICS 2021. • The type of peer review is double blind peer review. • All the submitted materials, timely received by the conference e-mail [email protected], were considered by the program organizing committee. The program committee identified the reviewers who received the authors’ articles through the conference email. Each article was submitted to two independent peer reviewers with a scientific degree who did not know the name of the author (or the names of authors) of the article being reviewed. All articles submitted for consideration have passed the peer review procedure in accordance with the standards of editorial ethics, with international practice of editing, reviewing, publishing and authorship of scientific publications and the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics –COPE. Plagiarism, improper borrowing, attempts to circumvent plagiarism detection, verbatim copying and paraphrasing of one’s own work (self-plagiarism) without proper justification, copyright infringement is considered unacceptable practices. All articles that have passed the peer review procedure are original works that have not been previously published in other publications in their current or similar form; they have not been reviewed in other editions. Materials of low scientific level are not accepted for publication. • The number of applications received is 105, of which 59 were accepted for work, the acceptance rate (number of applications accepted / number of applications received X 100) was 56%. • Average number of reviews per paper - 1,6. • The total number of reviewers involved is 40 experts in this particular subject area. • Additional information on the process of consideration of materials: only applications, the authors of which had corrected the substantiated comments of the reviewers, were accepted; the articles that received a negative review from the reviewer were excluded from the conference materials. The conference materials submission control system is presented on the official conference website at https://www.novsu.ru/dept/515278/i.454744/?id=1759423. • For inquiries please contact Dr. Oxana Fikhtner, Head of Academic Publishing Development centre of NovSU ([email protected]).


2021 ◽  
Vol 2140 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002

All papers published in this volume of Journal of Physics: Conference Series have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. Type of peer review: Double-blind • Conference submission management system: Information System “Conference” • Number of submissions received: 84 • Number of submissions sent for review: 65 • Number of submissions accepted: 39 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): 46,4% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 4 • Any additional info on review process: uses double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. • Contact person for queries: Name : Yurchenko Alexey Affiliation: Professor, National Research Tomsk State University, 36, Lenin Avenue Tomsk RUSSIA Email : [email protected] ([email protected])


2021 ◽  
Vol 47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evgueniya A Balyakina ◽  
Ludmila A Kriventsova

 Background:  Peer review remains the only way of filtering and improving research. However, there are few studies of peer review based on the contents of review reports, because access to these reports is limited. Objectives: To measure the rejection rate and to investigate the reasons for rejection after peer-review in a specialized scientific journal.  Methods:  We considered the manuscripts submitted to a Russian journal, namely ‘Economy of Region’ (Rus Экономика региона), from 2016 to 2018, and analysed the double-blind review reports related to rejected submissions in qualitative and quantitative terms including descriptive statistics. Results: Of the 1653 submissions from 2016 to 2018, 324 (20%) were published, giving an average rejection rate of 80%. Content analysis of reviewer reports showed five categories of shortcomings in the manuscripts: breaches of publication ethics, mismatch with the journal’s research area, weak research reporting (a major group, which accounted for 66%of the total); lack of novelty, and design errors. We identified two major problems in the peer-review process that require editorial correction: in 36% of the cases, the authors did not send the revised version of the manuscript to the journal after receiving editorial comments and in 30% of the cases, the reviewers made contradictory recommendations. Conclusions: To obtain a more balanced evaluation from experts and to avoid paper losses the editorial team should revise the journal’s instructions to authors, its guide to reviewers, and the form of the reviewer’s report by indicating the weightings assigned to the different criteria and by describing in detail the criteria for a good paper.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2081 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002

On the following page you will find the declaration form. • Please answer each question. • You should submit the form along with the rest of your submission files. • The deadline is the submission date written in your publishing agreement. All conference organisers/editors are required to declare details about their peer review. We will published the information you provide as part of your proceedings. All papers published in this volume of Journal of Physics: Conference Series have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Double-blind • Conference submission management system: To participate in the PIRT-2021 Conference, Participants had to register on the website http://www.pirt.info/?lang=eng#reg_form Abstracts and papers had to be sent to the PIRT-2021 Organizing Committee by e-mail: [email protected] All information about the format of abstracts and papers was on the web-site: http://www.pirt.info/?lang=eng • Number of submissions received: 61 • Number of submissions sent for review: 51 • Number of submissions accepted: 38 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 62,29 • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved:12 • Any additional info on review process: Plagiarism check system: antiplagiat.ru Authors could resubmit the paper with the necessary revisions. • Contact person for queries: Name : Professor Vladimir Olegovich Gladyshev Affiliation: Head of the Faculty of Fundamental Sciences, Bauman Moscow State Technical University, 5, 2-nd Baumanskaya St., Moscow, 105005, Russian Federation Email : [email protected]


2021 ◽  
Vol 2064 (1) ◽  
pp. 011003

All papers published in this volume of Journal of Physics: Conference Series have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single-blind / Double-blind / Triple-blind / Open / Other (please describe) Type of peer review: Single-blind • Conference submission management system: The Conference submission management system assumed interaction through the Conference website (https://gdp2021.uran.ru/) and the Conference e-mail box ([email protected]). • Number of submissions received: 140 • Number of submissions sent for review: 140 • Number of submissions accepted: 132 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 94 • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 15 • Any additional info on review process: There is no any additional info on review process. • Contact person for queries: Name : Nikolay Zubarev Affiliation: Institute of Electrophysics, UB RAS, 620016, Ekaterinburg, Russia [email protected]


2021 ◽  
Vol 914 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002

Abstract All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Double-blind review process • Conference submission management system: Submission through conference website for abstract and secretariat official email for full paper, [email protected] PIC: Aryani [email protected] PIC: Fathimah Handayani • Number of submissions received: 89 • Number of submissions sent for review: 88 • Number of submissions accepted: 78 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 87.6% • Average number of reviews per paper: 3 • Total number of reviewers involved: 35 • Any additional info on review process: • Contact person for queries: Name : Aryani/Fathimah Handayani Affiliation : Center for Standardization of Sustainable Forest Management Instruments, Bogor, Indonesia Email : [email protected]/[email protected]


2021 ◽  
Vol 944 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Double-blind Answer: We use a double-blind type of peer review process. The author and reviewer identities are hidden to each other. The papers that pass the plagiarism check, then proceed to review process. Review process was conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. Our reviewers are the eminent experts, prominent scientists and researchers. We use a double-blind type of peer review process. We provide reviewers an article grading form for each paper. The article grading form contains general comments and also specific suggestions and feedbacks for each section in the paper. The reviewer also asked to make a decision regarding the feasibility of publishing a paper along with the scientific reason behind it, such as substance suitability and data eligibility. Articles will not be processed further, if the results of the review state that the article is not eligible with the reviewer’s notes on the assessment form. We send the paper to the reviewer, for one until two weeks, to be reviewed. Then, we forwarded the results of the review to the author so that it could be improved according to the suggestions and notes of the reviewer. Next, we sent the results of the improvements from the authors back to the reviewers to be followed up, whether they have been well elaborated or still need improvement. When the revised paper still needed some improvement, the steps repeated until the reviewer verified that the article is feasible and ready to be processed to the final stage by the editor (layout and proofread). • Conference submission management system: Answer: All the ICMS 2021 papers were processed by committee email and also by personal message between committees and authors. • Number of submissions received: Answer: 79 • Number of submissions sent for review: Answer: 78 • Number of submissions accepted: Answer: 71 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): Answer: 89.9 % • Average number of reviews per paper: Answer: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: Answer: 32 reviewers • Any additional info on review process: Answer: All the submitted papers were checked by plagiarism system (Turnitin) to see the plagiarism rate. We only accepted paper that has a plagiarism value below 20%. • Contact person for queries: Answer: Dr. Steven Solikin E-mail: [email protected] Department of Marine Science and Technology, Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Science, IPB University, Dramaga, Bogor 16680, West Java, Indonesia Phone: +62 878 8850 3459


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document