scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2022 ◽  
Vol 2155 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Nuclear Physics ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Program Committee ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Editorial Committee ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Check System ◽  
Paper Abstract ◽  
Single Blind

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])

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.

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2104 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Management System ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Review System ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Contact Person ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Content Review ◽  
Single Blind

All conference organizers/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) The SNPF 2021 article review process was carried out using a single-blind review system. The number of papers submitted was 84 articles. The number of SNPF 2021 reviewers is 14 people. One reviewer reviewed one article. The review process was done via email and or OCS. The article review results were returned to the authors for revision within a certain period of time. The author sent the revised results, and the plagiarism checked results of the article. The editor then rechecked the revision result. If suitable, it would be forwarded to the editor, either for plagiarism, language, or template. • Conference submission management system: OCS (http://snpfmotogpe.ulm.ac.id/ocs/index.php/snpf/2021) • The number of submissions received: There were 84 articles submitted to SNPF 2021 • The number of submissions sent for review: There were 84 articles reviewed by reviewers of SNPF 2021. • The number of submissions accepted: There were 40 articles accepted for recommendation/publication to JPCS IOP Publishing. • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 47,61% • The average number of reviews per paper: One article was reviewed four times: content review 2x, language review 1x, and template review 1x. • The total number of reviewers involved: There were 14 reviewers (content review), 10 editors (content and template review), and 4 people (language review) • Any additional info on the review process: The author sent the revised article along with the similarity check (maximum 20%). A similarity check was also carried out using Turnitin (maximum 20%) when an article was declared fit for publication. So, the similarity check was done two times. • Contact person for queries: +628975586104 (Misbah) Universitas Lambung Mangkurat [email protected]

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2106 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Management System ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Review System ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Contact Person ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
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) The ICMSS 2021 article review process was carried out using a single-blind review system. One reviewer reviewed 1 article. The number of papers submitted was 52 articles. The number of ICMSS 2021 reviewers is 8 people. 1 article reviewed by 1 reviewer. The review process is done via email and or OCS. The results of the review of the article are returned to the author for revision within a certain period of time. The author sends the revised results and the plagiarism check results of the article. The editor then rechecks the revision result. If it is suitable, it will be forwarded to the editor, whether it is checked for plagiarism, language, or template. • Conference submission management system: OCS (https://conference.ulm.ac.id/index.php/icmss/icmss/) • Number of submissions received: There are 50 articles submitted to ICMSS 2021 • Number of submissions sent for review: There are 50 articles reviewed by reviewers ICMSS 2021. • Number of submissions accepted: 31 articles were accepted for recommendation/publication to JPCS IOP Publishing. • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 62% • Average number of reviews per paper: One article was reviewed 4 times, reviewed content twice, reviews related to language 1x, and review template 1x. • Total number of reviewers involved: There are 8 reviewers (review content), There are 5 editors (review content and templates), and 6 people (review language) • Any additional info on review process: The author sends the revised article along with the similarity check (maximum 20%). When an article is declared fit for publication, a similarity check is also carried out using Turnitin (maximum 20%). So, the similarity check is done 2 times. • Contact person for queries: +628975586104 (Misbah) [email protected] Universitas Lambung Mangkurat

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2045 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Review System ◽  
National Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Check System ◽  
Academy Of Sciences ◽  
Single Blind

Abstract 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 Single-blind peer review • Describe criteria used by Reviewers when accepting/declining papers. Was there the opportunity to resubmit articles after revisions? The reviewers provide their constructive & detailed comments and suggestions on the manuscripts via the conference peer review system. The Authors were asked to revise their original manuscripts in alignment with the reviewers’ comments and suggestions for publication. An opportunity will be given to the authors to resubmit their manuscripts after revisions. • Conference submission management system: http://www.academicconf.com/Identity/Account/Login?confName=cmse2021 • Number of submissions received: 185 (include abstracts and full papers) • Number of submissions sent for review: 85 (full papers) • Number of submissions accepted: 34 (full papers) • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 40.0% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: About 160 • Any additional info on review process (ie plagiarism check system): The conference uses iThenticate to check plagiarism. All papers were checked once submitted and were checked again before they are sent to the Publisher for publication. • Contact person for queries: Guest editor: Dr. Alexander Khotsianovsky [email protected] Managing Editor of Strength of Materials Pisarenko Institute of Problems of Strength of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Ukraine

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 942 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Editorial Team ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Review Form ◽  
Check System ◽  
Set Up ◽  
E Mail ◽  
Single Blind

Abstract 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 Single-anonymous: authors’ identities are known to the reviewers, reviewers’ identities are hidden from authors Double-anonymous: author and reviewer identities are hidden to each other Triple-blind: author and reviewer identities are hidden to each other, and from the Editor(s) Open: author and reviewer identities are known to each other • Describe criteria used by Reviewers when accepting/declining papers. Was there the opportunity to resubmit articles after revisions? Topic of the paper must be consistent with the presentation/poster presented during the Conference as well as the thematic panels of the Conference. After submission of a paper editorial team checked the paper’s composition and its arrangement. Then invitations with enclosed abstract of the paper was sent to appropriate Reviewers. As two formal acceptances of an invitation were received, Reviewers were sent the full paper and the review form prepared by the editorial team. The time for the review was set up to 30 days. The review then was submitted to the editorial team with a recommendation to accept the paper in the present form or to make minor/major corrections or to reject it. The editorial team sent a decision email to the author including reviewers’ opinions and suggestions. While revision was needed, the author was given 14 days for corrections and resubmitting the article. In case of minor corrections, the editorial verified the paper and made the final decision. But in case of major corrections, the corrected paper was sent to the Reviewers once again for the further evaluation after which the editorial team made the final decision. • Conference submission management system: Submission, review process as well as all communication with authors and reviewers were made via Conferences’ e-mail box • Number of submissions received: 44 • Number of submissions sent for review: 44 • Number of submissions accepted: 39 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 88,64 • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 59 (30 foreign and 29 from Poland) • Any additional info on review process (ie plagiarism check system): No • Contact person for queries: Damian Kasza; Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, 27 Wyb. Wyspianskiego St., 50-370 Wroclaw, Poland; [email protected]

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 881 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Management System ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Blind Review ◽  
Email Address ◽  
Conference Management ◽  
The University ◽  
Single Blind

Abstract 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 papers were subjected for review in term of format and appropriate contents by two independent reviewers (double-blind review) • Conference submission management system: For official information, we develop using the University platform: http://icrp.unsyiah.ac.id/id, while for paper submission, We used the EasyChair conference management system: https://easychair.org/my/conference?conf=icrp2021 • Number of submissions received: In total, we received 106 submitted papers through submission system • Number of submissions sent for review: A total of 82 papers were sent to the reviewers, while 24 submission paper were rejected due to irrelevant topics and not full paper submissions (abstract only). • Number of submissions accepted: A total of 69 papers were accepted for presentations and publication on ICRP 2021. • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): Acceptance rate = 65% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2x for major revisions and 1x for minor revisions • Total number of reviewers involved: 32 reviewers • Any additional info on review process: The review process were carried out by assigning two potential respective reviewers by track editors. The review itself approximately took maximum 3 weeks to complete. • Contact person for queries: (please include name, affiliation and email address) Dr.-Ing. Agus Arip Munawar ([email protected]) Dr. Cut Dewi ([email protected]) Dept. of Architecture and Planning, Syiah Kuala University Jl. T Syekh Abdul Rauf No. 7 Banda Aceh – Indonesia 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 2090 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Management System ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Associate Professor ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Contact Person ◽  
Conference Management ◽  
Check System ◽  
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 • Describe criteria used by Reviewers when accepting/declining papers. Was there the opportunity to resubmit articles after revisions? • Conference submission management system: IDAS Conference management System • Number of submissions received: 336 • Number of submissions sent for review: 315 • Number of submissions accepted: 189 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 56.25% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: more than 600 • Any additional info on review process (ie plagiarism check system): We use Turnitin system for plagiarism checking • Contact person for queries: Dimitrios Vlachos Associate Professor, University of Peloponnese Email: [email protected] Tel: +30 6944 371526

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]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document