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 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]

Download Full-text

Peer Review Declaration

IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science ◽

10.1088/1755-1315/926/1/011002 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 926 (1) ◽

pp. 011002

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Management System ◽

Environmental Science ◽

Review Process ◽

Acceptance Rate ◽

Contact Person ◽

Blind Review ◽

Minor Revision ◽

Scientific Standards ◽

Single Blind

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 Table 1 shows the evaluation aspects in the review process at The 3rd ICoGEE 2021. Several essential things in scientific articles are reviewed through this evaluation aspect, such as novelty, originality, clarity of methods and analysis, and their significance in science and technology. If an evaluation aspect has less than good quality, the reviewer provides suggestions for improvement, and the author must improve it or provide feedback. The reviewer will also offer recommendations such as: (i) accept without revision (if all aspects of the evaluation have exceptional score), (ii) accept with minor revision (if there are less than two evaluation aspects whose quality is below good), (iii) accept with major revision (if there are about 2 - 4 evaluation aspects that are below good quality), and (iv) reject (if more than four evaluation aspects have below good quality or are considered not to meet the essential requirements of scientific articles). • Conference submission management system: For official The 3rd ICoGEE 2021 webpage, we used: http://icogee.org, while for paper management system, we used Easy Chair: https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=icogee2021 • Number of submissions received: 197 • Number of submissions sent for review: 197 • Number of submissions accepted: 114 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 57,86% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 41 • Any additional info on review process: All papers had undergone plagiarism check (using Turnitin) and single-blind review by two reviewers • Contact person for queries: Name : Yuant Tiandho Affiliation : Department of Physics, Universitas Bangka Belitung Email : [email protected] / [email protected]

Download Full-text

Transparency in peer review: Exploring the content and tone of reviewers’ confidential comments to editors

PLoS ONE ◽

10.1371/journal.pone.0260558 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 16 (11) ◽

pp. e0260558

Author(s):

Bridget C. O’Brien ◽

Anthony R. Artino ◽

Joseph A. Costello ◽

Erik Driessen ◽

Lauren A. Maggio

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Review Process ◽

Qualitative Content Analysis ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Argument Quality ◽

Blind Review ◽

Coding Scheme ◽

Explicit Reference ◽

Education Journal ◽

Single Blind

Purpose Recent calls to improve transparency in peer review have prompted examination of many aspects of the peer-review process. Peer-review systems often allow confidential comments to editors that could reduce transparency to authors, yet this option has escaped scrutiny. Our study explores 1) how reviewers use the confidential comments section and 2) alignment between comments to the editor and comments to authors with respect to content and tone. Methods Our dataset included 358 reviews of 168 manuscripts submitted between January 1, 2019 and August 24, 2020 to a health professions education journal with a single blind review process. We first identified reviews containing comments to the editor. Then, for the reviews with comments, we used procedures consistent with conventional and directed qualitative content analysis to develop a coding scheme and code comments for content, tone, and section of the manuscript. For reviews in which the reviewer recommended “reject,” we coded for alignment between reviewers’ comments to the editor and to authors. We report descriptive statistics. Results 49% of reviews contained comments to the editor (n = 176). Most of these comments summarized the reviewers’ impression of the article (85%), which included explicit reference to their recommended decision (44%) and suitability for the journal (10%). The majority of comments addressed argument quality (56%) or research design/methods/data (51%). The tone of comments tended to be critical (40%) or constructive (34%). For the 86 reviews recommending “reject,” the majority of comments to the editor contained content that also appeared in comments to the authors (80%); additional content tended to be irrelevant to the manuscript. Tone frequently aligned (91%). Conclusion Findings indicate variability in how reviewers use the confidential comments to editor section in online peer-review systems, though generally the way they use them suggests integrity and transparency to authors.

Download Full-text

Peer review declaration

Journal of Physics Conference Series ◽

10.1088/1742-6596/2148/1/011003 ◽

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]

Download Full-text

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

BDJ ◽

10.1038/s41415-021-3319-y ◽

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.

Download Full-text

Peer review declaration

IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science ◽

10.1088/1755-1315/890/1/011002 ◽

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

Download Full-text

Peer review declaration

Journal of Physics Conference Series ◽

10.1088/1742-6596/2129/1/011002 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 2129 (1) ◽

pp. 011002

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Management System ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Acceptance Rate ◽

Conference Series ◽

Scientific Standards ◽

Single Blind

Download Full-text

Peer review declaration

IOP Conference Series Materials Science and Engineering ◽

10.1088/1757-899x/1217/1/011002 ◽

2022 ◽

Vol 1217 (1) ◽

pp. 011002

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Review Process ◽

Materials Science ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Acceptance Rate ◽

Scientific Committee ◽

Science And Engineering ◽

Materials Science And Engineering ◽

Scientific Standards ◽

Single Blind

Download Full-text

Peer review declaration

IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science ◽

10.1088/1755-1315/845/1/011002 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 845 (1) ◽

pp. 011002

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Environmental Science ◽

Review Process ◽

Scientific Journal ◽

Acceptance Rate ◽

Programme Committee ◽

Volume Editor ◽

E Mail ◽

Scientific Standards ◽

Single Blind

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 peer review by two committee members • Conference submission management system: Submissions were received and handled via e-mail [email protected]. The initial submission were handled by the secretary of the committee Ivan Krivolapov or his affiliates. Further correspondence with the authors and reviewers was handled via the same email under the supervision of the volume editor Galina Korotkova. • Number of submissions received: 237 • Number of submissions sent for review: 180 • Number of submissions accepted: 161 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 68% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2,5 • Total number of reviewers involved: 50 • Any additional info on review process: All the submissions were reviewed in two round. • Prior to the conference, preliminary texts (in Russian or in English) and slides (in English) were reviewed by one of programme committee members, who are responsible for this particular session. • After the conference, authors of the reported studies were encouraged to submit full texts in English for publication in this volume. The independent referees (at least one per paper) reviewed all texts. The review process was supervised by the volume editor. The editor communicated to the authors all suggestions and comments from the referees. After the revision, the editor may submit the revised document to the reviewer to get the confirmation of successful revision. • Reviewers of the scientific journal “Vestnik Michurinskogo Gossudarstvennogo Agrarnogo Universiteta” contributed to the process. • Spell and style check was applied for all accepted papers. The specialist from the language and publishing departments of Michurinsk State Agricultural University were involved in this process. • Contact person for queries: Galina Korotkova, Ph.D., Vice-rector for Research and Development of Michurinsk State Agrarian University, co-editor of Vestnik of MGAU (Michurinsk, Russia), [email protected]

Download Full-text

Peer review declaration

Journal of Physics Conference Series ◽

10.1088/1742-6596/2106/1/011002 ◽

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

Download Full-text

Peer review declaration

IOP Conference Series Materials Science and Engineering ◽

10.1088/1757-899x/1192/1/011002 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 1192 (1) ◽

pp. 011002

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Review Process ◽

Materials Science ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Science And Engineering ◽

Double Blind ◽

Materials Science And Engineering ◽

Funding Information ◽

Scientific Standards ◽

Single Blind

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 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 Double Blind- Remove the author names and affiliations of the authors anywhere in the manuscript. Remove names and affiliations under the title within the manuscript. Do not include or remove any author names or affiliations in the Acknowledgements section of your manuscript. Author names and Funding information should be removed and can be included later in the peer review process. Do not sign your author response, rebuttals, or appeals with author names. Do not include or remove any names in any file names and ensure document properties are also anonymised. Check that your figures and schemes do not include author details. • Conference submission management system: ∘ https://easychair.org/conferences/submissions?a=26389499 • Number of submissions received: 114 (Abstract) • Number of submissions sent for review: 68 • Number of submissions accepted: 59 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 55.6% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 83 • Any additional info on review process: Turnitin was used to check plagiarism. • Contact person for queries: Assoc. Prof. Ir. Dr. Sarina Sulaiman, Department of Biotechnology Engineering, Kulliyyah of Engineering, International Islamic University Malaysia. Email: [email protected] Assoc. Prof. Dr Noor Noor Illi, Department of Biotechnology Engineering, Kulliyyah of Engineering, International Islamic University Malaysia. Email: [email protected] Dr Mohd Firdaus Abd Wahab, Department of Biotechnology Engineering, Kulliyyah of Engineering, International Islamic University Malaysia. Email: [email protected] Prof. Dr. Zahangir Alam, Department of Biotechnology Engineering, Kulliyyah of Engineering, International Islamic University Malaysia. Email: [email protected]

Download Full-text