scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2112 (1) ◽  
pp. 011003
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Software Tool ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Editorial Office ◽  
Technical Quality ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Single Blind ◽  
Initial Check

All conference organisers/editors are required to declare details about their peer review. Therefore, please provide the following information: • Type of peer review: Single-blind / Double-blind / Triple-blind / Open / Other (please describe) All reviews follow a double-blind process. 1-AOPR Editors perform an initial check of the manuscript’s suitability upon receipt, and use a software tool to finish the plagiarism analysis, manuscripts are out of conference topics will be rejected directly, generally, authors will receive the result within 3-5 working days in this round. 2-Only the manuscripts passed the initial checking can be submitted to reviewers, AOPR Editorial Office will then organize the peer-review process performed by independent experts. Papers will be strictly and thoroughly peer-reviewed by experts and reviewers. 3-All regular papers are reviewed by at least two reviewers, but usually by three or more, and rated considering: Relevance, Originality, Technical Quality, Significance and Presentation of the submissions; There are four results: 1, Accept; 2, Accept after Minor Revisions; 3, Reconsider after Major Revisions; 4, Reject. 4-Authors have 2-3 weeks to make minor or major revisions after received the comments from reviewers. Usually, one round of major revisions is allowed. 5-Only the submission passed the peer review and accepted by reviewers will be included in the conference proceeding finally. • Conference submission management system: Online Email System • Number of submissions received: 75 • Number of submissions sent for review: 55 (20 papers out of the conference scope are rejected directly) • Number of submissions accepted: 28 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 37% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2-3 • Total number of reviewers involved: 64 reviewers • Any additional info on review process: • Contact person for queries: Josh Sheng [email protected] Please submit this form along with the rest of your files on the submission date written in your publishing agreement. The information you provide will be published as part of your proceedings.

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2022 ◽  
Vol 2148 (1) ◽  
pp. 011003
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Software Tool ◽  
Editorial Office ◽  
Technical Quality ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Scientific Standards ◽  
Single Blind ◽  
Initial Check

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) 1. ICPEM Editors perform an initial check of the manuscript’s suitability upon receipt, and use a software tool to finish the plagiarism analysis, manuscripts are out of conference topics will be rejected directly, generally, authors will receive the result within 3-5 working days in this round. 2. Only the manuscripts passed the initial checking can be submitted to reviewers, ICPEM Editorial Office will then organize the peer-review process performed by independent experts. Papers will be strictly and thoroughly peer-reviewed by experts and reviewers. 3. All regular papers are reviewed by at least two reviewers, but usually by three or more, and rated considering: Relevance, Originality, Technical Quality, Significance and Presentation of the submissions; There are four results: 1, Accept; 2, Accept after Minor Revisions; 3, Reconsider after Major Revisions; 4, Reject. 4. Authors have 2-3 weeks to make minor or major revisions after received the comments from reviewers. Usually, one round of major revisions is allowed. 5. Only the submission passed the peer review and accepted by reviewers will be included in the conference proceeding finally. • Conference submission management system: Online Email System • Number of submissions received: 141 • Number of submissions sent for review: 116 (25 papers out of the conference scope are rejected directly) • Number of submissions accepted: 69 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 49% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2-3 • Total number of reviewers involved: 164 • Any additional info on review process: • Contact person for queries: Name : Josh Sheng Affiliation: Hubei Zhongke Research Institute of Nature Science, China Email : [email protected]

scholarly journals Open, single-blind, double-blind: which peer review process do you prefer?

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth C Moylan ◽  
Simon Harold ◽  
Ciaran O’Neill ◽  
Maria K Kowalczuk
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Single Blind

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2056 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
State University ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Scientific Organizations ◽  
Virtual Conference ◽  
Scientific Standards ◽  
Single Blind

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) Single-blind • Conference submission management system: Morressier virtual conference and publishing platform • Number of submissions received: 76 • Number of submissions sent for review: 76 • Number of submissions accepted: 71 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): 93.4 • Average number of reviews per paper: 1 • Total number of reviewers involved: 8 • Any additional info on review process: Typical review questionnaire like in leading scientific journals and detailed review about value and novelty of the publications reviewed. The Referees are from universities and scientific organizations from Russia, Byelorussia, China, Canada, India. • Contact person for queries: Name : Professor Victor Belyaev Affiliation: Moscow Region State University (MRSU) Email : [email protected]

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2053 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Management System ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Contact Person ◽  
Conference Series ◽  
Conference Management ◽  
Scientific Standards ◽  
Single Blind

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) - All the review process was done single-blind through Microsoft CMT platform. Average three reviewers involved for each paper. In the CMT system, we provide each reviewer with a Review Questions form. • Conference submission management system: - Microsoft Conference Management Toolkit (CMT) • Number of submissions received: 36 • Number of submissions sent for review: 36 • Number of submissions accepted: 26 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 72.2 % • Average number of reviews per paper: 3 reviewers • Total number of reviewers involved: 53 • Any additional info on review process: No • Contact person for queries: Name : Assoc. Prof. Ir. Dr. Shamsul Sarip Affiliation: Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Email :[email protected]

scholarly journals Peer Review Declaration Form Guidance

2021 ◽  
Vol 2015 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Conference Proceedings ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Management System ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Contact Person ◽  
Scientific Standards ◽  
Single Blind ◽  
Submission Date

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: Single-blind / Double-blind / Triple-blind / Open / Other (please describe) All submitted papers will be reviewed by at least two independent reviewers, who are encouraged to give constructive comments and suggestions to the authors. The review is single-blind – the author doesn’t know the names of the reviewers assigned to the review of the paper. The authors of submitted papers will receive the review comments and recommendations and will have a possibility to amend their papers based on the review comments and suggestions and upload the revised versions. If both reviewers indicate that the paper can’t be published then it will not be accepted for publication, however, the talk might be delivered at the Conference if the reviewers specify that in the review. The publication of the papers in the Conference Proceedings is possible only in case the talk is presented at the Conference. • Conference submission management system: - Self-made submission management system • Number of submissions received: Number of full papers submitted for publication in IOP Conference Proceedings - 232 • Number of submissions sent for review: 232 • Number of submissions accepted: 172 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 74.13% • Average number of reviews per paper: 1.9 • Total number of reviewers involved: 48 • Any additional info on review process: - • Contact person for queries: Name : Anastasia Kaptsova Affiliation:ITMO University, Russia Email :[email protected]

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2064 (1) ◽  
pp. 011003
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Management System ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Contact Person ◽  
Conference Series ◽  
E Mail ◽  
Scientific Standards ◽  
Single Blind

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]

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2119 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Management System ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Kutateladze Institute ◽  
Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Scientific Standards ◽  
Single Blind ◽  
Submission Date

Peer Review Declaration Form Guidance 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. Peer review declaration 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) The review process STS-37 papers was conducted by a single-blind process. It is means that only reviewers know the identity of authors, but the authors do not know who is reviewer. • Conference submission management system: All the submission and communication to all the STS-37 authors we did through conference email ([email protected]) • Number of submissions received: 180 • Number of submissions sent for review: 180 • Number of submissions accepted: 174 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 96 % • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 28 • Any additional info on review process: The papers which were recommended by the organizing committee of STS-37 were proposed for reviewing and publication in the volume for STS-37 conference. • Contact person for queries: Name : PhD Cheverda Vyacheslav Vladimirovich Affiliation: Kutateladze Institute of Thermophysics of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Email : [email protected].

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 944 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Marine Science ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Review State ◽  
E Mail ◽  
Scientific Standards

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

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2063 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Management System ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Related Research ◽  
Contact Person ◽  
Research Areas ◽  
Scientific Standards

Abstract 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: google website https://sites.google.com/uobasrah.edu.iq/3rd-ivccbasrah/english Online Conference Email: [email protected] • Number of submissions received: 65 • Number of submissions sent for review: 47 • Number of submissions accepted: 31 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): 47.7% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2-3 Reviewers • Total number of reviewers involved: 35 • Any additional info on review process: The papers were received was evaluated using Turnitin software at Basrah University. Then the papers were sent to the reviewers of related research areas for peer-review process. The referees gave their decision (acceptance or acceptance after revisions or rejection). Rejected papers were sent back to the authors. The accepted papers by two reviewers were sent for the publications. • Contact person for queries: Prof. Dr. Salah Shaker Hashim, Dept. of Chemistry, College of Science, University of Basrah, [email protected] Mobile No.: 00964 774 070 8188

scholarly journals Peer review blinding practices of highly ranked dental journals: analysis and discussion

BDJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clovis Mariano Faggion Jr
Keyword(s):  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Linear Regression Analysis ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Lower Odds ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Single Blind

AbstractObjectives To evaluate the type of peer review blinding used in highly ranked dental journals and to discuss the influence of the blinding approaches on the peer review process.Methods All 91 dental journals classified by impact factor (IF) had their websites scrutinised for the type of peer review blinding used for submissions. If the information was not reported, the journals were contacted to obtain the information. Linear and logistic regression were applied to evaluate the association between type of peer review blinding and IF.Results The selected journals reported the following peer review blinding approaches: single-blind (N = 36, 39.6%), double-blind (N = 46, 50.5%), transparent (N = 2, 2.2%) and open (N = 1, 1.1%). Information from six (6.6%) journals was not available. A linear regression analysis demonstrated that journals with lower IFs were associated with double-blind review (p = 0.001). A logistic regression suggested lower odds of association between single-blind peer review and journals with IFs below a threshold of 2 (odds ratio 0.157, confidence interval 0.059 to 0.417, p <0.001).Conclusions The majority of highly ranked dental journals had single- and double-blind peer review; journals with higher IFs presented single-blind peer review and those with lower IFs reported double-blind peer review.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document