Peer review declaration

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]

Scientific Publishing in Biomedicine: Revising a Peer-reviewed Manuscript

: Getting feedback from the journals’ editorial office upon the peer-review process, revising the manuscript, and responding to reviewers’ comments are the essential parts of scientific publishing. The process of revising seems cumbersome and time-consuming as authors must be engaged probably with many comments and requested changes. Authors are advised to approach the reviewer as a consultant rather than an adversary. They should carefully read and understand comments and then decide how to proceed with each requested change/suggestion. In the case of serious disagreement with reviewer comments or misunderstanding, authors can defer the issue to the editor. Preparing a scientific and well-organized "response to reviews" and the revised version of the manuscript can increase the chance of acceptance. Here, we provide a practical guide on dealing with different types of comments (ie, minor or major revisions, conflicting comments, or those that authors disagree with or cannot adhere to) and how to craft a response to reviews. We also provide the principles for making a successful revision.

Letter from the Editors

Dear Colleagues! Our Authors and Friends! New Year 2022 rushes towards humanity. This universal arrangement of life on our planet presupposes changes. Their essence is in hopes for the best. We wish all of us not just hopes but confidence in the victory of good over evil, reasons over greed and cruelty. We hope that the Planet will overcome humankind's most severe viral attack – the SARS-CoV2 pandemic. We hope that the future brings us victories over epidemics, serious diseases, hunger, and lack of water. We hope that all types of violence, military conflicts, political, economic, religious confrontations will be stopped in a New Year. We are opening the third year of our journal, which was focused on different aspects of medicine. Last year we published eight papers from seven countries experts, each substantially contributed to medicine. We talked about COVID-19 pandemic, vital pediatric problems, and adult medicine. We will continue our mission to support and distribute the most valuable medical knowledge in the New Year. May the New Year celebrations bring only joy and harmony to your homes, souls, and the reasoning, which illuminate confidence in the future for our beautiful multinational green Planet - Earth! "Every end is a new beginning…." We wish you and your family a Happy Holidays! We hope that your New Year will be filled with peace, new ideas, and success! Editorial office

City Elections in Kuban (Spring — Autumn 1919)

The article is devoted to the elections to the city councils of the Kuban Territory, which took place in the spring and autumn of 1919. The author dwells in detail on the Kuban electoral law, according to which, for the first time in Russia, a rather rare electoral system — раnаchage — was used, and on the results of its application. Election campaigns in Yekaterinodar and other cities of the region are considered, the results of voting and the composition of councillors are analyzed. By the example of Yekaterinodar, the difference in electoral preferences of residents of “bourgeois” and “proletarian” regions is shown, as well as the influence of the educational and property level, occupation on the political preferences of the townspeople. Special attention is paid to the story of the murder in the editorial office of the newspaper “Utro Yuga”, which was caused by the struggle between moderately socialist electoral associations, and one of the immediate reasons was S. Ya. Marshak's election poems. The general results of the elections show that in most cities of the region the victory was won by the “right” homeowners' lists, but the author believes that the reason for this was not so much a change in the mood of the masses as the absenteeism of the left and centrist electorate.

2021 ASI Travel Award: Announcement and Interview with the Winner

The ASI editorial office is proud to present the winner of the ASI Travel Award: Mr [...]

A Digital Currency Architecture for Privacy and Owner-Custodianship

Objective: to present the new approach to perform monetary transactions with digital currency.Methods: abstract-logical, analytical methods.Results: in recent years, electronic retail payment mechanisms, especially e-commerce and card payments at the point of sale, have increasingly replaced cash in many developed countries. As a result, societies are losing a critical public retail payment option, and retail consumers are losing important rights associated with using cash. To address this concern, we propose an approach to digital currency that would allow people without banking relationships to transact electronically and privately, including both e-commerce purchases and point-of-sale purchases that are required to be cashless.The article shows the advantages of cash payments compared to non-cash ones and defines the possibility to transform these advantages into the central bank digital currencies. The disputable issues of commercial banks development under the spread of digital currencies are discussed. The architecture of digital currencies is described, including distributed ledgers technology. It was shown that, for the digital currency to function effectively, it is necessary to include the privacy of end-users into its architecture; measures to achieve that are determined.Scientific novelty: the approached proposed in the article should be used to develop the digital currencies infrastructure. It should be government-backed, privately-operated and ensure that every transaction is registered by a bank or money services business, relying upon non-custodial wallets backed by privacy-enhancing technology, such as blind signatures or zero-knowledge proofs, to ensure that transaction counterparties are not revealed. This approach can also facilitate more efficient and transparent clearing, settlement, and management of systemic risk. We argue that our system can restore and preserve the salient features of cash, including privacy, owner-custodianship, fungibility, and accessibility, while also preserving fractional reserve banking and the existing two-tiered banking system.Practical significance: the proposed approach can be applied in the practical organization of perform monetary transactions using digital currencies.The article was first published in English language by Future Internet. For more information please contact the editorial office.For original publication: Goodell G., Al-Nakib H. D., Tasca P. A Digital Currency Architecture for Privacy and Owner-Custodianship, Future Internet, 2021, 13, 130. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi13050130Publication URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/13/5/130

Singer of the Trans-Baikal Cossacks: F. F. Tyutchev in the Russian-Japanese War

Russian Army and Border guard Colonel Fyodor Fyodorovich Tyutchev (1860–1916), a well – known chronicler of the Russian army and the border guard, served in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905.The purpose of the publication is a comprehensive description of the stay in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904– 1905. The work used sources that had not been previously introduced into scientific circulation, which allowed analyzing the formation of F. F. Tyutchev as a military professional, as well as concretizing the literary and aesthetic concept of the writer. Russian-Japanese War correspondent F. F. Tyutchev, being a correspondent of the newspaper Novoe Vremya, promptly transmitted “hot” information about the affairs of the Russian army to the editorial office. The writer collecting material for future literary works talked with the participants of the Japanese campaign, valuing the opportunity to have conversations not only with the lower ranks who were on the front line but also with the generals whose decisions the outcome of hostilities sometimes depended on. According to the works by Fyodor Fedorovich, we can judge not only the events that took place in the Far East but also analyze the writer’s civil and author’s position, investigate his philosophical beliefs on what is happening, clarify his thoughts, compare the assessments given to him from what he saw and experienced in the war. The presented article develops scientific ideas and traditions in the field of national historiography, generalizing and analyzing individual, previously unknown materials about the Russian-Japanese war and its participants. F. F. Tyutchev, being on the staff of the 1st Argun regiment not only participated in the fighting but also proved himself as a talented artist of the word, conveying the truth of the Japanese campaign in his writings, creating a portrait gallery of the personnel of the regiments of the Trans-Baikal Cossack army.

Correction: Kirste et al. Structural Analysis of Low Defect Ammonothermally Grown GaN Wafers by Borrmann Effect X-ray Topography. Materials 2021, 14, 5472

The Materials Editorial Office would like to make the following change to this paper [...]

Peer review declaration

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) All reviews follow a double-blind process. 1-AOPR 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, AOPR 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: 75 • Number of submissions sent for review: 55 (20 papers out of the conference scope are rejected directly) • Number of submissions accepted: 28 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 37% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2-3 • Total number of reviewers involved: 64 reviewers • Any additional info on review process: • Contact person for queries: Josh Sheng [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.