Editorial Policies Overview

As a global open access publisher, Tech Science Press is dedicated to disseminating cutting-edge scholarly research among scientific community by advocating an immediate, world-wide and barrier-free access to the research we publish. To ensure all publication meeting our ethical and scientific quality standards, each submission goes through a rigorous review process, including pre-peer-review by relevant editorial board, a single-blind peer-review process by scientific experts, revision following reviewers’ comments as well as final approval by the editorial board.

A Theological Engagement with the Science of Science Skepticism

When Christians reject the claims of scientific experts, are they being irrational? Much of recent discussion in scholarly and popular media have discussed science denialism by conservative Christians, linking a low view of scientific expertise to the United States’ current political turmoil. This paper will focus on scientific explanations of science skepticism, asking whether there is anything unique to religious communities that make them vulnerable to misinformation.

Linking the effects of plant protection products on biodiversity and ecological processes to potential impairment of ecosystem functions and services—A multidisciplinary conceptual framework.

There is growing interest in using the ecosystem services framework for environmental risk assessments of plant protection products (PPP). However, there is still a broad gap between most of the ecotoxicological endpoints used in PPP risk assessment and the evaluation of the risks and effects of PPP on ecosystem services. Here we propose a conceptual framework to link current and future knowledge on the ecotoxicological effects of PPP on biodiversity and ecological processes to their consequences on ecosystem functions and services. We first describe the main processes governing the relationships between biodiversity, ecological processes and ecosystem functions in response to effects of PPP. We define 12 main categories of ecosystem functions that could be directly linked with the ecological processes used as functional endpoints in investigations on the ecotoxicology of PPP. An exploration of perceptions on the possible links between these categories of ecosystem functions and groups of ecosystem services (by a panel scientific experts in various fields of environmental sciences) then finds that these direct and indirect linkages still need clarification. We illustrate how the proposed framework could be used on terrestrial microalgae and cyanobacteria to assess the potential effects of herbicides on ecosystem services. The framework proposed here uses a set of clearly-defined core categories of ecosystem functions and services, which should help identify which of them are effectively or potentially threatened by PPP. We argue that this framework could help harmonize and extend the scientific knowledge that informs decision-making and policy-making.

Informed Decision Making on the Uptake of Evidence-Based Smoking Cessation Assistance by Individuals Motivated to Quit Smoking

Evidence-based cessation assistance increases cessation rates. Activating preferences during decision making could improve effectiveness further. Decision aids (DAs) facilitate deciding by taking preferences into account. To develop effective DAs, potential end users' (i.e., individuals motivated to quit) needs and experts' viewpoints should be considered. Therefore, the aim of this needs assessment was: (1) To explore end users' needs and (2) to obtain consensus among smoking cessation counsellors and scientific experts to develop a self-administered DA to support end users in choosing cessation assistance. Data was gathered via two approaches: (1) twenty semi-structured interviews with potential end users and (2) two three-round Delphi studies with 61 counsellors and 44 scientific experts. Interview data and the first Delphi rounds were analysed qualitatively, the other Delphi rounds were analysed quantitatively. Potential end users acquired information in different ways, e.g., via own experiences. Important characteristics to decide between tools varied, however effectiveness and costs were commonly reported. Experts reached consensus on 38 and 40 statements, e.g., tools should be appropriate for users' addiction level. Although some trends emerged, due to the variation among stakeholders, a 'one size fits all'-approach is undesirable. This heterogeneity should be considered, e.g., by enabling users to customise the DA.

The lesson learned from COVID-19 and the climate crisis is not to let experts decide on policies: a response to Robert C. Schmidt

This is a response to the commentary by Robert C. Schmidt in this journal, in which the author suggests that for specific problems such as climate change or the current pandemic, decisions on policies should be made by scientific experts rather than by politicians. We argue that such ideas, which were brought up in the late 1960s and reconsidered more recently, do not take sufficient account of the nature of science politics, and their interaction. Furthermore, problem structures and resulting challenges for science and politics are not similar, but essentially different between climate change and the pandemic. Therefore, different solutions to the problems are required. There is a need to improve politics’ reliable recourse to scientific evidence in many cases. Yet, giving scientific experts such a strong position in decision-making ignores that most decisions, even if based on the state of scientific evidence (if there is such an uncontroversial state of evidence), ultimately require genuinely political choices about trade-offs of interests and normative issues that neither can nor should be made by scientists. Therefore, putting Schmidt’s proposal into practice would not solve the existing problems but instead create new problems.

Peer review declaration the 6th International Conference of Indonesia Forestry Researchers - Stream 1 Emerging Environmental Quality for Better Living (INAFOR 2021 Stream 1)

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: Triple-blind review. The reviewers are anonymous and the authors’ identity is unknown to both reviewers and editors. Articles are anonymized at the submission stage and are handled in such a way to minimize any potential bias towards the author(s). • Conference submission management system: The system was using email correspondence among the conference committee, authors, appointed reviewers, and participants. • Number of submissions received: 23 papers • Number of submissions sent for review: 18 papers • Number of submissions accepted: 18 papers • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 78.26% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2.0 • Total number of reviewers involved: 5 persons • Any additional info on review process: The editors pre-selected manuscripts to send for reviewers based on the scope of the conference. All manuscripts had check similarities index, using Turnitin and accepted manuscripts did not exceed 10% similarity score. The manuscripts then checked by reviewers that have academic status and are scientific experts in their field. The reviewers used the following criteria: relevance to the scope, contribution to science, originality, systematic, and writing accuracy. The reviewers then recommend the papers: accept, accept with minor/major revision, or reject. The committee then sent the papers to authors to revise them accordingly. Revised version was evaluated by the editors and then the editor sent the revised manuscript to the reviewers again for re-evaluation. If required, the review process can be repeated. The decision to accept or reject the final papers was based on the suggestions of reviewers. • Contact person for queries: Name : Prof. Dr. Chairil Anwar Siregar (Chief Editor). Email: [email protected]. Affiliation: Center for Standardization of Sustainable Forest Management Instruments - Agency for Standardization of Environment and Forestry Instruments Ministry of Environment and Forestry of the Republic of Indonesia.

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: submissions were received and handled via e-mail [email protected] • Number of submissions received: 98 • Number of submissions sent for review: 84 • Number of submissions accepted: 65 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 66.3% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 24 • Any additional info on review process: All reviewers have academic status and are recognized scientific experts in their field. Contact person for queries: Name : Fomin Sergey Denisovich, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Head of the NAMSI Center, Doctor of Technical Sciences Affiliation: Volgograd State Agrarian University, FEDERAL RESEARCH CENTER” NEMCHINOVKA " Email: [email protected]

The Epistemic Virtues of a Closed Mind: Effective Science Reporting in the Golden Age of the Con

A financial confidence game (or “con”) aims to separate you from your money. An epistemic con aims to influence social policy by recruiting you to spread doubt and falsehood about well-established claims. You can’t be conned if you close your wallet to financial cons and your mind to epistemic cons. Easier said than done. The epistemic con has two elements. First are magic bullet arguments, which purport to identify the crucial fact that proves some well-established hypothesis is false. Second are appeals to epistemic virtue: You should be fair, consider the evidence, think for yourself. The appeal to epistemic virtue opens your mind to the con; countless magic bullet arguments keep it open. As in most cons, you (the mark or victim) don’t understand the game. You think it’s to find the truth. But really, it’s to see how long the con artist can string you along as his unwitting shill (an accomplice who entices victims to the con). Strategic Reliabilism says that reasoning is rational to the extent it’s accurate, easy to use, and practical (it applies to significant problems). It recommends that we give close-minded deference to settled science, and thus avoid a large class of epistemic cons. Settled science consists of the general consensus of scientific experts. These experts are defined not by their personal characteristics but by their roles within the institutions of science. Close-minded deference is not blind faith or certainty. It is belief that does not waver in the face of objections from other (less reliable) sources. When the epistemic con is on, the journalist faces a dilemma. Report on magic bullet arguments and thereby open people’s minds to the con. Or don’t, and feed the con artist’s narrative that evidence is being suppressed. As always, the journalist’s best response is sunshine: Report on the story of the epistemic con. Show people how they work. The story of the epistemic con has, at its heart, a wicked reveal: Your reaction to the story is itself part of the story, and it tells you whether the true villain of the story lurks within you.