Architectural theory as a tool for architectural criticism necessarily employed for the betterment of architectural education

Criticism, or "to criticize" derives from the Greek krinein meant to distinguish, which is to separate, to silt, to make a distinction. The word "theory" comes from the philosophical Latin term "theoria" meaning spectator, while in modern days means the attempt to decide architectural right and wrong on a purely intellectual base. Pedagogically architecture students participating in a review learn from whoever provides useful criticism benefiting from critiques or reviews. This research in comparison to the ones that went through focuses on Architectural Criticism and Architectural Theory and which one stems from the other, their significance in architectural education in form of crit or review and shows a road map of how reviews are to take place by their different constituents. The purpose of the paper is to see whether the architectural theory is stemming from architectural criticism and whether it’s employed in architectural education. The methodology of this paper depends on both theoretical and analytical studies through three major fields; architectural criticism, architectural theory, and the analytical study of architectural education in form of critique or review. Finally, the paper concludes by linking architectural education mostly in its architectural design projects critique or review form with architectural theory and its dependence upon architectural criticism.

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? There are five main criteria: relevance to the conference topic, importance of the research/state-of-the-art, proper methodology, arguments and conclusions, and academic writing quality. All the criteria are included in the substantial review form (attached) provided for the reviewers. Organizers also prepared a technical review form (attached) to assess the compliance with IOP template and guidelines and to inform the result of plagiarism check. There was the opportunity to resubmit articles after revisions, up to a maximum of two (2) times based on two (2) substantial reviews. • Conference submission management system: Universitas Indonesia online conference system (https://symposiumjessd.ui.ac.id/online-submission/) using Digital Commons From Bepress (Elsevier), the complete submission guidelines are available in following link https://symposiumjessd.ui.ac.id/guideline/ • Number of submissions received: 250 • Number of submissions sent for review: 250 • Number of submissions accepted: 141 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 56.4% • Average number of reviews per paper: 1–2 • Total number of reviewers involved: • Any additional info on review process (i.e. plagiarism check system): Review process was done in 8-14 days. One reviewer might review up to two (2) articles. • Contact person for queries: Herdis Herdiansyah, School of Environmental Science, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia, e-mail: [email protected] Additional information Review Period 1. Review process will be done in range of 8 to 14 days. 2. One Reviewer in term of substantial, maximum article to review are 3 article. Substantial Review 1. Relevance to the Conference topic. 2. Importance of the research/State-of-the-art. 3. Proper methodology. 4. Arguments and conclusions. 5. Academic Writing quality. Other Information 1. Author will received 1 Technical Review and Minimum of 1-2 Substantial Reviewer both from Author Suggestion or/and choose from Committee 2. When the article deliver to publisher, every Author will receive Galley Proof. As an Author must agree with the editing version, except there is some correction from Author. 3. Every Author will receive information and status of the article after submitted. Submission Ethics Ethics in JESSD Symposium is based on Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Before submitting your article(s), please ensure that your submission completely represents following statements. 1. The uploaded files have been carefully prepared based on the provided templates, both title page (title, author name(s), affiliation(s), abstract, and acknowledgements) and article (title, abstract, introduction, method, results and discussion, conclusion, and references) 2. The article represents a qualified scientific knowledge that might come from international collaborations 3. Author(s) has/have approved the article and agree(s) with the submission, therefore any withdrawal of the article is prohibited once it is submitted 4. Author(s) is/are willing to pay the symposium fee and publication fee charged by the organizers (symposium fee is mandatory charged for one author attendance virtually while publication fee is optionally charged before the symposium or after the article is listed in Scopus) 5. The article does not contain any form of plagiarism 6. Author(s) has/have made significant substantial contribution to the article, whether it is in the concept or design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation, or in all these areas 7. The article has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere (either partly or wholly) 8. Author(s) has/have acknowledged any conflict of interest in the article, if necessary 9. Author(s) has/have acknowledged any source of funding in the article, if necessary 10. The article was written in English and carefully reviewed by a native English editor Review Ethics 1. The author(s) is/are required to propose one reviewer and another one reviewer optionally. However, the organizers manage to prevent any conflict of interest that might be happened during review process. Therefore, please ensure that your suggested reviewer fits to following criteria. 2. He/she is an expert in the relevant field. 3. He/she has no competing interest with the author(s). 4. He/she has never been involved in any related work with the author(s). 5. He/she does not know the author(s) personally. 6. There is no certainty that the organizer will accept your suggested reviewer. The double-blind peer review will be conducted, therefore reviewers will not receive any author(s) information and vice versa. Similarity Check Each submitted article will be going to preliminary review with iThenticate. Through the preliminary review, any form of plagiarism will be detected and measured. If similarity check result is more than 10%, the article will be returned or directly rejected. Moreover, the preliminary review will also consider return or direct rejection due to, but not limited to, following reasons. 1. Falling out of topic. 2. Multiple submission or consideration for other publications. 3. Recommendation for rejection from reviewer.

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 • Conference submission management system: Iconf submission system • Number of submissions received: 50 papers • Number of submissions sent for review: 50 papers • Number of submissions accepted: 35 papers • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 70% • Average number of reviews per paper: 3 papers • Total number of reviewers involved: 28 reviewers • Any additional info on review process: 1. Preliminary Review When we received authors’ paper(abstract and full paper), we will submit the paper to auditing department for checking, the auditing department will review the content, theme, format and grammers. 2. The full papers passed the first review will be reviewed again by conference technical committees from the following aspects: Originality, Innovation, Technical Soundness, Applicability, Clarity of presentation and Relevance. 3. After paper passed the first review and the second review, we will send the notification and review form. 4. Only if the paper revised according to the review form, it can be published. Contact person for queries: Prof. Ngai Weng Chan Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia [email protected]

Peer review declaration

• All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 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 review process was of an open peer review type. Each article was reviewed by two reviewers. First review was provided by the author, who addressed the reviewer himself and made the revisions in the article before submitting both article and the review form. The first reviewer was asked to be someone close to their research, who could provide helpful advice. Second review was provided mostly by employees of Technical University of Košice. The reviewers reviewed articles close to their research area. They were provided with full articles including the authors names and the authors then received the review form which included the reviewer’s name. The authors had then an opportunity to revise the papers and the papers were accepted only after the authors made the changes asked for by the second reviewer in their articles. In the review form the reviewers were asked to judge the quality of the paper, choosing from options: excellent, good, average, or poor; provide some comments to support their argument and give the authors some notes to help them improve the quality of their paper. For the conclusion of the review form the reviewers had to choose the status of acceptance of the paper, choosing from following options: accepted without revisions, accepted with minor revisions, accepted with major revisions, or rejected. If the paper was accepted without revisions, the authors were then not required to provide any revisions. If the second reviewer decided to choose the reject option, the authors did not have an option to revise their paper and the paper was rejected even if the first reviewer accepted the paper. • Conference submission management system: CaptainForm • Number of submissions received: 88 • Number of submissions sent for review: 88 • Number of submissions accepted: 87 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 98.86 • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 99 • Any additional info on review process: • Contact person for queries: Kamila Kotrasová, [email protected]

Peer Review Declaration

All conference organizers/editors are required to declare details about their peer review. Therefore, please provide the following information: • Type of peer review: The ICoPIs 2021 manuscripts were reviewed using double-blind peer review. One reviewer reviewed one manuscript. The number of papers submitted was 62 articles. The number of ICoPIs 2021 reviewers were 9 people. The reviewing processes were conducted via email or OCS. The manuscripts in ICoPIs 2021 have been through two stages of review. The first review stage involved three steps. First, manuscripts were distributed to the 10 reviewers. Second, the ICoPIs team checked the similarity of the manuscript. Third, the reviewed manuscripts consisting of the reviewer’s detailed comments were returned to the authors, along with the review summary form and the similarity check results. The authors were requested to return the revision of their papers within a certain period of time. In the second review stage, the editorial team scrutinized the revised manuscripts with the summary review form and the similarity percentage. If the revision has followed the comments and suggestions from reviewers and the limitation of similarity, the manuscript would be forwarded for language and template check. • Conference submission management system: OCS (https://fisika.fkip.untad.ac.id/icopis/) • The number of submissions received: There were 62 articles submitted to the ICoPIs 2021 • The number of submissions sent for review: There were 56 articles reviewed by the reviewers of the ICoPIs 2021 • The number of submissions accepted: There were 37 articles accepted for recommendation/publication to JPCS IOP Publishing. • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 59.68% • The average number of reviews per paper: One article was reviewed 4 times; twice for content review and a similarity check, once for language and once more for the template. • The total number of reviewers involved: There were 24 reviewers involved, consisting of 9 content reviewers, 10 editors (review content and templates), and 5 language reviewers. • Any additional info on the review process: While the ICoPIs team waited for the manuscripts from the reviewers, we checked the similarity of the papers. We sent three documents to the authors for the first review stage, including the reviewed manuscript, the summary of the review form, and the result of a similarity check. The authors sent the revised article along with the similarity check (maximum 20%). The manuscripts entered the second review stage. When a manuscript has followed the comments and suggestions from reviewers and was considered suitable for publication, the manuscript then proceeded to the editors for the template and language check. We did a similarity check once more during this phase but only for the manuscript with a high similarity percentage in the first review stage. So, one manuscript has been through a similarity check 2 to 3 times. • Contact person for queries: +628975586104 (Misbah) Universitas Lambung Mangkurat [email protected]

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) MMS 2021 review form If you cannot review this manuscript within 2 weeks, please return it immediately without comments. If you answer on any question "No, see comments" fill your comment at the end of review form. Thank you for your assistance! 1. Is the topic of the manuscript relevant, timely and of interest to the audience of this conference?* ○ Yes ○ No, see comments 2. Does the title of the article accurately reflect its content?* ○ Yes ○ No, see comments 3. Is the research methodology and treatment of the study appropriate and applied properly?* ○ Yes ○ No, see comments 4. Is the length of the paper appropriate to the content?* ○ Yes ○ No, see comments 5. Do the used notation and nomenclature meet the standards determined in the area of paper interest?* ○ Yes ○ No, see comments 6. Is this paper clearly and concisely written and well organized?* ○ Yes ○ No, see comments 7. Does the manuscript contain sufficient and appropriate references?* ○ Yes ○ No, see comments 8. Are tables and figures appropriate and adequate?* ○ Yes ○ No, see comments 9. Does the abstract of article satisfactorily show the aims, methods and result of the article?* ○ Yes ○ No, see comments 10. Does the conclusion clearly summarize the main results and contributions of the manuscript?* ○ Yes ○ No, see comments 11. Is the language and presentation clear to readers familiar with the field?* ○ Yes ○ No, see comments 12. Comments: • Conference submission management system: https://www.mmsconf.eu/index.php/mms/mms2021 Open Conference System https://pkp.sfu.ca/ocs/ • Number of submissions received: 143 • Number of submissions sent for review: 130 • Number of submissions accepted: 105 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): (105/143)x100=73% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 reviews per paper • Total number of reviewers involved: 70 • Any additional info on review process:- • Contact person for queries: Assoc. Prof. Eng. MSc. Lucia Knapčíková, Ph.D. Email: [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.

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 Single-anonymous: authors’ identities are known to the reviewers, reviewers’ identities are hidden from authors Double-anonymous: author and reviewer identities are hidden to each other Triple-blind: author and reviewer identities are hidden to each other, and from the Editor(s) Open: author and reviewer identities are known to each other • Describe criteria used by Reviewers when accepting/declining papers. Was there the opportunity to resubmit articles after revisions? Topic of the paper must be consistent with the presentation/poster presented during the Conference as well as the thematic panels of the Conference. After submission of a paper editorial team checked the paper’s composition and its arrangement. Then invitations with enclosed abstract of the paper was sent to appropriate Reviewers. As two formal acceptances of an invitation were received, Reviewers were sent the full paper and the review form prepared by the editorial team. The time for the review was set up to 30 days. The review then was submitted to the editorial team with a recommendation to accept the paper in the present form or to make minor/major corrections or to reject it. The editorial team sent a decision email to the author including reviewers’ opinions and suggestions. While revision was needed, the author was given 14 days for corrections and resubmitting the article. In case of minor corrections, the editorial verified the paper and made the final decision. But in case of major corrections, the corrected paper was sent to the Reviewers once again for the further evaluation after which the editorial team made the final decision. • Conference submission management system: Submission, review process as well as all communication with authors and reviewers were made via Conferences’ e-mail box • Number of submissions received: 44 • Number of submissions sent for review: 44 • Number of submissions accepted: 39 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 88,64 • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 59 (30 foreign and 29 from Poland) • Any additional info on review process (ie plagiarism check system): No • Contact person for queries: Damian Kasza; Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, 27 Wyb. Wyspianskiego St., 50-370 Wroclaw, Poland; [email protected]

PACMHCI V5, CHI PLAY, September 2021 Editorial

Since its inaugural edition in 2014, the ACM SIGCHI Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY) has grown to become the premier ACM SIGCHI venue for playercomputer interaction, bringing together researchers and professionals across all areas of play, games, and human-computer interaction. This year, CHI PLAY has moved its publications to a journal-based model, and we are pleased to present the first issue of the Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction that contains full paper contributions from the CHI PLAY community. This issue has 64 papers that were accepted in the 2021 cycle of the CHI PLAY conference. Over two rounds, a total of 250 papers were submitted for review and our acceptance rate is 25.6%. Thework published in this volume represents the contributions from the 2021 program committee, including external reviewers, associate chairs, and editors. Together, we have engaged in a revised reviewing process that saw several major changes. First, we moved to a revise and resubmit process to address existing inequities in submission and review, improve the quality of the review process, and increase the reach of our community's research. Second, we made major changes to our review form to improve the review process, while also easing the burden of review, along with explicitlywelcoming different contribution types and managing the complexities of interdisciplinary evaluation. We would like to acknowledge the efforts that our community has made in adapting to this new process, ensuring rigorous review during a global pandemic, and working together with the submitting authors to achieve high-quality scholarship. In this issue, the majority of contributions are empirical in nature, with fifteen papers classified by the authors as using qualitative methods, fifteen using quantitative methods, and nine using mixed methods. We also publish seven papers presenting design artefacts and three presenting technical artefacts. Finally, we include four papers employing meta-research methods, two papers that present new methodological approaches, and nine papers that contribute to the development and validation of theory.

Tinjauan Pelaksanaan Review Rekam Medis dalam Rangka Persiapan Akreditasi Rumah Sakit Berdasarkan Standar Akreditasi SNARS-1 di RSUD Sultan Thaha Saifuddin Kabupaten Tebo Provinsi Jambi

Sultan Thaha Saifuddin Hospital is heading towards the implementation of SNARS-1. The first phase of accreditation in 2016 uses the 2012 version with only four services (SKP, HPK, KPS, PPI) so that there is no medical record review assessment as in the MIRM 13.4 SNARS-1 assessment element. Currently, Sultan Thaha Saifuddin Hospital must adjust the medical record review with the MIRM standard on SNARS-1. Field Study Practices at the Sultan Thaha Saifuddin Hospital, Tebo Jambi Regency on April 1, 2019 to April 20, 2019 with the aim of knowing the implementation of medical record reviews based on the SNARS-1 accreditation standard. Methods of data collection are carried out by observation and interviews using observation sheets and interview guides. The results of the field study practice are: there is a team responsible for reviewing medical records called the medical record committee; there is an SPO regarding medical record review; review of medical records using an open, closed, and recapitulation review form; There was an increase in the quality of medical records based on the results of reviews between period 1 and period 2, namely from 89.65% to 96.8% on timeliness, an increase from 95.4% to 97.6% in legibility, and an increase from 97, 6% to 99.2% on completeness of medical records. The implementation of reviewing medical records at Sultan Thaha Saifuddin Hospital is in accordance with the applicable SPO. The implementation of the review is also in accordance with the SNARS-1 assessment elements.Keyword: medical record, completness, Accreditation Assessment SNARS-1 AbstrakRSUD Sultan Thaha Saifuddin sedang menuju implementasi SNARS-1. Akreditasi tahap pertama tahun 2016 menggunakan versi 2012 baru sebatas empat pelayanan (SKP, HPK, KPS, PPI) sehingga belum ada penilaian review rekam medis seperti pada elemen penilaian MIRM 13.4 SNARS-1. Saat ini, RSUD Sultan Thaha Saifuddin harus menyesuaikan review rekam medis dengan standar MIRM pada SNARS-1. Praktik Belajar Lapangan dilakukan di RSUD Sultan Thaha Saifuddin Kabupaten Tebo Jambi pada tanggal 01 April 2019 sampai 20 April 2019 dengan tujuan untuk mengetahui pelaksanaan review rekam medis berdasarkan standar akreditasi SNARS-1. Metode pengumpulan data dilakukan dengan observasi dan wawancara menggunakan lembar observasi dan panduan wawancara. Hasil praktik belajar lapangan yaitu: terdapat tim yang bertanggung jawab pada review rekam medis disebut panitia rekam medis; terdapat SPO tentang review rekam medis; review rekam medis menggunakan form review terbuka, tertutup, serta rekapitulasi; terdapat kenaikan kualitas rekam medis berdasarkan hasil review antara periode 1 dan periode 2 yaitu dari 89,65% menjadi 96,8% pada ketepatan waktu, terjadi kenaikan dari 95,4% menjadi 97,6% pada keterbacaan, serta terjadi kenaikan dari 97,6% menjadi 99,2% pada kelengkapan rekam medis. Pelaksanaan review rekam medis di RSUD Sultan Thaha Saifuddin telah sesuai dengan SPO yang berlaku. Pelaksanaan review juga telah sesuai dengan elemen penilaian SNARS-1.Kata Kunci: rekam medis, kelengkapan, akreditasi SNARS-1