Peer Review Declaration Form Guidance

On the following page you will find the declaration form. • Please answer each question. • You should submit the form along with the rest of your submission files. • The deadline is the submission date written in your publishing agreement. All conference organisers/editors are required to declare details about their peer review. We will published the information you provide as part of your proceedings. 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 The 2nd International Symposium on Arboriculture in the Tropics: Trees and Human Health (The 2nd ISATrop2021) Editorial team used a double-blind review, where both the reviewer (scientific committee) and author identities were concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. Only the editor knows the name of this reviewer and author. The list of Scientific committees has been determined before the symposium takes place and was ratified in the form of a Letter of Assignment. • Conference submission management system: The registration mechanism for the 2nd ISATrop2021 for participants, both non-presenters and oral presenters was carried out via online submission with the form provided on the arboriculture website ( https://arborikultur.ipb.ac.id/registration/ ). Abstracts for presenters are also uploaded when filling out the registration form. Speakers and participants can monitor and communicate with symposium organizers via email [email protected] and WhatsApp with contact person Ulfa Adzkia, S.Hut, M.Si as the symposium secretary (+62 822 6245 4154). Participants who have presented their papers at the 2nd ISATrop2021 on 21-22 June 2021, can then submit full papers via email [email protected] to the 2nd ISATrop2021 Editorial Team. • Number of submissions received: 62 • Number of submissions sent for review: 53 • Number of submissions accepted: 53 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 85.48% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 papers • Total number of reviewers involved: 27 reviewers • Any additional info on review process: - Full papers that have been received by the 2nd ISATrop2021 Editorial Team via email [email protected] from the participants have been going through a peer review mechanism as follows: 1. The Editor Team allocates 1-3 papers to the 2nd ISATrop2021 Scientific Committees (reviewers). 2. Each full paper along with the review form was sent to each reviewer via email [email protected]. 3. The review and revision process were continued until the full paper is declared “Accepted by No Revision” by the reviewer. 4. Full Paper that has been Accepted by Revision, then processed for plagiarism checking by TURNITIN, proofread checking by the proofreader team, and layout checking by the layout team. 5. While waiting for the proof read and layout check results, the author was asked to submit a “Statement of Originality form” via email. The form template was provided by the editor team. 6. The results of the proofread and layout in the form of “Galley Proof Draft” were then sent back to the author via email. 7. Galley Proof Draft that has been checked and corrected by the author, then sent back to the editor team via email. 8. The final layout team then rechecks the full paper to ensure that the format is in accordance with the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science format. • Contact person for queries: Name : Fifi Gus Dwiyanti Affiliation: Department of Silviculture, Faculty of Forestry and Environment, IPB University Email : [email protected]

ABC’s of Publishing a Scientific Paper in a Journal for the Novice Researchers

Writing a scientific paper, choosing a journal, submitting/uploading the paper in the journal website, the peer review process, revising the paper based on the reviewer's comments, and galley proofreading after the acceptance of the paper are the essential components of publishing a paper. Publishing is the ultimate goal of all researchers. Writing a scientific paper requires an extensive literature search, collection of reference articles, acquisition of data of research work, analysis of data and discussing the results comparing with other findings published in similar papers. The final version of the paper should be read by all authors and approved before the submission of the manuscript. One has to select the journal and edit the paper as per the author's instructions of that journal before submission. The article will be reviewed by two experts in that field and they will send their comments about the contents of the paper. The comments should be answered point by point, and the revised paper should be sent again to the editor. If required one has to be prepared to do more than one revision of the paper. If the paper is rejected, one should not be disappointed. You can further improve the quality of the paper by including the answers for the deficiencies and send the revised paper to another suitable journal. Finally, when it is accepted, the galley proof of the article should be read carefully and send the corrected proof to the editor in-time. The 'pdf' copy of the published paper should be kept for sending a copy to the people who request a reprint of your article.

Methodology for Calculating a Slab of a Bridge Web of Reinforced Tensile Concrete with Free Boundary Conditions

In given work is designed methods of the calculation liberally lying plate of the bridge from use of stressing concrete . Herewith voltages is determined on upper galley proof of the concrete , on lower galley proof of the concrete and in armature

On the History of the Novel We, 1937–1952: Zamiatin's We and the Chekhov Publishing House

When Zamiatin died in 1937, his novel We remained unpublished in Russian, although it was available in several languages. Eventually, it was published in its original language by the Chekhov Publishing House in 1952. So, what manuscript was the basis for the Chekhov Publishing House edition of We? At the death of Zamiatin, his widow, Liudmila Zamiatina had two galley proofs. When Mikhail Kaprpovich, editor-in-chief of New Journal, had an interest in publishing the novel in 1949, Liudmila sent the galley prood to Gleb Struve for the publication in New Journal. And, according to the correspondence of Gleb Struve and Vera Aleksandrova, editor-in-chief of the Chekhov Publishing House, she received this galley proof from Mikhail Karpovich. Very likely, The Chekhov Publishing House edition of We was based on this galley proof. Meanwhile, the Chekhov Publishing House was a branch of the East European Fund subsidized by the Ford Foundation. And the East European Fund assisted the Community Integration Program's efforts to help the refugees from Soviet Bloc nations to get settled in the United States and supported research programs on the U.S.S.R. This fact reminds us of the case of Animal Farm. As Orwell mentioned in 1948, the American authorities seized about half the copies of his book Animal Farm in Ukrainian edition and handed them over to the Soviet repatriation camp. A Ukrainian translation of Animal Farm was made by the D.P. historian, Ihor Ševčenko and distributed to Ukrainian readers in the camps.

In Reply: SI Unit Dangers

Although the original Committee statement was correct, the two errors pointed out by Dr Perlman were introduced and not caught in the final galley proof reading. Dr Perlman's point is well-taken and reiterates the Committee's conclusion that drug dosing should continue to be reported in mass units to avoid the possibility of dosing errors. We agree with Dr Perlman and will continue to vigorously oppose this potentially confusing and certainly unnecessary conversion.

In Reply: Pseudomonas Meningitis Therapy Recommendation Questioned

Savarino et al are correct in pointing out that cefotaxime is an inappropriate antibiotic for treatment of pseudomonas infections, especially of the CNS. The erroneous recommendation in the Committee's statement (Pediatrics 1988;81:904-907) was a typographical error that was not discovered when the galley proof was reviewed. Pseudomonas meningitis is best treated, at least initially, with a combination of an aminoglycoside and either ceftazidime or on anti-Pseudomonas penicillin such as ticarcillin or piperacillin.