ICECAE 2021 PEER-REVIEW DECLARATION

Abstract All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science have been peer-reviewed through processes administered by the Editor-in-Chief. A three-stage peer-review process was applied that includes initial screening, peer-review, and post-review phases. Reviews were conducted by international expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. Type of peer review: Triple-blind. There was a three-round reviewing process by the Scientific and Technical Committee. First-round is a preliminary review, plagiarism/similarity check (using Turnitin), quality, and topic. The papers, which did not pass the plagiarism/similarity check-up, were rejected immediately and the authors of the rejected papers received the rejection notice along with the similarity report. The second round of reviewing is a professional review, 2-3 experts of related research field gave the professional assessment and comment on scientific quality, relevance with the topics of the conference, originality, subject matter and style of presentation appropriate for IOP: EES, language, and impact of the paper. Consequently, the referees’ decided whether the paper accepted, rejected, conditionally accepted with minor revisions, conditionally accepted with major revisions, or rejected. The authors had the opportunity to revise their papers based on the reviewers’ recommendations. Third round reviewing is the final checking and format analysis of the revised papers. Passed submissions got the acceptance notification from the ICECAE 2021 Editor-in-Chief. ▪ Conference submission management system: https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=icecae2021 ▪ Number of submissions received: 249 ▪ Number of submissions sent for review: 215 ▪ Number of submissions accepted: 101 ▪ Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 41% ▪ Average number of reviews per paper: 2 ▪ Total number of reviewers involved: 14 ▪ Any additional info on review process: N/A ▪ Contact person for queries: Obid Tursunov, [email protected]

Download Full-text

Peer review declaration

IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science ◽

10.1088/1755-1315/875/1/011002 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 875 (1) ◽

pp. 011002

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Environmental Science ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Scientific Quality ◽

State University ◽

Advance Research ◽

Primary Hypothesis ◽

Scientific Station ◽

E Mail

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 • Conference submission management system: The submission processing had no a software system. Call-for-paper was placed on the Conference web page, the papers were submitted via e-mail. The reviews were asked and received via e-mails. • Number of submissions received: 118 • Number of submissions sent for review: 104 • Number of submissions accepted: 93 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 79% • Average number of reviews per paper: 1.9 • Total number of reviewers involved: 1,433 • Any additional info on review process: The consideration of the submitted manuscript included independent peer review process. At least two reviewers gave their view and remarks for each paper. All reviewers were asked to provide a detailed review with comments for authors and editors and evaluate paper taking into account the questions list (Is this work novel? Is this work scientifically correct (the experimental procedure and sequence)? Does the subject significantly advance research in the fields of research? Does it have high scientific quality? Does this work have significant proof to verify the primary hypothesis? Is this work incremental? Is the paper clearly written, concise and understandable? Should the English be improved? Is the paper scientifically sound and not misleading?). All reviewers also were asked to provide their recommendations about paper acceptance (to publish the paper “as is”; to publish the paper after minor revision; to publish the paper after major revision; to reject the paper). • Contact person for queries: Dr. Anna Godymchuk, Tobolsk Complex Scientific Station, [email protected] Prof. Svetlana Morkovina, Vice-rector of Voronezh State University of Forestry and Technologies named after G.F. Morozov, Russia [email protected]

Download Full-text

Peer-Review Declaration

IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science ◽

10.1088/1755-1315/869/1/011003 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 869 (1) ◽

pp. 011003

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Environmental Science ◽

Review Process ◽

Acceptance Rate ◽

Preliminary Review ◽

Double Blind ◽

Conference Series ◽

Scientific Standards

Download Full-text

Peer-Review Declaration

IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science ◽

10.1088/1755-1315/956/1/011002 ◽

2022 ◽

Vol 956 (1) ◽

pp. 011002

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Management System ◽

Environmental Science ◽

Review Process ◽

Community Services ◽

Preliminary Review ◽

Double Blind ◽

Conference Management ◽

Scientific Standards ◽

Official Information

Download Full-text

Peer review declaration

IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science ◽

10.1088/1755-1315/944/1/011002 ◽

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

Download Full-text

Peer Review Declaration

IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science ◽

10.1088/1755-1315/946/1/011002 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 946 (1) ◽

pp. 011002

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Environmental Science ◽

Review Process ◽

Scientific Quality ◽

Marine Geology ◽

Scientific Discussion ◽

Text Quality ◽

Marine Geology And Geophysics

All papers published in this volume (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-anonymous: authors’ identities are known to the reviewers, reviewers’ identities are hidden from authors. Main criteria used by Reviewers when accepting/declining papers: 1. Relevance to the scope of the Conference 2. Suitability & length of the title 3. Scientific originality 4. Adequacy of the abstract 5. Scientific quality 6. Text quality 7. English level • Conference submission management system: Full paper submission was fully managed by editorial board of Conference • Number of submissions received: 53 full papers • Number of submissions sent for review: 51 full papers • Number of submissions accepted: 48 full papers • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): 90.56 % • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 (117 reviews) • Total number of reviewers involved: 51 reviewers (15 institutes) from 3 countries • Any additional info on review process: The review process and revision were conducted 3 rounds on average for each paper since the first submission after presentation at the conference. The first step was to check the format of paper and base quality of English level. The second-round of review was organized for papers with minor remarks from reviewers, for example the graphics or style. The third round required only for papers that need major modifications (scientific discussion on topic). All reviewers were asked to complete the review within enough time ranged no more than three weeks. We have asked authors to revise according to suggestions by reviewers within time ranged between 7-10 days. After being accepted, the final English proofread and format checking our specialists were carried out to ensure the quality prior to submission to IOP EES. • Contact person for queries: Name: Aleksandr Zakupin, Ph.D. Affiliation: Institute for Marine Geology and Geophysics, Department of Seismology Email: [email protected]

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

IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science ◽

10.1088/1755-1315/913/1/011002 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 913 (1) ◽

pp. 011002

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Management System ◽

Environmental Science ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Similarity Index ◽

Double Blind ◽

Email Address ◽

Double Blind Method ◽

Institution Selection

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: The peer review process was conducted with double-blind method by 2 reviewers per article. • Conference submission management system: Email address used for manuscript management system is [email protected] • Number of submissions received: 180 • Number of submissions sent for review: 125 • Number of submissions accepted: 111 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): 61.67% • Average number of reviews per paper: 3 rounds of review process • Total number of reviewers involved: 12 reviewers • Any additional info on review process: In detail, the submitted papers were checked for their plagiarism similarity index with Turn it in software. Any manuscript with similarity index above 25% will be returned to the author for revision. The peer-review process was conducted by involving internal reviewers from University of Mataram who has scopus H-index ≥ 3. In addition, external reviewers were also involved from other universities and institution. Selection of the reviewers was conducted based on the suitability of the reviewer expertise and the subtopic of the paper. The first decision whether the paper is rejected or required for revision is sent in approximately 4 days. The comments from the reviewer are concluded by the editor in chief to reject or accept the paper. • Contact person for queries: Eka Sunarwidhi Prasedya, Ph.D. University of Mataram, Mataram, Indonesia [email protected]

Download Full-text

Análisis de contenido y nivel de evidencia de los artículos sobre Covid-19 más citados en la Web of Science

El profesional de la información ◽

10.3145/epi.2021.nov.17 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

José-Antonio Salvador-Oliván ◽

Gonzalo Marco-Cuenca ◽

Rosario Arquero-Avilés

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Review Process ◽

Web Of Science ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Case Series ◽

Controlled Clinical Trial ◽

Scientific Quality ◽

Level Of Evidence ◽

Expert Opinions ◽

Bibliographic Data

The scientific literature on Covid-10 has seen unprecedented growth, becoming published so rapidly that it has caused a loss of quality and the peer review process to be questioned. This research analyzes the characteristics of the publications with a wider impact on Covid-19, mainly those related to the content, the quality and level of evidence of the studies. Web of Science Core Collection was searched for articles containing the terms Covid-19 and SARS-CoV-19 and the 100 most cited articles published in 2020 were selected. The data extracted included bibliographic data, dates of submission, acceptance and publication in the journals, main topics covered, type of study and level of evidence according to the SIGN scale, and the presence of corrections. Half of the articles were published in 3 journals, most of them in the first months of 2020. The most frequent types of studies corresponded to case series, narrative reviews and expert opinions, with only 1 randomized controlled clinical trial. The articles focused mainly on the clinical characteristics and complications of the patients, diagnostic and treatment methods, as well as the epidemiology and characteristics of the virus. The design of these studies reflects a low level of evidence, and data and scientific quality may be affected by how quickly they are published, and the peer review process is performed. Resumen El crecimiento sin precedentes de la bibliografía científica sobre Covid-19 y la rapidez en su publicación ha llevado a cuestionar la calidad y el proceso de revisión por pares. Este estudio tiene como objetivo analizar las características de las publicaciones con mayor impacto sobre Covid-19, principalmente las relacionadas con el contenido, la calidad y nivel de evidencia de los estudios. Para ello, se buscó en la colección principal de Web of Science los artículos que contenían los términos Covid-19 y SARS-CoV-19 en el campo del título y se seleccionaron los 100 artículos más citados publicados en el año 2020. Además de los datos bibliográficos, se recogieron datos de las fechas de envío, aceptación y publicación en las revistas, principales temas tratados, tipo de estudio y nivel de evidencia según la escala SIGN, así como de la presencia de correcciones. Más de la mitad de los artículos están publicados en 3 revistas, y la mayoría de ellos en los primeros meses de 2020. Los tipos de estudios más frecuentes son series de casos, revisiones narrativas y opiniones de expertos, con solo 1 ensayo clínico controlado aleatorizado. El contenido de los artículos trata principalmente de las características clínicas y complicaciones de los enfermos, métodos diagnósticos y de tratamiento, así como de la epidemiología y características del virus. Los artículos presentan un nivel de evidencia bajo, a pesar de estar publicados en revistas de medicina con muy alto factor de impacto. El tiempo transcurrido entre la fecha de envío y de publicación es muy corto y cuestiona la realización y/o rigor del proceso de revisión por pares.

Download Full-text

Does Peer Review Identify the Best Papers? A Simulation Study of Editors, Reviewers, and the Scientific Publication Process

Political Science and Politics ◽

10.1017/s1049096517001081 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 50 (04) ◽

pp. 963-969 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Justin Esarey

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Computational Simulation ◽

Scientific Publication ◽

Scientific Quality ◽

Review System ◽

Multiple Systems ◽

Average Reader

ABSTRACTHow does the structure of the peer review process, which can vary among journals, influence the quality of papers published in a journal? This article studies multiple systems of peer review using computational simulation. I find that, under any of the systems I study, a majority of accepted papers are evaluated by an average reader as not meeting the standards of the journal. Moreover, all systems allow random chance to play a strong role in the acceptance decision. Heterogeneous reviewer and reader standards for scientific quality drive both results. A peer review system with an active editor—that is, one who uses desk rejection before review and does not rely strictly on reviewer votes to make decisions—can mitigate some of these effects.

Download Full-text

Assessment of Variables that Influence Agreement Amongst Reviewers for Foot & Ankle International

Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics ◽

10.1177/2473011418s00300 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 3 (3) ◽

pp. 2473011418S0030

Author(s):

John Kwon ◽

Tyler Gonzalez ◽

Chris Miller ◽

Shera Palmer Cook ◽

David Thordarson

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Demographic Data ◽

Univariate Analysis ◽

Scientific Quality ◽

Foot And Ankle ◽

Initial Decision ◽

Area Of Interest

Category: Other Introduction/Purpose: The peer-review process is a rigorous process under which manuscripts are assessed for their overall scientific quality and is generally accepted as the highest standard of scientific scrutiny with regard to medical publishing. A common criticism regards the often disparate nature of reviewer recommendations when a decision is rendered which belies the supposed uniformity of the review process. The purpose of this investigation was to: (1) examine the historic level of agreement amongst reviewers for Foot & Ankle International (FAI) and (2) to assess variables which may influence agreement in order to improve the peer-review process. Methods: Approval to conduct this study was obtained from the Editorial Board of FAI. All manuscripts submitted to FAI during 2015 which underwent peer-review were included in the analysis. For each reviewed manuscript, demographic data was collected regarding specific reviewer and manuscript characteristics in a de-identified manner. Univariate analysis was performed. Results: 442 manuscripts underwent peer-review by 198 reviewers during the study period. During this time period, other papers were reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and rejected prior to being sent out for review. Of the 884 reviews performed, 339 (38%) recommended rejection, 353 (40%) recommended revision and resubmission and191(22%) recommended accept. Only 199 manuscripts (45%) had a decision rendered in which both reviewers agreed on the initial recommendation.The most common initial decision was rejection (52.7%) followed by revise and resubmit (42.8%). Only 20 manuscripts (4.5%) received an outright acceptance upon initial review. Comparing the agreeing versus disagreeing reviewers, there was no difference in demographic data such as reviewer age or experience. When examining key words (designated by reviewers as a particular area of interest within foot and ankle), there was no association between shared interests and level of reviewer agreement. Overall, for all reviewers, mean acceptance rate was19% (+/- 16%), mean reject rate 37% (+/- 20%) and mean revise 44% (+/- 19%). Conclusion: Regarding initial decision for publication in FAI, there was only 45% agreement amongst reviewers for manuscripts which underwent peer-review in 2015. However, no reviewer-specific variables examined in this investigation were found to correlate with agreement. Despite reviewers having similar interests in various aspects of foot and ankle surgery, this did not lead to an increased likelihood of agreement. Agreement and more uniform assessment of manuscripts by reviewers may be increased by specific education.

Download Full-text