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 Form Guidance

2021 ◽  
Vol 2081 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
State Technical ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Check System ◽  
E Mail ◽  
Scientific Standards ◽  
Submission Date ◽  
The Web

On the following page you will find the declaration form. • Please answer each question. • You should submit the form along with the rest of your submission files. • The deadline is the submission date written in your publishing agreement. All conference organisers/editors are required to declare details about their peer review. We will published the information you provide as part of your proceedings. 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: To participate in the PIRT-2021 Conference, Participants had to register on the website http://www.pirt.info/?lang=eng#reg_form Abstracts and papers had to be sent to the PIRT-2021 Organizing Committee by e-mail: [email protected] All information about the format of abstracts and papers was on the web-site: http://www.pirt.info/?lang=eng • Number of submissions received: 61 • Number of submissions sent for review: 51 • Number of submissions accepted: 38 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 62,29 • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved:12 • Any additional info on review process: Plagiarism check system: antiplagiat.ru Authors could resubmit the paper with the necessary revisions. • Contact person for queries: Name : Professor Vladimir Olegovich Gladyshev Affiliation: Head of the Faculty of Fundamental Sciences, Bauman Moscow State Technical University, 5, 2-nd Baumanskaya St., Moscow, 105005, Russian Federation Email : [email protected]

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2064 (1) ◽  
pp. 011003
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Management System ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Contact Person ◽  
Conference Series ◽  
E Mail ◽  
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) Type of peer review: Single-blind • Conference submission management system: The Conference submission management system assumed interaction through the Conference website (https://gdp2021.uran.ru/) and the Conference e-mail box ([email protected]). • Number of submissions received: 140 • Number of submissions sent for review: 140 • Number of submissions accepted: 132 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 94 • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 15 • Any additional info on review process: There is no any additional info on review process. • Contact person for queries: Name : Nikolay Zubarev Affiliation: Institute of Electrophysics, UB RAS, 620016, Ekaterinburg, Russia [email protected]

scholarly journals Peer Review Declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2126 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Management System ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Editorial Team ◽  
High Similarity ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Review Form ◽  
Two Stages ◽  
Content Review

All conference organizers/editors are required to declare details about their peer review. Therefore, please provide the following information: • Type of peer review: The ICoPIs 2021 manuscripts were reviewed using double-blind peer review. One reviewer reviewed one manuscript. The number of papers submitted was 62 articles. The number of ICoPIs 2021 reviewers were 9 people. The reviewing processes were conducted via email or OCS. The manuscripts in ICoPIs 2021 have been through two stages of review. The first review stage involved three steps. First, manuscripts were distributed to the 10 reviewers. Second, the ICoPIs team checked the similarity of the manuscript. Third, the reviewed manuscripts consisting of the reviewer’s detailed comments were returned to the authors, along with the review summary form and the similarity check results. The authors were requested to return the revision of their papers within a certain period of time. In the second review stage, the editorial team scrutinized the revised manuscripts with the summary review form and the similarity percentage. If the revision has followed the comments and suggestions from reviewers and the limitation of similarity, the manuscript would be forwarded for language and template check. • Conference submission management system: OCS (https://fisika.fkip.untad.ac.id/icopis/) • The number of submissions received: There were 62 articles submitted to the ICoPIs 2021 • The number of submissions sent for review: There were 56 articles reviewed by the reviewers of the ICoPIs 2021 • The number of submissions accepted: There were 37 articles accepted for recommendation/publication to JPCS IOP Publishing. • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 59.68% • The average number of reviews per paper: One article was reviewed 4 times; twice for content review and a similarity check, once for language and once more for the template. • The total number of reviewers involved: There were 24 reviewers involved, consisting of 9 content reviewers, 10 editors (review content and templates), and 5 language reviewers. • Any additional info on the review process: While the ICoPIs team waited for the manuscripts from the reviewers, we checked the similarity of the papers. We sent three documents to the authors for the first review stage, including the reviewed manuscript, the summary of the review form, and the result of a similarity check. The authors sent the revised article along with the similarity check (maximum 20%). The manuscripts entered the second review stage. When a manuscript has followed the comments and suggestions from reviewers and was considered suitable for publication, the manuscript then proceeded to the editors for the template and language check. We did a similarity check once more during this phase but only for the manuscript with a high similarity percentage in the first review stage. So, one manuscript has been through a similarity check 2 to 3 times. • Contact person for queries: +628975586104 (Misbah) Universitas Lambung Mangkurat [email protected]

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

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

2021 ◽  
Vol 1199 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Research Methodology ◽  
Management System ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Acceptance Rate ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Contact Person ◽  
Review Form ◽  
Single Blind ◽  
Submission Date

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) MMS 2021 review form If you cannot review this manuscript within 2 weeks, please return it immediately without comments. If you answer on any question "No, see comments" fill your comment at the end of review form. Thank you for your assistance! 1. Is the topic of the manuscript relevant, timely and of interest to the audience of this conference?* ○ Yes ○ No, see comments 2. Does the title of the article accurately reflect its content?* ○ Yes ○ No, see comments 3. Is the research methodology and treatment of the study appropriate and applied properly?* ○ Yes ○ No, see comments 4. Is the length of the paper appropriate to the content?* ○ Yes ○ No, see comments 5. Do the used notation and nomenclature meet the standards determined in the area of paper interest?* ○ Yes ○ No, see comments 6. Is this paper clearly and concisely written and well organized?* ○ Yes ○ No, see comments 7. Does the manuscript contain sufficient and appropriate references?* ○ Yes ○ No, see comments 8. Are tables and figures appropriate and adequate?* ○ Yes ○ No, see comments 9. Does the abstract of article satisfactorily show the aims, methods and result of the article?* ○ Yes ○ No, see comments 10. Does the conclusion clearly summarize the main results and contributions of the manuscript?* ○ Yes ○ No, see comments 11. Is the language and presentation clear to readers familiar with the field?* ○ Yes ○ No, see comments 12. Comments: • Conference submission management system: https://www.mmsconf.eu/index.php/mms/mms2021 Open Conference System https://pkp.sfu.ca/ocs/ • Number of submissions received: 143 • Number of submissions sent for review: 130 • Number of submissions accepted: 105 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): (105/143)x100=73% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 reviews per paper • Total number of reviewers involved: 70 • Any additional info on review process:- • Contact person for queries: Assoc. Prof. Eng. MSc. Lucia Knapčíková, Ph.D. Email: [email protected] Please submit this form along with the rest of your files on the submission date written in your publishing agreement. The information you provide will be published as part of your proceedings.

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2022 ◽  
Vol 1216 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Materials Science ◽  
Academic Excellence ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Programme Committee ◽  
Conference Series ◽  
Materials Science And Engineering ◽  
E Mail ◽  
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 • Conference submission management system: Microsoft CMT - https://cmt3.research.microsoft.com/ • Number of submissions received: 28 • Number of submissions sent for review: 28 • Number of submissions accepted: 17 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 60.71% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 31 • Any additional info on review process: All manuscripts submitted to the CIEES’2021 conference were single-blind peer-reviewed and are carried out to meet the scientific criteria of novelty and academic excellence. The review process was conducted according to the review policy of IOP conference series - each paper was reviewed by at least two reviewers involving both national and international reviewers. During the discussion phase, International Scientific Committee members and the Programme Committee members discussed the reviews in detail. The rebuttals from the authors were also seriously considered. The final decision to accept a paper was entirely based on quality and not its length. • Contact person for queries: Assoc. Prof. Teodor Iliev, PhD, Department of Telecommunications, University of Ruse, Bulgaria, E-mail: [email protected]

scholarly journals Peer review declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2061 (1) ◽  
pp. 011002
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Technical Information ◽  
Associate Professor ◽  
Program Committee ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
State University ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
E Mail

Abstract All conference organisers/editors are required to declare details about their peer review. Therefore, please provide the following information: • Type of peer review: Double-blind peer review • Review criteria: Consistency with the conference scope and JPCS fields of interests; Technical content; Presentation style and clarity; Academic value. Each position was assessed with the following scale: Unsatisfactory, To be Improved, Good Enough. All papers marked as unsatisfactory by two referees were declined, all other papers were either accepted as is or send for the revision. Editorial board is responsible for the final decision regarding the publishing of manuscripts. • Conference submission management system: submissions were received and handled via e-mail • Number of submissions received: 262 • Number of submissions sent for review: 181 • Number of submissions accepted: 153 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 60% • Average number of reviews per paper: 3 • Total number of reviewers involved: 29 • Any additional info on review process: three independent peers, one of whom invited from outside the committee were assigned to each paper. The editors supervised the review process. Contact person for queries: Igor Boychuk , co-chairman of the organizing committee, co-editor, associate professor of Admiral Ushakov State Maritime University, Novorossiysk, Russia. E-mail: [email protected]. Sergey Bakhmutov , co-chairman of the program committee, co-editor, vice executive office for research and development of Central Scientific Research Automobile and Automotive Engines Institute (FSUE “NAMI”), Moscow, Russia. E-mail: [email protected]. Artyom Butsanets , secretary of the editorial board, head of the department of intellectual property and technical information, Admiral Makarov State University of Maritime and Inland Shipping, Saint Petersburg, Russia, [email protected].

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 declaration

2021 ◽  
Vol 2143 (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: 85 • Number of submissions sent for review: 70 • Number of submissions accepted: 63 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 74.1 • 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 7 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 21, 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 will 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 18, 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]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document