Peer review declaration

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. 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 (please describe) Single-anonymous: authors’ identities are known to the reviewers, reviewers’ identities are hidden from authors • Conference submission management system: Via email messages between editor and authors and editor and reviewers. • Number of submissions received: 18 • Number of submissions sent for review: 18 • Number of submissions accepted:18 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100):100 • Average number of reviews per paper: 1.11 • Total number of reviewers involved:20 • Any additional info on review process: The following review criteria were suggested: • Are the scientific methods and assumptions valid and clearly outlined? • Are the results sufficient to support the interpretations and conclusions? • Is the overall presentation well structured and clear? • Is the description of experiments and calculations sufficiently complete and precise to allow their reproduction by fellow scientists (traceability of results)? • Are mathematical formulae, symbols, abbreviations, and units correctly defined and used? • Are the number and quality of references appropriate? • Contact person for queries: Name : Julian Gröbner Affiliation: Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center (PMOD/WRC), Davos Dorf, Switzerland. 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: Double-blind • Conference submission management system: www.riact.co.in • Number of submissions received: 205 • Number of submissions sent for review: 123 • Number of submissions accepted:52 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100):25.36 • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved:72 • Any additional info on review process: All papers had undergone plagiarism check and double-blind review by two reviewers. Based on the reviewer comments, revised manuscript were submitted by authors for final publication. Review criteria: 1. Technical Criteria (5 marks) 2. Plagiarism (5 marks) 3. Quality Criteria (5 marks) 4. Presentation Criteria (5 marks) 5. Based on reviewer and editor comments the authors are instructed to revise the accepted papers and instructed to submit the revised paper for JPCS. • Contact person for queries: Dr. AROCKIA SELVAKUMAR AROCKIA DOSS CONVENOR – RIACT 2021 SENIOR ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DESIGN AND AUTOMATION RESEARCH GROUP SCHOOL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING (SMEC) VIT CHENNAI, VANDALUR – KELAMBAKKAM ROAD MELAKOTTAIYUR, CHENNAI - 600 127. Mobile: 9962681933 Email: [email protected]

Critical Review of Online Resources Frequently Used by Certified Speech-Language Pathologists for Dysphagia Management

Purpose The purpose of this study was to identify the online resources that are frequently used by certified speech-language pathologists (SLPs) for dysphagia management and to evaluate these online resources against a standardized critical review metric. Method Certified SLPs were surveyed and asked to describe their familiarity and confidence in critically reviewing online resources and to provide three online resources that they use to inform them about their management of patients with swallowing disorders. Three raters independently judged each online resource that was provided by survey respondents using the DISCERN Instrument. Relationships between respondent demographics and characteristics of online resources were explored. Results Our results revealed that no patterns in DISCERN Instrument ratings for online resources were provided by the 48 respondents. There was no difference in who was more or less likely to choose credible online resources for dysphagia management when considering respondents' characteristics and familiarity and confidence in reviewing online resources. Most of the online resources provided by the respondents lacked a high level of reliability for most of the DISCERN Instrument review criteria. Conclusion Professional training in the critical review of online resources used for managing dysphagia is needed across all levels of training.

Types of deviation and review criteria in pretreatment central quality control of tumor bed boost in medulloblastoma—an analysis of the German Radiotherapy Quality Control Panel in the SIOP PNET5 MB trial

Purpose In Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, pretreatment radiotherapy quality control (RT-QC) for tumor bed boost (TB) in non-metastatic medulloblastoma (MB) was not mandatory but was recommended for patients enrolled in the SIOP PNET5 MB trial between 2014 and 2018. This individual case review (ICR) analysis aimed to evaluate types of deviations in the initial plan proposals and develop uniform review criteria for TB boost. Patients and methods A total of 78 patients were registered in this trial, of whom a subgroup of 65 patients were available for evaluation of the TB treatment plans. Dose uniformity was evaluated according to the definitions of the protocol. Additional RT-QC criteria for standardized review of target contours were elaborated and data evaluated accordingly. Results Of 65 initial TB plan proposals, 27 (41.5%) revealed deviations of target volume delineation. Deviations according to the dose uniformity criteria were present in 14 (21.5%) TB plans. In 25 (38.5%) cases a modification of the RT plan was recommended. Rejection of the TB plans was rather related to unacceptable target volume delineation than to insufficient dose uniformity. Conclusion In this analysis of pretreatment RT-QC, protocol deviations were present in a high proportion of initial TB plan proposals. These findings emphasize the importance of pretreatment RT-QC in clinical trials for MB. Based on these data, a proposal for RT-QC criteria for tumor bed boost in non-metastatic MB was developed.

An approach for improving the quality of country-level TB modelling

Mathematical modelling is increasingly used to inform budgeting and strategic decision-making by national TB programmes. Despite the importance of these decisions, there is currently no mechanism to review and confirm the appropriateness of modelling analyses. We have developed a benchmarking, reporting, and review (BRR) approach and accompanying tools to allow constructive review of country-level TB modelling applications. This approach has been piloted in five modelling applications and the results of this study have been used to revise and finalise the approach. The BRR approach consists of 1) quantitative benchmarks against which model assumptions and results can be compared, 2) standardised reporting templates and review criteria, and 3) a multi-stage review process providing feedback to modellers during the application, as well as a summary evaluation after completion. During the pilot, use of the tools prompted important changes in the approaches taken to modelling. The pilot also identified issues beyond the scope of a review mechanism, such as a lack of empirical evidence and capacity constraints. This approach provides independent evaluation of the appropriateness of modelling decisions during the course of an application, allowing meaningful changes to be made before results are used to inform decision-making. The use of these tools can improve the quality and transparency of country-level TB modelling applications.

Neuropsychological Comparison of Guilt and Grief: A Review of Guilt Aspects in Prolonged Grief Disorder

Taking an integrative approach toward developmental psychology and neurophysiology, this review selects findings from the psychological and medical literature on guilt and bereavement that are relevant to considering whether and how guilt contributes to the development of prolonged grief disorder (PGD) in bereaved persons. Mention of guilt is ubiquitous in literature on general grief and PGD, including 54 articles related to the neuropsychological development and manifestations of guilt and grief, as well as their neuroimaging correlates, that met scoping review criteria. However, mechanisms connecting guilt to development of PGD are scarce. Aspects of guilt are conceptually connected to many PGD criteria, opening avenues to explore treatment of PGD by targeting guilt. Positive and prosocial aspects of guilt are especially neglected in the treatment of psychiatric disorders, and consideration of these aspects may improve interventions for PGD such as complicated grief treatment.

Exploring the operationalisation and implementation of outreach in community settings with hard-to-reach and hidden populations: protocol for a scoping review

IntroductionOutreach is regularly identified as an effective strategy to engage underserved, hard-to-reach and hidden populations with essential life-sustaining health services. Despite the increasing expansion of outreach programmes, particularly in HIV prevention and health promotion with youth, sex workers, people living with mental health and substance use challenges, and those affected by homelessness, there has been limited synthesis of the evidence concerning the core components of outreach programming or indicators of its successful implementation. Without this understanding, current outreach programmes may be limited in achieving the desired aims. The aim of this scoping review is to explore how outreach has been operationalised and implemented in various community settings with people underserved in current healthcare contexts. Understanding the state of knowledge pertaining to outreach as programming and as practice involving the engagement of people considered hard-to-reach will enable the identification of promising trends and limitations in the field.Methods and analysisThis scoping review follows the Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and PubMed databases will be searched for peer-reviewed references focused on outreach with hard-to-reach and hidden groups from 1 January 2008 to 30 April 2020. Guided by explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria, three reviewers will independently assess references in two successive stages. Titles and abstracts will be reviewed followed by full-text assessment of papers meeting the review criteria. A descriptive overview, tabular and/or graphical summaries and a thematic analysis will be carried out on extracted data.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was not required as the only data source was peer-reviewed documents. Outreach knowledge users who are members of the project team will participate in all aspects of study design, implementation and result dissemination strategies.

Academic Journal Retractions and the COVID-19 Pandemic

The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic has produced an unprecedented amount of scientific research, with over 100,000 articles on the SARS-COV2 virus or the associated pandemic published within the first year. To effectively disseminate such a large volume of research, some academic journal publishers altered their review criteria, and many articles were made available before undergoing a traditional review process. However, with this rapid influx of information, multiple COVID-19 articles have been retracted or withdrawn. Some researchers have expressed concern that these retractions call into question the validity of an expedited review process and the overall quality of the larger body of COVID-19 research. We examined 68 removed articles and determined that many of the articles were removed for unknown reasons (n = 22) or as duplications (n = 12); 24 papers were retracted for more significant reasons (data integrity, plagiarism, reporting or analysis, and IRB or privacy issues). The majority of removed papers were from the USA (n = 23) and China (n = 19).