Peer review declaration

The Organiser and/or the Editor(s) are required to declare details about their peer review processes. Therefore, please provide the following information: • Type of peer review: Single-blind / Double-blind / Triple-blind / Open / Other Single-blind review Single-anonymous: authors’ identities are known to the reviewers, reviewers’ identities are hidden from authors; • Describe criteria used by Reviewers when accepting/declining papers. Was there the opportunity to resubmit articles after revisions? The following criteria were applied: 1. Quality assessment Significance, novelty, correctness Special attention was paid to repetition and Plagiarism. 2. Technical Criteria Clarity of expression; readability and discussion of concepts Sufficient discussion of the context of the work, and suitable referencing. 3. Presentation Criteria 1. Is it clearly presented, well organized, and clearly written?( clear presentation, well organized, clearly stated) 2. Is the English satisfactory? (satisfactory english) 3. Is the title appropriate? (Title matches) 4. Does the abstract include the important points of the paper?( abstract contains important information on the article) 5. Are references to related work adequate, up to date and readily available? (links are relevant, relevant, available) 6. Are figures and tables necessary and adequate?( tables and figures are necessary and appropriate) 7. Are the conclusions satisfactory? (conclusion is appropriate) During the review process, the authors were given a one-time opportunity to re-submit the article for review. • Conference submission management system: • The peer review was carried out by the Forum Program Committee, organized according to the order of the General Director of the RSE INP No. 182 dated 22.24.2021. The Program Committee carried out a preliminary selection of articles to be sent to the reviewers. • Number of submissions received: 44 • Number of submissions sent for review: 42 • Number of submissions accepted: 35 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 79,54 • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 40 • Any additional info on review process (eg Plagiarism check system): • Review process consisted from few steps: • 1) submission by editorial committee • 2) 2 reviewers received publication (anonymously, author did not know any of reviewer) • 3) after check, authors fixed all mistakes and requirements from reviewers) Checking for plagiarism, showed no repeat or copy of submitted material. • Contact person for queries (Full name, affiliation, institutional email address) Name : Nassurlla Maulen Affiliation: Institute of Nuclear Physics Republic of Kazakhstan Email : nassurlla [email protected] ( additional: [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. • 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]

FEATURES OF ONLINE LECTURES

The purpose of the article is to determine the features of video lecturing and pinpoint opportunities to improve presenting of theoretical material online. The relevance of the study is caused by the lack of experience of the majority of Ukrainian lecturers in teaching by video conferences before 2020. Insufficient covering of this issue emphasizes the urgency of the publication. To achieve our goal, the following tasks were set: to consider the main differences between online lecturing and in-class lectures and other ways of distance teaching; to generalize the main problems of students and teachers arising during online lectures; to propose the ways to solve those problems and describe the possibilities of using the advantages of online lectures. To achieve the set goal, the following methods were used in the paper: abstract, logical and comparative analysis, survey, expert evaluation, monographic, analysis and synthesis, dialectic, tabular and graphic. To study the students’ opinions concerning online lectures in March-April 2021, the anonymous survey of full-time students studying at the Faculty of Accounting and Finance of Poltava State Agrarian University was conducted. 69.7% of respondents consider this format either better or not worse than in-class lessons. The main students’ problems that appeared during online lectures were the technical ones: (the absence or low quality of Internet and hardware) and the lack of face-to-face communication. It is proposed for the educational establishment to choose the single software product for video lecturing; to make records of video lectures with their further promulgation on the platform determined by the university; for the lecturing professor to create a friendly atmosphere; to introduce the obligatory revision of the students’ notes; to ensure the opportunity for students to ask questions to the lecturer; to promote active use of interactive lecture to ensure activate participation of the students (in particular, the lectures with previously planned errors, binary lectures, and lectures-conferences).

PREFACE: TECHNICAL COMMISSION I

For ISPRS Technical Commission I (TC I), a remarkable number of 189 submissions for the 2020 Congress edition of ISPRS Annals and ISPRS Archives was received. This included both full paper and abstract submissions from all over the world. Encouraged by the success of double blind paper reviewing in preparation of the 2016 Prague congress and the 2018 Karlsruhe symposium, also this time, TC I organized a strict peer-reviewing process. This included double-blind reviewing for full papers as well as a two-stage evaluation of abstract submissions – first stage based on the submitted abstracts (“conditional acceptance”), and second stage after submission of the respective final papers.In total, we received 69 full paper submissions and 120 abstract submissions, which indicates a nice trend towards full paper submissions compared to previous TC I events.45 full papers passed the double-blind peer-review process and were accepted for publication in the ISPRS Annals (acceptance rate 64%); usually, three or four reviews were obtained for each paper. Abstract submissions and their respective final papers were reviewed by a team of professionals. In total, 76 papers were accepted to the ISPRS Archives.The manuscripts in both the ISPRS Annals and Archives cover a broad range of topics related to remote sensing platforms, technologies, systems and related methods and reflect the current trends in algorithmic research and developments in sensing and data acquisition methods. Noteworthy is that numerous contributions were submitted to Intercommission WGs of TC I with TC II and TC IV, which underlines the increasing trend towards an integral approach to sensors, systems and methods in photogrammetry, remote sensing and mobile mapping.

Preface: Technical Commission I

For ISPRS Technical Commission I (TC I), a remarkable number of 189 submissionsfor the 2020 Congress edition of ISPRS Annals and ISPRS Archives was received.This included both full paper and abstract submissions from all over the world.Encouraged by the success of double blind paper reviewing in preparation of the2016 Prague congress and the 2018 Karlsruhe symposium, also this time, TC Iorganized a strict peer-reviewing process. This included double-blind reviewing forfull papers as well as a two-stage evaluation of abstract submissions – first stagebased on the submitted abstracts (“conditional acceptance“), and second stage after submission of the respective final papers.In total, we received 69 full paper submissions and 120 abstract submissions, whichindicates a nice trend towards full paper submissions compared to previous TC Ievents.45 full papers passed the double-blind peer-review process and were accepted forpublication in the ISPRS Annals (acceptance rate 64%); usually, three or four reviewswere obtained for each paper. Abstract submissions and their respective final paperswere reviewed by a team of professionals. In total, 76 papers were accepted to theISPRS Archives.The manuscripts in both the ISPRS Annals and Archives cover a broad range oftopics related to remote sensing platforms, technologies, systems and relatedmethods and reflect the current trends in algorithmic research and developments insensing and data acquisition methods. Noteworthy is that numerous contributionswere submitted to Intercommission WGs of TC I with TC II and TC IV, whichunderlines the increasing trend towards an integral approach to sensors, systemsand methods in photogrammetry, remote sensing and mobile mapping.

Urbanization Trends and Processes in Kazakhstan

Goals and objectives of the research: the main goal of the research is to analyze urbanization processes occurring in Kazakhstan in the period between 2009 and 2019. Methodology: the author uses comparative analysis and synthesis via statistics taken from the Committee on Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan by the period of 2009-2019. There is a comparison of the share of urban population, unemployment rate and average monthly salary wage in Almaty, Nur-Sultan, Shymkent. Findings : primarily, there is shown an overview of worldwide trends towards urbanization processes. Main causes of these processes globally and regionally are presented either. Afterwards, diagrams and graphs with main indicators as well as description of urbanization in Kazakhstan can be seen. Then it leads to conclusion. The structure of this paper: abstract, main part (with diagrams and tables), conclusion, references. Value: The paper reviews the changes of urbanization processes in Kazakhstan. Urbanization today is one of the main trends of the world. Currently the urban population has exceeded the number of people living in rural areas, and this trend will only intensify. Regarding developed countries, it can be seen that 3/4 of the country population tend to live in cities: in the United Kingdom, the rate of urbanization hits 82%, in the USA - 81%, in France - 79%, in Germany - 75%. In accordance with UN forecasts, by 2050, 6.2 billion people will reside in cities, which will be 66% of the total population of the earth. Therefore Theoretical or Practical implications: the given research results can be used by governmental committees and implemented for theoretical courses and disciplines towards urbanization.