University versus the Academy

The article focuses on a conceptual difference between the institutes of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and Bulgarian Universities. University lecturers must be internationally recognizable with their research results and constantly master modern teaching methods and technologies. Scientists in the academy make efforts to follow the scientific tendencies, but have virtually no opportunity to go beyond academic forums and to socialize their scientific results. In the example of research and teaching of Ethnology, the lack of opportunity for young scientists from the academy to be prepared for teaching at different university degrees isconsidered. The positive and negative aspects of the Erasmus academic exchange program (as an opportunity for getting some fractional lecturing experience) is discussed in the terms of teaching experience. We also present the first and only project, held few years ago in Bulgaria, aiming to prepare young scientists from the Academy to teach Ethnology at a university.

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: Double-blind • Conference submission management system: AI Scholar System • Number of submissions received: 101 • Number of submissions sent for review: 97 • Number of submissions accepted: 56 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 55.4% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 40 • Any additional info on review process: • Step 1. Each of selected paper will be reviewed by two/three professional experts in the related subject area. • Step 2. Review Reports received from the experts will be judged by one of the editors either Review Reports are logical or not? • Step 3. If not logical, then editor can assign new reviewer or can also judge at his/her own. • Step 4. If logical, then Review Reports will be sent to authors to modify the manuscript accordingly. • Step 5. Authors will be required to revise their papers according to the points raised. • Step 6. Revised version will then be evaluated by the editor for the incorporation of the points raised by the reviewers. • Step 7. Then the editor will send the revised manuscript to the reviewers again for re-evaluation. • Step 8. If the reviewers approve the revise version of the manuscript, then will be accepted for publication. • Contact person for queries: Xuexia Ye [email protected] AEIC Academic Exchange Information Centre 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.

WESTERN NOMADIC DISCOURSE AND THE DISCOVERY OF THE OTHER

Investing in university education has spread widely in Palestine and all counties around the world. ‎This is due to several causes, such as the enormous increase in the number of students, and the ‎growth in the number of students with various academic degrees, which resulted in increasing the ‎number of public and private universities, in addition to the institutes specialized in various ‎professional studies. Many of these universities seek to develop and raise their educational ‎competencies. Therefore, they started resorting to the so-called networking between universities. ‎Consequently, the study aimed to identify the reality of networking processes between universities ‎from the point of view of the teaching staff in the universities of Jerusalem and the West Bank. The ‎study also aims to point out the reality of teaching and academic exchange, the scientific research, ‎community service and the continued education from the point of view of the teaching staff in the ‎universities of Jerusalem and the West Bank. Also, it seeks to uncover the differences in the ‎networking processes between universities from the viewpoint of the teaching staff in the ‎universities of Jerusalem and the West Bank, according to the variables of gender, academic ‎qualification, years of experience, and university. ‎ To achieve the objectives of this study, the researcher used the analytical descriptive ‎approach, in addition to a questionnaire consisted of (35) paragraphs distributed over three fields: ‎teaching and academic exchange, scientific research, community service and continued education. ‎The validity and stability of the questionnaire had been confirmed. The questionnaire is distributed ‎over a sample from the faculty that were chosen randomly from the universities of Jerusalem ‎‎(Sakhnin, Al-Qasimi, Ono, David Yellen) and the West Bank (Arab American University, An-Najah ‎National University, Birzeit, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Al-Ahliyya Palestine, Al-Quds Open, Hebron), ‎numbering (200) individuals. After collecting the data, it was analysed through processing it ‎statistically by (SPSS). ‎ The results of the study indicated that the reality of teaching, academic exchange, scientific ‎research, community service and continuing education from the point of view of the teaching staff ‎in the universities of Jerusalem and the West Bank has come to a large extent. The results also ‎revealed that there were no statistically significant differences in the degree of reality of networking ‎operations between universities from the point of view of the teaching staff in the universities of ‎Jerusalem and the West Bank according to the variable of gender, academic qualification and years ‎of experience. However, the results indicated that there were differences according to the ‎differences among the universities‎‎.

Rumäniendeutsche Literatur im Spiegel der Kronstädter Beiträge zur germanistischen Forschung. Rück- und Ausblick

The Corona pandemic confronts any academic exchange with major difficulties, with which Romanian germanists successfully come to turns. Considering the actual context of continuity and change the authors of the ensuing article analyse the Kronstädter Beiträge zur germanistischen Forschung Yearbook highlight ingone of its major points of interest namely the somewhat controversial phenomenon of German literature written in Romania. The article delineates the development of the journal from its beginning up to the present moment, when it can be found in important databases for academic use and research purposes.

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: Double-blind • Conference submission management system: AI Scholar System • Number of submissions received: 146 • Number of submissions sent for review: 133 • Number of submissions accepted: 75 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): 51.4% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 45 • Any additional info on review process: • Step 1. Each of selected paper will be reviewed by two/three professional experts in the related subject area. • Step 2. Review Reports received from the experts will be judged by one of the editors either Review Reports are logical or not? • Step 3. If not logical, then editor can assign new reviewer or can also judge at his/her own. • Step 4. If logical, then Review Reports will be sent to authors to modify the manuscript accordingly. • Step 5. Authors will be required to revise their papers according to the points raised. • Step 6. Revised version will then be evaluated by the editor for the incorporation of the points raised by the reviewers. • Step 7. Then the editor will send the revised manuscript to the reviewers again for re-evaluation. • Step 8. If the reviewers approve the revise version of the manuscript, then will be accepted for publication. • Contact person for queries: Xuexia Ye [email protected] AEIC Academic Exchange Information Centre

Good Scientific Practice and Academic Reviews

Academic reviews (hereinafter “reviews”) are an integral part of legal journals. While their purpose and usefulness are at times disputed, all sub-disciplines of legal studies nevertheless argue in equal measure that a lack of substantial academic exchange by way of reviews would result in the impoverishment of scientific discourse. In German criminal law scholarship, two recent cases have sparked debate about whether certain rules should govern the publication of such reviews. The following remarks are intended to provide a thought-provoking impulse on the matter.

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: Double-blind • Conference submission management system: AI Scholar System • Number of submissions received: 152 • Number of submissions sent for review: 147 • Number of submissions accepted: 83 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 54.6% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 50 • Any additional info on review process: • Step 1. Each of selected paper will be reviewed by two/three professional experts in the related subject area. • Step 2. Review Reports received from the experts will be judged by one of the editors either Review Reports are logical or not? • Step 3. If not logical, then editor can assign new reviewer or can also judge at his/her own. • Step 4. If logical, then Review Reports will be sent to authors to modify the manuscript accordingly. • Step 5. Authors will be required to revise their papers according to the points raised. • Step 6. Revised version will then be evaluated by the editor for the incorporation of the points raised by the reviewers. • Step 7. Then the editor will send the revised manuscript to the reviewers again for re-evaluation. • Step 8. If the reviewers approve the revise version of the manuscript, then will be accepted for publication. • Contact person for queries: Xuexia Ye [email protected] AEIC Academic Exchange Information Centre 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.

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: Double-blind • Conference submission management system: AI Scholar System • Number of submissions received: 189 • Number of submissions sent for review: 181 • Number of submissions accepted: 103 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): 54.5% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 60 • Any additional info on review process: • Step 1. Each of selected paper will be reviewed by two/three professional experts in the related subject area. • Step 2. Review Reports received from the experts will be judged by one of the editors either Review Reports are logical or not? • Step 3. If not logical, then editor can assign new reviewer or can also judge at his/her own. • Step 4. If logical, then Review Reports will be sent to authors to modify the manuscript accordingly. • Step 5. Authors will be required to revise their papers according to the points raised. • Step 6. Revised version will then be evaluated by the editor for the incorporation of the points raised by the reviewers. • Step 7. Then the editor will send the revised manuscript to the reviewers again for re-evaluation. • Step 8. If the reviewers approve the revise version of the manuscript, then will be accepted for publication. • Contact person for queries: Xuexia Ye [email protected] AEIC Academic Exchange Information Centre 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.

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: Double-blind • Conference submission management system: AI Scholar System • Number of submissions received: 91 • Number of submissions sent for review: 86 • Number of submissions accepted: 45 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 49.5% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 30 • Any additional info on review process: • Step 1. Each of selected paper will be reviewed by two/three professional experts in the related subject area. • Step 2. Review Reports received from the experts will be judged by one of the editors either Review Reports are logical or not? • Step 3. If not logical, then editor can assign new reviewer or can also judge at his/her own. • Step 4. If logical, then Review Reports will be sent to authors to modify the manuscript accordingly. • Step 5. Authors will be required to revise their papers according to the points raised. • Step 6. Revised version will then be evaluated by the editor for the incorporation of the points raised by the reviewers. • Step 7. Then the editor will send the revised manuscript to the reviewers again for re-evaluation. • Step 8. If the reviewers approve the revise version of the manuscript, then will be accepted for publication. • Contact person for queries: Xuexia Ye [email protected] AEIC Academic Exchange Information Centre

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: Double-blind • Conference submission management system: AI Scholar System • Number of submissions received: 156 • Number of submissions sent for review: 151 • Number of submissions accepted: 86 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): 55.1% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 50 • Any additional info on review process: • Step 1. Each of selected paper will be reviewed by two/three professional experts in the related subject area. • Step 2. Review Reports received from the experts will be judged by one of the editors either Review Reports are logical or not? • Step 3. If not logical, then editor can assign new reviewer or can also judge at his/her own. • Step 4. If logical, then Review Reports will be sent to authors to modify the manuscript accordingly. • Step 5. Authors will be required to revise their papers according to the points raised. • Step 6. Revised version will then be evaluated by the editor for the incorporation of the points raised by the reviewers. • Step 7. Then the editor will send the revised manuscript to the reviewers again for re-evaluation. • Step 8. If the reviewers approve the revise version of the manuscript, then will be accepted for publication. • Contact person for queries: Xuexia Ye [email protected] AEIC Academic Exchange Information Centre