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): Open • Conference submission management system: [email protected] • Number of submissions received: 70 • Number of submissions sent for review: 60 • Number of submissions accepted: 53 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 75.71 • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 5 groups with a total of 20 reviewers (each group consists of a lead reviewer and 3 reviewers, each reviewer reviews about 6 papers on average) • Any additional info on review process: Authors will submit their papers through the official email address of the conference, and the deadline for submission is September 23, 2021. The person in charge of the mailbox of the conference committee will sort out all the submissions, divide them into groups and distribute them equally to 5 review groups. The review groups will return comments one after another within 2 weeks, and the person in charge of the conference committee wills feedback the comments to the authors. Each paper was reviewed by two reviewers who gave their own comments: Papers with good quality and themes will be accepted directly, and the authors can register for the next stage of the conference; for papers with medium quality, revision suggestions will be given, and then the review groups will decide whether to accept them or not after the authors revise and return; For papers with very poor quality, the review groups will give rejection suggestions. All involved reviewers are recognized specialists in fields covered by the Conference. The final decision regarding acceptance/revision/rejection was based on reviews received from the reviewers. If the two reviewers cannot agree on a recommendation, the final at the sole discretion of the lead reviewer. The authors themselves do not have any decision on whether their papers are accepted or not. The final approved papers will be registered until October 15, 2021. The conference committee will send the invitation to the accepted authors and submit the information of the authors’ papers to the publishers. Contact person for queries: Name: Xiangtao Wang Affiliation:Shaanxi higher education alliance Email: [email protected]

Peer review declaration

The Organiser and/or the Editor(s) are required to declare details about their peer review processes. Therefore, please provide the following information: • Type of peer review: Double-blind Double-anonymous: author and reviewer identities are hidden to each other • Describe criteria used by Reviewers when accepting/declining papers. Was there the opportunity to resubmit articles after revisions? The submission will first be reviewed for its topic and length, then go through an originality check. The peer-review process will begin soon after the paper is found to be qualified. The paper will be sent to have a double-blind peer review by 2 reviewers. They will judge the paper based on the theme, coverage, innovation, integrity, depth, and language. One of the final acceptance suggestions including: Accept, Accept with Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject will be given. Articles can be resubmitted after revision except receiving Reject. • Conference submission management system: https://registration.confmcee.org/ • Number of submissions received: 179 • Number of submissions sent for review: 179 • Number of submissions accepted: 64 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received × 100): 35.8% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 35 • Any additional info on review process (eg Plagiarism check system): Plagiarism check system: iThenticate • Contact person for queries (Full name, affiliation, institutional email address) Han Gao, [email protected]

Development of an Active Training Method for Belt Conveyor

The global situation related to the COVID-19 pandemic has forced employers to find an adequate way to conduct training in order to ensure work safety. The underground mining industry is one of the industries which, due to its nature, was not able to switch to remote work. Conducting traditional training risked spreading the virus among workers. For this purpose, it was necessary to start a search for a form of training that would be safe and would not cause additional stress for employees. Research on the development of an active employee training method and testing of the method itself was conducted online. In order to develop a method of active training, one of the most important workstations was selected, which is the operation of the conveyor belt. The training method comprises four training modules. The modules cover questions related to the operation of the conveyor belt, emergencies, its assembly and disassembly, repair and maintenance. The developed issues also take into account questions concerning natural hazards and work safety. The entire training course lasts 10 days. Every day, an employee receives a set of eight questions sent to their email address, which they must answer before starting work. The article describes the methodology and implementation of the training.

Technical Report Column

Welcome to the Technical Reports Column. If your institution publishes technical reports that you'd like to have included here, please contact me at the email address above.

Peer Review Declaration

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 : Single-blind • Describe criteria used by Reviewers when accepting/declining papers. Was there the opportunity to resubmit articles after revisions? ∘ The review was done by considering five (5) aspects : 1) Relevance with topics 2) Novelty and originality 3) Clarity 4) Systematic 5) Analysis techniques and deduction ∘ One reviewer gave points on each aspect between 1-4. Based on total points from those four aspects : 1) Definitely Accept : 16-20 2) Accept : 11-15 3) Possibly Accept : 7-10 4) Rejected : 5-6 ∘ There was an opportunity to resubmit articles after revisions. • Conference submission management system: The paper is uploaded via EDAS (https://edas.info/) • Number of submissions received : 70 papers • Number of submissions sent for review : 60 papers • Number of submissions accepted : 48 papers • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100) : 68.57 • Average number of reviews per paper : 2 • Total number of reviewers involved : 36 • Any additional info on review process (eg Plagiarism check system) : ∘ The similarity score was checked by the editors to find the plagiarism using https://www.turnitin.com/. ∘ The standard similarity score to be accepted is less than 15%. • Contact person for queries (Full name, affiliation, institutional email address) : Name : Ayodya Pradhipta Tenggara Affiliation : Universitas Gadjah Mada Email address : [email protected]

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): Open • Conference submission management system: [email protected] • Number of submissions received: 85 • Number of submissions sent for review: 70 • Number of submissions accepted: 63 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 74.1 • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 5 groups with a total of 20 reviewers (each group consists of a lead reviewer and 3 reviewers, each reviewer reviews about 7 papers on average) • Any additional info on review process: Authors will submit their papers through the official email address of the conference, and the deadline for submission is September 21, 2021. The person in charge of the mailbox of the conference committee will sort out all the submissions, divide them into groups and distribute them equally to 5 review groups. The review groups will return comments one after another within 2 weeks, and the person in charge of the conference committee will feedback the comments to the authors. Each paper was reviewed by two reviewers who gave their own comments: Papers with good quality and themes will be accepted directly, and the authors can register for the next stage of the conference; for papers with medium quality, revision suggestions will be given, and then the review groups will decide whether to accept them or not after the authors revise and return; For papers with very poor quality, the review groups will give rejection suggestions. All involved reviewers are recognized specialists in fields covered by the Conference. The final decision regarding acceptance/revision/rejection was based on reviews received from the reviewers. If the two reviewers cannot agree on a recommendation, the final at the sole discretion of the lead reviewer. The authors themselves do not have any decision on whether their papers are accepted or not. The final approved papers will be registered until October 18, 2021. The conference committee will send the invitation to the accepted authors and submit the information of the authors’ papers to the publishers. Contact person for queries: Name: Xiangtao Wang Affiliation:Shaanxi higher education alliance Email: [email protected]

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): Open • Conference submission management system: [email protected] • Number of submissions received: 200 • Number of submissions sent for review: 175 • Number of submissions accepted:153 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 76.5 • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 5 groups with a total of 25 reviewers (each group consists of a lead reviewer and 4 reviewers, each reviewer reviews about 14 papers on average) • Any additional info on review process: Authors will submit their papers through the official email address of the conference, and the deadline for submission is March 15, 2021. The person in charge of the mailbox of the conference committee will sort out all the submissions, divide them into groups and distribute them equally to 5 review groups. The review groups will return comments one after another within 2 weeks, and the person in charge of the conference committee wills feedback the comments to the authors. Each paper was reviewed by two reviewers who gave their own comments: Papers with good quality and themes will be accepted directly, and the authors can register for the next stage of the conference; for papers with medium quality, revision suggestions will be given, and then the review groups will decide whether to accept them or not after the authors revise and return; For papers with very poor quality, the review groups will give rejection suggestions. All involved reviewers are recognized specialists in fields covered by the Conference. The final decision regarding acceptance/revision/rejection was based on reviews received from the reviewers. If the two reviewers cannot agree on a recommendation, the final at the sole discretion of the lead reviewer. The authors themselves do not have any decision on whether their papers are accepted or not. The final approved papers will be registered until April 5, 2021. The conference committee will send the invitation to the accepted authors and submit the information of the authors’ papers to the publishers. Contact person for queries: Name: Xiangtao Wang Affiliation:Shaanxi higher education alliance Email: [email protected]

Peer review declaration

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 • Describe criteria used by Reviewers when accepting/declining papers. Was there the opportunity to resubmit articles after revisions? Reviewers of ICOREMT-2021 considered the following vital points in the assessment process: A- Technical Criteria (such as scientific merits and adequacy of discussion) B- Quality Criteria (such as the scientific interest of the results and the ratio of length and importance of the idea) C- Presentation Criteria (quality of figures/tables and conclusions) One opportunity was given to the authors to address reviewers’ comments and corrections. • Conference submission management system: Direct submission via official email address. • Number of submissions received: 272 papers • Number of submissions sent for review: 250 papers • Number of submissions accepted: 56 papers • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 20.59% • The average number of reviews per paper: 2 reviewers • Total number of reviewers involved: 203 reviewers • Any additional info on the review process (i.e. plagiarism check system): All papers were checked using Turnitin software; papers with a more than 20% similarity percentage were rejected without review. The reviewers checked the quality of the submitted papers, including the contribution to the knowledge, the importance of the idea, adequacy of discussion, quality of figures and tables, and the conclusions. After the reviewing process, one opportunity was given to the authors to address reviewers’ comments and corrections. • Contact person for queries: Dr Khalid Hashim, Liverpool John Moores University, UK Email: [email protected]

Food waste handling perception in Indonesia: communicating the sustainability of Food and environment

Every week, Indonesia discards approximately 10 million pieces of bread, cakes, and cookies, equating to 292,000 tons of CO2 emissions similar to Indonesia’s annual CO2 emissions. Due to a lack of resources and infrastructure, most impoverished countries rely on antiquated technologies such as anaerobic digestion (AD) to handle food waste. Bakery trash is a biologically formed organic waste that poses a serious threat to public health and the environment, including natural ecosystem contamination. The goal of this study is to find out how much effort Indonesians put into garbage management. How do they spread the word about leftovers through the media? How do they know about waste, particularly bread waste? As well as community-wide corrective steps to protect the environment from domestic food waste management. This study employs a quantitative approach. In order to send 100 questionnaires to persons in Indonesia, purposive sampling was used. Surveys are carried out using Google forms, which require a valid Google email address in order to ensure that each person only takes the survey once. The study’s conclusion is that food waste management efforts among Indonesians are hampered by the public’s lack of understanding of food waste management and disposal information in the media. The research sample understands the process of recycling food into pet food when it becomes garbage, according to their perceptions about the end process of food. In terms of food waste awareness, the majority of the participants in this study were aware that food waste is disposed of in landfills rather than being recycled.

Peer review declaration

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: The peer review process was conducted with double-blind method by 2 reviewers per article. • Conference submission management system: Email address used for manuscript management system is [email protected] • Number of submissions received: 180 • Number of submissions sent for review: 125 • Number of submissions accepted: 111 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): 61.67% • Average number of reviews per paper: 3 rounds of review process • Total number of reviewers involved: 12 reviewers • Any additional info on review process: In detail, the submitted papers were checked for their plagiarism similarity index with Turn it in software. Any manuscript with similarity index above 25% will be returned to the author for revision. The peer-review process was conducted by involving internal reviewers from University of Mataram who has scopus H-index ≥ 3. In addition, external reviewers were also involved from other universities and institution. Selection of the reviewers was conducted based on the suitability of the reviewer expertise and the subtopic of the paper. The first decision whether the paper is rejected or required for revision is sent in approximately 4 days. The comments from the reviewer are concluded by the editor in chief to reject or accept the paper. • Contact person for queries: Eka Sunarwidhi Prasedya, Ph.D. University of Mataram, Mataram, Indonesia [email protected]