scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2120 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Chemical Engineering ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Electronic Engineering ◽  
Overall Evaluation ◽  
Language Objectives ◽  
Conference Committee ◽  
Scientific Standards

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: All the articles of 15th EURECA Conference 2021 followed the single-blind peer review process. The reviewers were aware of the authors’ identity but not vice versa. • Conference submission management system: Communications between author and the conference committee was done through Easychair (https://easychair.org/cfp/15thEureca2021) or email ([email protected]). Authors submit the manuscript and receive feedbacks from reviewers through Easychair. Reviewers have also provided their comments and feedback, retrieving manuscript or revised manuscript through Easychair platform. • Number of submissions received: 135 • Number of submissions sent for review: 135 • Number of submissions accepted: 43 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 98.5% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 59 • Any additional info on review process: In the review process, two reviewers from the same field were appointed to review the paper. The reviewers are from the background of Chemical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Computing and IT. Reviewers can retrieve the manuscript and provide their feedback through Easychair platform. Feedback and comments from reviewers were sent back to the authors within 2 weeks through Easychair. The criteria in review include organization of paper and usage of language, objectives, theoretical framework, methodology, reported outcome and data analysis, educational or field significance, and use of relevant literature citations. An overall evaluation ranging from 1. Accept, 2. Accept with minor revision, 3. Conditional Accept with major revision, and 4. Reject was recommended by the reviewer. Based on the suggestions by reviewers, decision was then made and conveyed to the authors by the Secretariat team. The revised manuscript was then verified by the reviewers and Secretariat team for their final recommendation for submission. Similarity check has been carried out by using Turnitin software for all submissions. • Contact person for queries: Name : Dr. Oh Kai Siang Affiliation: Taylor’s University Email : [email protected]

scholarly journals A Note from the President-Elect

1992 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 3-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zvi Griliches
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
National Science Foundation ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Public Discussion ◽  
National Science ◽  
Economics Profession ◽  
President Elect ◽  
Conference Committee

A few months ago, Congress overruled the peer review process of the National Science Foundation. A congressional aide looked over the list of NSF grants, decided that 31 of them had titles unworthy of funding, and a conference committee voted on May 21 to cut off those grants. The cuts were made without hearings, without due process, and without public discussion. This note is to let the economics profession know what happened.

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2074 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Poor Quality ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Email Address ◽  
Medium Quality ◽  
Conference Committee ◽  
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): Open • Conference submission management system: [email protected] • Number of submissions received: 200 • Number of submissions sent for review: 175 • Number of submissions accepted:153 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 76.5 • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 5 groups with a total of 25 reviewers (each group consists of a lead reviewer and 4 reviewers, each reviewer reviews about 14 papers on average) • Any additional info on review process: Authors will submit their papers through the official email address of the conference, and the deadline for submission is March 15, 2021. The person in charge of the mailbox of the conference committee will sort out all the submissions, divide them into groups and distribute them equally to 5 review groups. The review groups will return comments one after another within 2 weeks, and the person in charge of the conference committee wills feedback the comments to the authors. Each paper was reviewed by two reviewers who gave their own comments: Papers with good quality and themes will be accepted directly, and the authors can register for the next stage of the conference; for papers with medium quality, revision suggestions will be given, and then the review groups will decide whether to accept them or not after the authors revise and return; For papers with very poor quality, the review groups will give rejection suggestions. All involved reviewers are recognized specialists in fields covered by the Conference. The final decision regarding acceptance/revision/rejection was based on reviews received from the reviewers. If the two reviewers cannot agree on a recommendation, the final at the sole discretion of the lead reviewer. The authors themselves do not have any decision on whether their papers are accepted or not. The final approved papers will be registered until April 5, 2021. The conference committee will send the invitation to the accepted authors and submit the information of the authors’ papers to the publishers. Contact person for queries: Name: Xiangtao Wang Affiliation:Shaanxi higher education alliance 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 declaration

2022 ◽  
Vol 2146 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Poor Quality ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Email Address ◽  
Medium Quality ◽  
Conference Committee ◽  
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): Open • Conference submission management system: [email protected] • Number of submissions received: 70 • Number of submissions sent for review: 60 • Number of submissions accepted: 53 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 75.71 • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 5 groups with a total of 20 reviewers (each group consists of a lead reviewer and 3 reviewers, each reviewer reviews about 6 papers on average) • Any additional info on review process: Authors will submit their papers through the official email address of the conference, and the deadline for submission is September 23, 2021. The person in charge of the mailbox of the conference committee will sort out all the submissions, divide them into groups and distribute them equally to 5 review groups. The review groups will return comments one after another within 2 weeks, and the person in charge of the conference committee wills feedback the comments to the authors. Each paper was reviewed by two reviewers who gave their own comments: Papers with good quality and themes will be accepted directly, and the authors can register for the next stage of the conference; for papers with medium quality, revision suggestions will be given, and then the review groups will decide whether to accept them or not after the authors revise and return; For papers with very poor quality, the review groups will give rejection suggestions. All involved reviewers are recognized specialists in fields covered by the Conference. The final decision regarding acceptance/revision/rejection was based on reviews received from the reviewers. If the two reviewers cannot agree on a recommendation, the final at the sole discretion of the lead reviewer. The authors themselves do not have any decision on whether their papers are accepted or not. The final approved papers will be registered until October 15, 2021. The conference committee will send the invitation to the accepted authors and submit the information of the authors’ papers to the publishers. Contact person for queries: Name: Xiangtao Wang Affiliation:Shaanxi higher education alliance Email: [email protected]

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 Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 890 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
English Language ◽  
Environmental Science ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Subject Area ◽  
Marine Science ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Scientific Standards ◽  
Single Blind

Abstract All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science has been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. The review processes 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) Double-blind: All papers came through the basic review which included an initial technical criteria check (paper field, structure of submission, adherence to the submission instructions, English language usage and the ethics of scientific writing including a check for the similarity rate). Any papers out of the scope or containing plagiarism were rejected directly. The initial technical criteria check by the editors. The accepted papers came through peer review process by two professional experts in the related subject area. After the peer review process was complete, the editors decide that the papers will be accepted for publication. • Conference submission management system: Email 2nd International Conference on Fisheries and Marine submission on https://unkhair.ac.id/ • Number of submissions received: 150 • Number of submissions sent for review: 88 • Number of submissions accepted: 73 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): 48% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 35 • Any additional info on review process: • Contact person for queries: [email protected] Dr. Najamuddin Department of Marine Science, Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Science, Khairun University, Indonesia

scholarly journals Preface: 3rd International Conference on Innovations in Economic Management and Social Science (IEMSS 2021)

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. I
Author(s):  
Shenliang Qian ◽  
Joyce Springhall
Keyword(s):  
Social Science ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Economic Management ◽  
Research Results ◽  
International Conference ◽  
New Ideas ◽  
Conference Committee

The organizing committee of IEMSS 2021 is proud to present the proceedings of the 2021 3rd International Conference on Innovations in Economic Management and Social Science, held in Hohhot, China during November 27-28, 2021.   IEMSS 2021 aims to bring together researchers, scientists, engineers, and scholar students to exchange and share their experience, new ideas, and research results about all aspects of innovations in economic management and social science, and discuss the practical challenges encountered and the solutions adopted.   IEMSS 2021 received more than 50 manuscripts, and less than 40 submissions have been accepted by our reviewers. By submitting a paper to IEMSS 2021, the authors agreed to the review process and understood that papers would undergo a peer-review process. Manuscripts were reviewed by appropriately qualified experts in the field selected by the conference committee, who took detailed comments and-if the submission was accepted-the authors would submit a revised version that took into account this feedback.   Hopefully, all participants and other interested readers will benefit scientifically from the proceedings and also find it stimulating in the process.   With warmest regards,   IEMSS Conference Organizing Committees Hohhot, China

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2022 ◽  
Vol 2161 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Assistant Professor ◽  
Committee Chair ◽  
Programme Committee ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Institute Of Technology ◽  
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 All the articles of AICECS 2021 followed the “Single-blind” peer review process, where the reviewers were aware of the authors’ identity but not vice-versa • Conference submission management system: EasyChair All the submission and communication to all the AICECS 2021 authors were through EasyChair (https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=aicecs2021) • Number of submissions received: 149 • Number of submissions sent for review: 136 • Number of submissions accepted: 78 • Acceptance Rate: 52.3% (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): (78/149) x 100 = 52.3%) • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 106 Any additional info on review process: All the initial submissions went through a single-blind review, based on the subject experts (reviewers) and Technical Programme Committee Chair (TPC) and General Chair decision (accept or major revision or minor revision or reject) communicated to the authors through EasyChair. Based on the recommendation, the authors revised the articles and submitted their revised papers. The revised submission was verified by the TPC and General Chair for their final recommendation for the submission. Online similarity check has been carried out using Turnitin software at all the stages from submission to acceptance. Contact person for queries: Name : Dr. Tanweer Assistant Professor-Senior Scale, Department of E&C, General Chair, AICECS 2021, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal, Karnataka, India Email : [email protected]; [email protected]

Responsibilities, Opportunities, and Challenges for Human Factors in the Digital Age

2022 ◽  
pp. 001872082110704
Author(s):  
Robert G. Radwin
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Good Judgment ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Quality Research ◽  
The Public ◽  
Reliable Source ◽  
Source Of Information ◽  
Scientific Standards

Today’s challenges for scientific publications require operating at a time when trust in science depends upon effective vetting of data, identifying questionable practices, and scrutinizing research. The Editor-in-Chief has an invaluable opportunity to influence the direction and reputation of our field but also has the responsibility to confront contemporary trends that threaten the publication of quality research. The editor is responsible for maintaining strict scientific standards for the journal through the exercise of good judgment and steadfast commitment to upholding the highest ethical principles. Opportunities exist to create and implement new initiatives for improving the peer review process and elevating the journal’s stature. The journal must address the challenges as well as effectively communicate with the public, who seek a reliable source of information.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document