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.

The Effectiveness of 0.2% Chlorhexidine Gel on Early Wound Healing after Tooth Extraction: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective This study aimed to evaluate the effect of 0.2% chlorhexidine (CHX) gel on wound healing after tooth extraction. Materials and Methods A single blind, randomized controlled trial was performed recruiting 32 participants who underwent dental extractions. Patients were randomly allocated for CHX group or placebo group. The primary outcomes were wound closure measured with calipers and healings were assessed by Landry et al index after 7 days of topical application of allocated gels on extraction sites. Results The wound closures were greater in CHX group compared with placebo group and healing scores were correlated with the use of CHX gel (p-value < 0.05). Conclusion In a population of healthy nonsmoker adults, application of 0.2% CHX gel twice a day for 7 days after tooth extraction has a beneficial effect on wound healing.

Comparison of two biosimilarity studies of FKB327 with the adalimumab reference product: randomized phase 1 studies of single-blind, single-dose subcutaneous injection in healthy Japanese male participants

Background FKB327 has been developed as a biosimilar of the adalimumab reference product (RP). We compared the pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and immunogenicity of FKB327 with those of the adalimumab RP after a single dose by subcutaneous (SC) injection in Japanese male participants. Methods Two randomized, single-blind, single-dose studies were conducted in healthy Japanese male participants to compare PK characteristics between FKB327 and the RP. Study 1 included 130 participants who were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive a subcutaneous injection of 40 mg of either FKB327 or the RP into the abdomen. In Study 2, another 130 subjects were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either drug as in Study 1, but the drug administration site was changed to the thigh. The primary PK endpoints of both studies were area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to the last measurable concentration (AUC0-t) and maximum serum concentration; area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to 360 h was also evaluated as one of the primary endpoints in Study 1. Biosimilarity in terms of pharmacokinetics was determined if the 90% confidence interval of the mean difference in geometric mean ratio of all primary PK parameters was within the prespecified equivalence criteria (0.80–1.25). Immunogenicity and safety were also evaluated as secondary endpoints. Results The serum concentration-time profiles were comparable between the FKB327 and the RP treatment groups in both studies. Primary PK parameters were within the prespecified bioequivalence range in Study 2, although AUC0-t was slightly outside the upper side of the range in Study 1. No differences in safety profile were observed in these studies. The incidence of anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) and impact of ADAs on PK profile were similar among the treatment groups in both studies. Conclusion Biosimilarity between FKB327 and the RP after a single 40-mg SC injection was confirmed in healthy Japanese male participants by modifying the study design. Trial registration jRCT2071200058 (https://jrct.niph.go.jp/en-latest-detail/jRCT2071200058, https://rctportal.niph.go.jp/en/detail?trial_id=jRCT2071200058) and jRCT2071200057 (https://jrct.niph.go.jp/en-latest-detail/jRCT2071200057, https://rctportal.niph.go.jp/en/detail?trial_id=jRCT2071200057). Retrospectively registered 25/11/2020.

The Effects of Mild Intermittent Hypoxia Exposure on the Abdominal Subcutaneous Adipose Tissue Proteome in Overweight and Obese Men: A First-in-Human Randomized, Single-Blind, and Cross-Over Study

Adipose tissue (AT) oxygen tension (pO2) has been implicated in AT dysfunction and metabolic perturbations in both rodents and humans. Compelling evidence suggests that hypoxia exposure alters metabolism, at least partly through effects on AT. However, it remains to be elucidated whether mild intermittent hypoxia (MIH) exposure impacts the AT proteome. We performed a randomized, single-blind, and cross-over study to investigate the effects of seven consecutive days of MIH (FiO2 15%, 3x2h/d) compared to normoxia (FiO2 21%) exposure on the AT proteome in overweight/obese men. In vivo AT insulin sensitivity was determined by the gold standard hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp, and abdominal subcutaneous AT biopsies were collected under normoxic fasting conditions following both exposure regimens (day 8). AT proteins were isolated and quantified using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. After correction for blood contamination, 1,022 AT protein IDs were identified, of which 123 were differentially expressed following MIH (p &lt; 0.05). We demonstrate for the first time that MIH exposure, which markedly reduces in vivo AT oxygen tension, impacts the human AT proteome. Although we cannot exclude that a single differentially expressed protein might be a false positive finding, several functional pathways were altered by MIH exposure, also after adjustment for multiple testing. Specifically, differentially expressed proteins were involved in redox systems, cell-adhesion, actin cytoskeleton organization, extracellular matrix composition, and energy metabolism. The MIH-induced change in AT TMOD3 expression was strongly related to altered in vivo AT insulin sensitivity, thus linking MIH-induced effects on the AT proteome to metabolic changes in overweight/obese humans.

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 conference organisers/editors are required to declare details about their peer review. Therefore, please provide the following information: • Type of peer review: Single-blind • Conference submission management system: By email received from the organizing and editorial committee of the conference. The correspondence authors make the submission by email. • Number of submissions received: 22 • Number of submissions sent for review: 22 • Number of submissions accepted: 20 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received × 100): 91.91% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 reviews per paper • Total number of reviewers involved: 11 • Any additional info on review process: All papers are plagiarism checked by a plagiarism software • Contact person for queries: Ely Dannier V. NiNiño Foundation of Researchers in Science and Technology of Materials (FORISTOM)