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]

Evaluation of Water Supply Stability According to Changes in Instream Flow

The Daap intake plant located downstream of the Seomjin River was relocated in 2005, and the amount of intake increased. Accordingly, it significantly influenced the change in the flow rate downstream of the Seomjin River. After relocating the Daap intake plant, the production of Corbicula in the downstream of the Seomjin River decreased; there is a demand for investigation into the damage to the downstream fishermen and preparation of countermeasures. An increase in instream flow to increase the production of Corbicula downstream of the Seomjin River may cause difficulties in the stable water supply of the Seomjin River basin; therefore, a preliminary review is necessary. In this study, the supply stability was evaluated through water budget analysis after setting several instream flow at the downstream of the Seomjin River in Gurye-gun (Songjeong-ri). In addition, the supply stability of the water resource system in the Seomjin River according to the instream flow rate was evaluated. It was intended to suggest an alternative to the supply of instream flow. If the instream flow is set large to increase the production of Corbicula, it may cause difficulties in supplying instream flow and problems in supplying water necessary for human activities; therefore, related information must be provided through various analyses.

An original methodology for evaluating the effectiveness of the use of concession mechanisms based on the stakeholder theory

Subject. The article addresses the methodology for evaluating the effectiveness of the use of concession mechanisms based on the stakeholder theory in investment activities. Objectives. The purpose is to develop methodological approaches to assessing the effectiveness of investment process financing, using the concession mechanisms. Methods. I employ both general scientific methods of cognition and analytical, economic and statistical methods of information processing, based on the analysis of existing concession agreements. Results. The study defines a methodology for evaluating the effectiveness of the use of concession mechanisms on the basis of the theory of stakeholders. It enables to determine the limits and prospects for investing private investor's funds, taking into account the evaluation rating scale. Conclusions. The stability of investment activity is an important aspect. The analysis of the existing preliminary review of the current economic state of concession agreements revealed negative cause-and-effect relationships, which are associated essentially with the lack of awareness of the parties of successful implementation of investment projects. My unique methodology for evaluating the effectiveness of the use of concession mechanisms based on the stakeholder approach aims at solving the above-mentioned problem and increasing the efficiency of investment project financing through a preliminary project assessment. It can be used in investment activities, in particular, in preparing and implementing concession agreements in the housing and utilities sector, construction of social institutions and transport infrastructure facilities.

Anti-Corruption NGOs as Think Tanks

While anti-corruption scholars have analyzed and explained theoretically citizen-based anti- corruption approaches, studies on one of the most important aspects of a leading anti-corruption non-governmental organization (NGO) has been limited: the role of Transparency International (TI), in particular national branches of TI, as a think tank. Drawing on data from an interview with a former head of TI in the UK (TI-UK), this study will conduct a preliminary review and analysis of the effects of TI-UK in anti-corruption policymaking. The analysis shows that TI-UK was not only involved in the drafting of legislation but also had an impact on the outcomes during the legislation and initial implementation processes. This study is expected to contribute to understandings of anti-corruption policymaking processes and development of theories and practices of anti-corruption reforms.

Młodzież w sieci w czasie pandemii. Diagnoza, problemy, wyzwania

The post-pandemic world of adolescents is a kaleidoscope of many changes. The research area of problems and challenges faced by adolescents during the pandemic, emerging from numerous studies, undoubtedly requires in-depth research, even extremely demanding and rarely conducted in sociology so-called longitudinal studies. The starting point for further research in this kind of diagnosis, however, is a preliminary review of the research available worldwide on the problems faced by youth during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in its first and second waves. After researching and analysing the most important, interesting and conducted on a large population of empirical research findings in Poland and around the world, those that are symptomatic for the diagnosis of problems and challenges were selected to be mapped for further observation and study. The article is exploratory in nature, outlining the problem phenomena that clearly emerged in the youth population during the pandemic period. The purpose of the article is to review the studies, their comparative analysis, and then to identify the most important phenomena and issues worthy of investigation in the adolescent population during and after the fourth wave of the pandemic, during the pandemic era.

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 • Describe criteria used by Reviewers when accepting/declining papers. Was there the opportunity to resubmit articles after revisions? There are five main criteria: relevance to the conference topic, importance of the research/state-of-the-art, proper methodology, arguments and conclusions, and academic writing quality. All the criteria are included in the substantial review form (attached) provided for the reviewers. Organizers also prepared a technical review form (attached) to assess the compliance with IOP template and guidelines and to inform the result of plagiarism check. There was the opportunity to resubmit articles after revisions, up to a maximum of two (2) times based on two (2) substantial reviews. • Conference submission management system: Universitas Indonesia online conference system (https://symposiumjessd.ui.ac.id/online-submission/) using Digital Commons From Bepress (Elsevier), the complete submission guidelines are available in following link https://symposiumjessd.ui.ac.id/guideline/ • Number of submissions received: 250 • Number of submissions sent for review: 250 • Number of submissions accepted: 141 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 56.4% • Average number of reviews per paper: 1–2 • Total number of reviewers involved: • Any additional info on review process (i.e. plagiarism check system): Review process was done in 8-14 days. One reviewer might review up to two (2) articles. • Contact person for queries: Herdis Herdiansyah, School of Environmental Science, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia, e-mail: [email protected] Additional information Review Period 1. Review process will be done in range of 8 to 14 days. 2. One Reviewer in term of substantial, maximum article to review are 3 article. Substantial Review 1. Relevance to the Conference topic. 2. Importance of the research/State-of-the-art. 3. Proper methodology. 4. Arguments and conclusions. 5. Academic Writing quality. Other Information 1. Author will received 1 Technical Review and Minimum of 1-2 Substantial Reviewer both from Author Suggestion or/and choose from Committee 2. When the article deliver to publisher, every Author will receive Galley Proof. As an Author must agree with the editing version, except there is some correction from Author. 3. Every Author will receive information and status of the article after submitted. Submission Ethics Ethics in JESSD Symposium is based on Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Before submitting your article(s), please ensure that your submission completely represents following statements. 1. The uploaded files have been carefully prepared based on the provided templates, both title page (title, author name(s), affiliation(s), abstract, and acknowledgements) and article (title, abstract, introduction, method, results and discussion, conclusion, and references) 2. The article represents a qualified scientific knowledge that might come from international collaborations 3. Author(s) has/have approved the article and agree(s) with the submission, therefore any withdrawal of the article is prohibited once it is submitted 4. Author(s) is/are willing to pay the symposium fee and publication fee charged by the organizers (symposium fee is mandatory charged for one author attendance virtually while publication fee is optionally charged before the symposium or after the article is listed in Scopus) 5. The article does not contain any form of plagiarism 6. Author(s) has/have made significant substantial contribution to the article, whether it is in the concept or design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation, or in all these areas 7. The article has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere (either partly or wholly) 8. Author(s) has/have acknowledged any conflict of interest in the article, if necessary 9. Author(s) has/have acknowledged any source of funding in the article, if necessary 10. The article was written in English and carefully reviewed by a native English editor Review Ethics 1. The author(s) is/are required to propose one reviewer and another one reviewer optionally. However, the organizers manage to prevent any conflict of interest that might be happened during review process. Therefore, please ensure that your suggested reviewer fits to following criteria. 2. He/she is an expert in the relevant field. 3. He/she has no competing interest with the author(s). 4. He/she has never been involved in any related work with the author(s). 5. He/she does not know the author(s) personally. 6. There is no certainty that the organizer will accept your suggested reviewer. The double-blind peer review will be conducted, therefore reviewers will not receive any author(s) information and vice versa. Similarity Check Each submitted article will be going to preliminary review with iThenticate. Through the preliminary review, any form of plagiarism will be detected and measured. If similarity check result is more than 10%, the article will be returned or directly rejected. Moreover, the preliminary review will also consider return or direct rejection due to, but not limited to, following reasons. 1. Falling out of topic. 2. Multiple submission or consideration for other publications. 3. Recommendation for rejection from reviewer.

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: Iconf submission system • Number of submissions received: 50 papers • Number of submissions sent for review: 50 papers • Number of submissions accepted: 35 papers • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 70% • Average number of reviews per paper: 3 papers • Total number of reviewers involved: 28 reviewers • Any additional info on review process: 1. Preliminary Review When we received authors’ paper(abstract and full paper), we will submit the paper to auditing department for checking, the auditing department will review the content, theme, format and grammers. 2. The full papers passed the first review will be reviewed again by conference technical committees from the following aspects: Originality, Innovation, Technical Soundness, Applicability, Clarity of presentation and Relevance. 3. After paper passed the first review and the second review, we will send the notification and review form. 4. Only if the paper revised according to the review form, it can be published. Contact person for queries: Prof. Ngai Weng Chan Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia [email protected]

Evaluating Quality Characteristics of Ubiquitous Application Through Means of Quality Models using Meta-metrics Approach

Ubiquitous computing shifted the way how users interact with applications. The demand of information anytime and anywhere impacts the daily life of its users, be it work related or personal. Difficulty arises when determining the quality of ubiquitous application due to lack in appropriate metrics of quality models, which serves as the motivation behind this paper. The aim of this paper is to assess the quality of ubiquitous application using comparative analysis of quality model metrics via meta-metrics approach. Preliminary review mapping was conducted where distinctive quality characteristics of ubiquitous applications from AQUARIUM model are identified. Metrics mapping was then conducted to compare metrics characteristics with quality characteristics via value assignment using meta-metrics technique. Results shows that most of the metrics mapped are not of definitive derivation, providing opportunity to have a more structured and defined measurement function.

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: Double-blind • Conference submission management system: Zmeeting submission system • Number of submissions received: 29 papers • Number of submissions sent for review: 29 papers • Number of submissions accepted: 19 papers • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): 65.52% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • 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, Applicability, Clarity of presentation and Relevance Contact person for queries: Please submit this form along with the rest of your files on the submission date written in your publishing agreement. The information you provide will be published as part of your proceedings.

ICECAE 2021 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 Editor-in-Chief. A three-stage peer-review process was applied that includes initial screening, peer-review, and post-review phases. Reviews were conducted by international expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. Type of peer review: Triple-blind. There was a three-round reviewing process by the Scientific and Technical Committee. First-round is a preliminary review, plagiarism/similarity check (using Turnitin), quality, and topic. The papers, which did not pass the plagiarism/similarity check-up, were rejected immediately and the authors of the rejected papers received the rejection notice along with the similarity report. The second round of reviewing is a professional review, 2-3 experts of related research field gave the professional assessment and comment on scientific quality, relevance with the topics of the conference, originality, subject matter and style of presentation appropriate for IOP: EES, language, and impact of the paper. Consequently, the referees’ decided whether the paper accepted, rejected, conditionally accepted with minor revisions, conditionally accepted with major revisions, or rejected. The authors had the opportunity to revise their papers based on the reviewers’ recommendations. Third round reviewing is the final checking and format analysis of the revised papers. Passed submissions got the acceptance notification from the ICECAE 2021 Editor-in-Chief. ▪ Conference submission management system: https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=icecae2021 ▪ Number of submissions received: 249 ▪ Number of submissions sent for review: 215 ▪ Number of submissions accepted: 101 ▪ Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 41% ▪ Average number of reviews per paper: 2 ▪ Total number of reviewers involved: 14 ▪ Any additional info on review process: N/A ▪ Contact person for queries: Obid Tursunov, [email protected]