New currents in the research on esotericism and mysticism

As the Chairman of the 9th edition of the Manufacturing Engineering Society International Conference (MESIC 2021) held in Gijόn (Spain) from 23 to 25 of June 2021, I have the honour to present the papers discussed at the conference by researchers and professionals from 18 different countries. This ninth edition was organized by the Manufacturing Engineering Area of the University of Oviedo on behalf of the Manufacturing Engineering Society (SIF). The conference was first held in Calatayud (Spain) in 2005, with the main objective of becoming a forum for the exchange of experiences between national and international researchers and professionals in the field of Manufacturing Engineering. The rest of the editions have been celebrated up to now with this same vocation. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (MSE) publishes here the 140 papers, organised according to the topics of the Conference, that were finally accepted for presentation at the MESIC 2021 after a rigorous peer review process. List of Committees Organizing Committee, Scientific Committee, Editors, Organizer, Promoter and Sponsors and this titles are available in this pdf.

Download Full-text

The Problem with Peer Review

Open Science Talk ◽

10.7557/19.5289 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Bård Smedsrød ◽

Erik Lieungh

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

The Arctic ◽

Individual Researcher ◽

Peer Reviewing ◽

Publishing Houses ◽

The Individual ◽

The University ◽

Insight Into

In this episode professor at UIT - The Arctic University of Norway, Bård Smedsrød, gives us an insight into peer review. How does the system work today, and what's problematic with it? Smedsrød also offers some solutions and encourages Universities to be much more involved in the peer review process. The host of this episode is Erik Lieungh. You can also read Bård's latest paper on peer reviewing: Peer reviewing: a private affair between the individual researcher and the publishing houses, or responsibility of the university? This episode was first published 2 November 2018.

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

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

Using Wikipedia to teach scholarly peer review

Journal of Information Literacy ◽

10.11645/15.2.2913 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 15 (2) ◽

pp. 178

Author(s):

Paul Anthony Thomas ◽

Matthew F Jones ◽

Spencer G Mattingly

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Peer Review ◽

Review Process ◽

Peer Review Process ◽

University Of Kansas ◽

Related Literature ◽

Biology Department ◽

The World ◽

The University

This paper outlines a creative Wikipedia-based project developed by the University of Kansas (KU) Libraries and the KU Biology Department. Inspired by the tenets of open pedagogy, the purpose of this project is to use Wikipedia as a way for students to learn about the scholarly peer review process while also producing material that can be shared and used by the world outside the classroom. The paper is divided into three sections, with the first summarizing pertinent related literature related to the paper’s topic. From here, the paper describes the proposed assignment, detailing a process wherein students write new articles for the encyclopedia which are then anonymously peer reviewed by other students in the class; when articles are deemed acceptable, they are published via Wikipedia. The parallels between this project and academic peer review are emphasized throughout. The paper closes by discussing the importance of this project, arguing that it fills a known scholarly need, actively produces knowledge, furthers the aims of the open access movement, and furthers scientific outreach initiatives.

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 ◽

10.1088/1755-1315/904/1/011002 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 904 (1) ◽

pp. 011002

Keyword(s):

Peer Review ◽

Management System ◽

Environmental Science ◽

Review Process ◽

Plant Protection ◽

Acceptance Rate ◽

College Of Agriculture ◽

Double Blind ◽

The University ◽

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 • Conference submission management system: We adopted a locally developed platform to track reviewing process for ICDS-2021 via the University of Anbar official website following the link below (http://icds2021.uoanbar.edu.iq/CMS.php?ID=6). • Number of submissions received: 121 • Number of submissions sent for review: 108 • Number of submissions accepted: 78 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): 64.4% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2-3 • Total number of reviewers involved: 132 • Any additional info on review process: Each of the received articles was reviewed by at least two experts in the precise field, and we were keen to have one of them from outside the institution. • Contact person for queries: Name : Prof. Dr. Ayoob Obaid Alfalahi Affiliation: Dept. of Plant Protection/College of Agriculture/University of Anabar [email protected]

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