Responsibilities, Opportunities, and Challenges for Human Factors in the Digital Age

Today’s challenges for scientific publications require operating at a time when trust in science depends upon effective vetting of data, identifying questionable practices, and scrutinizing research. The Editor-in-Chief has an invaluable opportunity to influence the direction and reputation of our field but also has the responsibility to confront contemporary trends that threaten the publication of quality research. The editor is responsible for maintaining strict scientific standards for the journal through the exercise of good judgment and steadfast commitment to upholding the highest ethical principles. Opportunities exist to create and implement new initiatives for improving the peer review process and elevating the journal’s stature. The journal must address the challenges as well as effectively communicate with the public, who seek a reliable source of information.

Creating a Scientific Solution: Local Problem Solving in the Portuguese Health Examination Survey: A Mixed Method Study

BackgroundParticipation rates in health surveys, recognized as an important quality dimension, have been declining over the years, which may affect representativeness and confidence in results. The Portuguese national health examination survey INSEF (2015) achieved a participation rate of 43.9%, which is in line with participation rates from other similar health examination surveys. The objective of this article is to describe strategies used by the local teams to increase participation rates and to solve practical survey problems.MethodsAfter a literature search, informal interviews were conducted with 14 public health officials from local health examination teams, regional and central authorities. 41 of the local staff members also filled in a short questionnaire anonymously. The interviews and self-administered questionnaires were analysed using mixed methods, informed by thematic analysis.ResultsThe local teams believed that the detailed manual, described as a "cookbook for making a health examination survey", made it possible to maintain high scientific standards while allowing for improvising solutions to problems in the local context. The quality of the manual, supported by a series of training workshops with the central research and support team, gave the teams the confidence and knowledge to implement local solutions. Motivation and cohesion within the local teams were among the goals of the training process. Local teams felt empowered by being given large responsibilities and worked hard to incite people to attend the examination through a close and persuasive approach.Local teams praised their INSA contacts for being available for assistance throughout the survey, and said they were inspired to try harder to reach participants to please their contacts for interpersonal reasons.ConclusionsThe theory of organizational improvisation or bricolage, which means using limited resources to solve problems, was useful to discuss and understand what took place during INSEF.A detailed manual covering standard procedures, continuous monitoring of the data collection and face-to-face workshops, including role-play, were vital to assure high scientific standards and high participation rates in this health examination survey. Close contacts between the central team and local focal points in all regions and all survey sites were key to accommodating unexpected challenges and innovative solutions.

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: For official information, we develop using our University platform: http://aic.unsyiah.ac.id/, while for paper submission, We used the OCS conference management system: http://conference.unsyiah.ac.id/AIC-ELS/AIC2021-ELS • Number of submissions received: 30 papers • Number of submissions sent for review: 30 papers • Number of submissions accepted: 16 papers • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 53.33% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 papers • Total number of reviewers involved: 17 reviewers • Any additional info on review process: 1. Preliminary review 2. The papers passed the first review will be reviewed again from the following aspects: originality, innovation, technical soundness, and applicability • Contact person for queries: Dr. Nur Fadli, S. Pi., M. Sc Institute of Research and Community Services (LPPM) Universitas Syiah Kuala Jln. Teuku Nyak Arief, Gedung KPA USK, Lt.2 Darussalam, Banda Aceh 23111 Aceh, Indonesia Phone: +62 651 755 262 Email: [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: Single-blind Each submitted paper reviewed by two minimum of reviewers after meet the minimum criteria. The review based on the following aspects: 1) Technical Criteria (Scientific merit, Clarity of expression, and Sufficient discussion of the context of the work, and suitable referencing); 2) Quality Criteria (Originality, Motivation, Repetition, Length); and 3) presentation criteria (Title, Abstract, Diagram, figures, tables and captions, Text and mathematics, and Conclusion). We also used iThenticate for plagiarism detection. • Conference submission management system: Easychair • Number of submissions received: 125 • Number of submissions sent for review: 117 • Number of submissions accepted: 90 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 90/125 = 72% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 Reviewers • Total number of reviewers involved: 36 • Any additional info on review process: No • Contact person for queries: Name : Dr. Anita Ahmad Kasim Affiliation: Universitas Tadulako, Indonesia 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: 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

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) 1. ICPEM Editors perform an initial check of the manuscript’s suitability upon receipt, and use a software tool to finish the plagiarism analysis, manuscripts are out of conference topics will be rejected directly, generally, authors will receive the result within 3-5 working days in this round. 2. Only the manuscripts passed the initial checking can be submitted to reviewers, ICPEM Editorial Office will then organize the peer-review process performed by independent experts. Papers will be strictly and thoroughly peer-reviewed by experts and reviewers. 3. All regular papers are reviewed by at least two reviewers, but usually by three or more, and rated considering: Relevance, Originality, Technical Quality, Significance and Presentation of the submissions; There are four results: 1, Accept; 2, Accept after Minor Revisions; 3, Reconsider after Major Revisions; 4, Reject. 4. Authors have 2-3 weeks to make minor or major revisions after received the comments from reviewers. Usually, one round of major revisions is allowed. 5. Only the submission passed the peer review and accepted by reviewers will be included in the conference proceeding finally. • Conference submission management system: Online Email System • Number of submissions received: 141 • Number of submissions sent for review: 116 (25 papers out of the conference scope are rejected directly) • Number of submissions accepted: 69 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 49% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2-3 • Total number of reviewers involved: 164 • Any additional info on review process: • Contact person for queries: Name : Josh Sheng Affiliation: Hubei Zhongke Research Institute of Nature Science, China Email : [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: Single-blind • Conference submission management system: All the manuscripts received form the authors were sent to the reviewers. Each manuscript was reviewed by one reviewer and re-checked by editor. All comments were sent back to the authors to let them make all corrections. The revised versions of manuscripts were checked and approved by editors. • Number of submissions received: 15 • Number of submissions sent for review: 15 • Number of submissions accepted:11 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100):73.3 • Average number of reviews per paper: 1 • Total number of reviewers involved:10 • Any additional info on review process: Reviewers considered manuscripts in accordance with: 1) Technical Criteria: scientific rigour, accuracy, correctness of selected methodology. 2) Quality Criteria: originality and novelty, clarity of motivation and results importance. 3) Presentation Criteria: clarity of expression, readability and completeness of presentation, quality of all presented data and figures. • Contact person for queries: Name: Sergey Dubinskiy 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 All the articles of AICECS 2021 followed the “Single-blind” peer review process, where the reviewers were aware of the authors’ identity but not vice-versa • Conference submission management system: EasyChair All the submission and communication to all the AICECS 2021 authors were through EasyChair (https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=aicecs2021) • Number of submissions received: 149 • Number of submissions sent for review: 136 • Number of submissions accepted: 78 • Acceptance Rate: 52.3% (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): (78/149) x 100 = 52.3%) • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 106 Any additional info on review process: All the initial submissions went through a single-blind review, based on the subject experts (reviewers) and Technical Programme Committee Chair (TPC) and General Chair decision (accept or major revision or minor revision or reject) communicated to the authors through EasyChair. Based on the recommendation, the authors revised the articles and submitted their revised papers. The revised submission was verified by the TPC and General Chair for their final recommendation for the submission. Online similarity check has been carried out using Turnitin software at all the stages from submission to acceptance. Contact person for queries: Name : Dr. Tanweer Assistant Professor-Senior Scale, Department of E&C, General Chair, AICECS 2021, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal, Karnataka, India Email : [email protected]; [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.

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