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:
All submitted full papers were peer-reviewed by two reviewers. The acceptance was granted if the recommendations from the reviewers are positive. The criteria are based on compliance with the directions of the International Scientific Conference “Regions of new development: the current state of natural complexes and their protection”, technical and scientific content and article submission guidelines. There were three review processes: Initial Review, Peer Review and Recommendation.
Initial Review
The editor evaluates each manuscript in the submission track to determine if its topic and content are suitable for consideration for the conference before being reviewed. Manuscripts that do not meet the minimum criteria are returned to the authors.
Peer Review
Manuscripts that pass the initial review by the editors will be sent to two (2) referees based on their expertise. Reviewer identities are concealed from the author, and throughout the review process. The reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on its originality, the correspondence of the name and its content, informative content of the abstract, adequacy and correctness of citation of works in this field, confirmation of conclusions and conclusions by the data of the work, compliance, quality of references and design of the list of references. Reviewers were asked to fill out a review form and submit it within two weeks. After collecting all the reviews of the articles, the editors make a recommendation on the acceptability of the manuscript.
Acceptance Decision
Based on the reviewer’s comments, the editor makes a final decision on the acceptability of the manuscript and communicates to the authors the decision, along with reviewers’ reports. Based on the reviewer’s comments, the editor makes a final decision on the acceptability of the manuscript and communicates to the authors the decision, along with reviewers’ reports.
Conference submission management system:
Participants submitted an application for participation in the conference by sending it to the conference address: [email protected]
After submitting the application, the author sent his article to the conference address: [email protected]
Number of submissions received:
82 articles received
Number of submissions sent for review:
70 articles submitted for review
Number of submissions accepted:
44 articles were accepted by the scientific committee of the conference
Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100):
44/82x100 = 53,7%
Average number of reviews per paper:
On average, two reviews per article
Total number of reviewers involved:
30 reviewers
Any additional info on review process:
The review process was conducted using the e-mail of the organizing committee of the conference and the e-mail of the reviewers.
The invitation to review the full paper was sent by email. Each full paper submitted was sent to two (2) reviewers to assess the full paper based on sections as follows:
1. Compliance of the content of the article with the profile of the publication.
2. The originality of the full paper.
3. Whether the work has previously been published in other journals.
4. Adequacy of consideration and correctness of citation of work in this field.
5. The correspondence of the name and its content.
6. Informative content of the report.
7. The quality of the drawings.
8. The quality of the tables in terms of content.
9. Confirmation of conclusions and conclusions by the data of the work.
10. Compliance, quality of references and design of the list of references.
11. The need to clarify the conclusions.
12. Strengths and weaknesses of the article in terms of content.
13. General evaluation of the article by reviewers.
14. Reviewer’s recommendations, accepted or rejected article.
15. The reviewer’s specific comment to the author of the article.
All the comments by the reviewer were sent to the author to do the correction within two (2) weeks. The author needs to submit the corrected version of the full paper together with the checklist of corrections. The editor checked if the authors made all corrections. After that, the finished article was sent to the author for final verification before being sent to the publisher.
Contact person for queries:
Interim Director, Sc.D. (Biology), IWEP FEB RAS
Maria V. Kryukova
E-mail: [email protected]
Patients’ and physicians’ experiences with remote consultations in primary care, during the covid-19 pandemic: a multi-method rapid review of the literature.
