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
• Describe criteria used by Reviewers when accepting/declining papers. Was there the opportunity to resubmit articles after revisions? There are five main criteria: relevance to the conference topic, importance of the research/state-of-the-art, proper methodology, arguments and conclusions, and academic writing quality. All the criteria are included in the substantial review form (attached) provided for the reviewers. Organizers also prepared a technical review form (attached) to assess the compliance with IOP template and guidelines and to inform the result of plagiarism check. There was the opportunity to resubmit articles after revisions, up to a maximum of two (2) times based on two (2) substantial reviews.
• Conference submission management system: Universitas Indonesia online conference system (https://symposiumjessd.ui.ac.id/online-submission/) using Digital Commons From Bepress (Elsevier), the complete submission guidelines are available in following link https://symposiumjessd.ui.ac.id/guideline/
• Number of submissions received: 250
• Number of submissions sent for review: 250
• Number of submissions accepted: 141
• Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 56.4%
• Average number of reviews per paper: 1–2
• Total number of reviewers involved:
• Any additional info on review process (i.e. plagiarism check system): Review process was done in 8-14 days. One reviewer might review up to two (2) articles.
• Contact person for queries: Herdis Herdiansyah, School of Environmental Science, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia, e-mail: [email protected]
Additional information
Review Period
1. Review process will be done in range of 8 to 14 days.
2. One Reviewer in term of substantial, maximum article to review are 3 article.
Substantial Review
1. Relevance to the Conference topic.
2. Importance of the research/State-of-the-art.
3. Proper methodology.
4. Arguments and conclusions.
5. Academic Writing quality.
Other Information
1. Author will received 1 Technical Review and Minimum of 1-2 Substantial Reviewer both from Author Suggestion or/and choose from Committee
2. When the article deliver to publisher, every Author will receive Galley Proof. As an Author must agree with the editing version, except there is some correction from Author.
3. Every Author will receive information and status of the article after submitted.
Submission Ethics
Ethics in JESSD Symposium is based on Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Before submitting your article(s), please ensure that your submission completely represents following statements.
1. The uploaded files have been carefully prepared based on the provided templates, both title page (title, author name(s), affiliation(s), abstract, and acknowledgements) and article (title, abstract, introduction, method, results and discussion, conclusion, and references)
2. The article represents a qualified scientific knowledge that might come from international collaborations
3. Author(s) has/have approved the article and agree(s) with the submission, therefore any withdrawal of the article is prohibited once it is submitted
4. Author(s) is/are willing to pay the symposium fee and publication fee charged by the organizers (symposium fee is mandatory charged for one author attendance virtually while publication fee is optionally charged before the symposium or after the article is listed in Scopus)
5. The article does not contain any form of plagiarism
6. Author(s) has/have made significant substantial contribution to the article, whether it is in the concept or design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation, or in all these areas
7. The article has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere (either partly or wholly)
8. Author(s) has/have acknowledged any conflict of interest in the article, if necessary
9. Author(s) has/have acknowledged any source of funding in the article, if necessary
10. The article was written in English and carefully reviewed by a native English editor
Review Ethics
1. The author(s) is/are required to propose one reviewer and another one reviewer optionally. However, the organizers manage to prevent any conflict of interest that might be happened during review process. Therefore, please ensure that your suggested reviewer fits to following criteria.
2. He/she is an expert in the relevant field.
3. He/she has no competing interest with the author(s).
4. He/she has never been involved in any related work with the author(s).
5. He/she does not know the author(s) personally.
6. There is no certainty that the organizer will accept your suggested reviewer. The double-blind peer review will be conducted, therefore reviewers will not receive any author(s) information and vice versa.
Similarity Check
Each submitted article will be going to preliminary review with iThenticate. Through the preliminary review, any form of plagiarism will be detected and measured. If similarity check result is more than 10%, the article will be returned or directly rejected. Moreover, the preliminary review will also consider return or direct rejection due to, but not limited to, following reasons.
1. Falling out of topic.
2. Multiple submission or consideration for other publications.
3. Recommendation for rejection from reviewer.
Peer review declaration
