The ethnic and religious future of Europe

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

Journal of Physics Conference Series ◽

10.1088/1742-6596/2063/1/011002 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 2063 (1) ◽

pp. 011002

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Management System ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Acceptance Rate ◽

Double Blind ◽

Related Research ◽

Contact Person ◽

Research Areas ◽

Scientific Standards

Abstract 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: google website https://sites.google.com/uobasrah.edu.iq/3rd-ivccbasrah/english Online Conference Email: [email protected] • Number of submissions received: 65 • Number of submissions sent for review: 47 • Number of submissions accepted: 31 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): 47.7% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2-3 Reviewers • Total number of reviewers involved: 35 • Any additional info on review process: The papers were received was evaluated using Turnitin software at Basrah University. Then the papers were sent to the reviewers of related research areas for peer-review process. The referees gave their decision (acceptance or acceptance after revisions or rejection). Rejected papers were sent back to the authors. The accepted papers by two reviewers were sent for the publications. • Contact person for queries: Prof. Dr. Salah Shaker Hashim, Dept. of Chemistry, College of Science, University of Basrah, [email protected] Mobile No.: 00964 774 070 8188

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

Religion and food

Scripta Instituti Donneriani Aboensis ◽

10.30674/scripta.67463 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 26 ◽

Author(s):

Ruth Illman ◽

Björn Dahla

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Double Blind

The current 26th volume of Scripta Instituti Donneriani Aboensis is based on a symposium arranged by the Donner Institute in June 2014, under the title: ‘Religion and Food’. All the articles published in this volume were initially presented as papers or keynote addresses at this conference and have, through a double-blind peer-review process, been selected for this volume.

Download Full-text

A Letter from the Editor-in-Chief

Columbia Undergraduate Research Journal ◽

10.52214/curj.v1i1.3599 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 1 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Bryan Kudish

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Peer Review ◽

Biomedical Engineering ◽

Review Process ◽

Undergraduate Research ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Editorial Staff ◽

Double Blind ◽

Research Journal ◽

The World

It is my pleasure to introduce to you the first volume of the Columbia Undergraduate Research Journal, an interdisciplinary publication that serves as a platform for undergraduates from all over the world to display the fruits of their academic investigations. The diversity of our authors is matched only by that of their subject matters, which range anywhere from biomedical engineering to political science and astrophysics. One thing is certain: our organization is privileged to showcase the work of this incredible set of individuals. Before each research piece, you will find a concise commentary written by a member of our editorial staff that places the author’s arguments and findings in the context of ongoing conversations in his/her field and related disciplines in order to more effectively communicate the significance of the research to any passing reader. With this initial volume of our journal, we lead the battle against negative the stereotypes attached to undergraduate journalism by seeking to adopt the practices of premier research publications, emphasizing ethically sound review policies and overall professionalism in our interactions with our authors. As we launch our website, we look forward to initiating a double blind peer review process, and to making our content freely available through our open access interface. We are an organization dedicated to our brilliant contributors, our tireless editorial staff, and of course you, the reader, from whom the entire process and presentation of research derives its significance. Best regards, Bryan Kudisch, Editor-in-Chief

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

Volume 10, Issue 2, Formation

Iraqi Journal of Embryos and Infertility Researches ◽

10.28969/ijeir.v10.i2.e1 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (2) ◽

pp. e1-e15

Author(s):

Taif Alawsi ◽

Ula Al-Kawaz

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Double Blind ◽

Online System ◽

Creative Commons ◽

Peer Reviewing ◽

Review Procedure ◽

Near Future ◽

Peer Review Procedure

In editors of the Iraqi Journal of Embryos and Infertility Researches (IJEIR) are thankful to the huge efforts made by the reviewers in peer reviewing the submitted manuscripts. Thanks to their efforts the second issue of the 10th volume is now available online with open access to the articles content. We are looking forward in inclusion in relevant indexing in the near future. We would like to acknowledge the reviewers for their contribution, and we wish them the greatest success. We ensured the anonymity of both reviewers and authors and followed a double-blind peer-review procedure. We strictly followed the COPE ethical code in the published studies. As of now, the IJEIR is published in new website https://ijeir.net/index.php/ijeir supported by the Open Journal Systems (OJS), therefore all the activities were strictly by the online system. Journal reviewers were given the proper credit via Publons (an online platform that promotes the peer review process). Currently, IJEIR is indexed in Google Scholar, Science gate, Crossref, Iraqi academic journals, Publons, Dimensions, LOCKSS, and CLOCKSS. Our articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License and the rights are with the authors which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

Download Full-text

New currents in the research on esotericism and mysticism

Scripta Instituti Donneriani Aboensis ◽

10.30674/scripta.91845 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 29 ◽

Author(s):

Maarit Leskelä-Kärki ◽

Tiina Mahlamäki

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

Cultural Influences ◽

Research Project ◽

Double Blind ◽

The University

The current 29th volume of Scripta Instituti Donneriani Aboensis is based on a symposium arranged by the Donner Institute and the research project ‘Seekers of the New: Esotericism and the Transformation of Religiosity in the Modernising Finland’ at the University of Turku in June 2017, under the title: ‘Approaching Esotericism and Mysticism: Cultural Influences’. All the articles published in this volume were initially presented as papers at this conference and have, through a double-blind peer-review process, been selected for this volume.

Download Full-text