Peer review declaration – ICETEST 2020

Abstract

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 • Conference submission management system : iVy League Conference Management System, Bangalore, India (iThenticate plagiarism detection software integrated in the system) • Number of submissions received : 261 • Number of submissions sent for review : 238 • Number of submissions accepted : 110 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100) : 42.15% • Average number of reviews per paper : 2 • Total number of reviewers involved : 62 • Any additional info on review process : • Contact person for queries : Well defied review guidelines have been followed for the first and revised submissions of the manuscripts (*Detailed peer review guidelines followed are appended below) Dr. K K Ramachandran, Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Government Engineering College Thrissur, Kerala, India e-mail: kkramachandran@gectcr.ac.in *Peer Review Guidelines: 1. First Submission Give unbiased consideration to all manuscripts regardless of race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship or political philosophy of the authors. Ensure that no terminology is used in the paper that is offensive or might be perceived to be offensive to others. • Ensure that the paper should meet the standards of quality for an IOP Publishing publication. • Ensure that the content of the paper is not published elsewhere but, review article may be considered, if it possesses sufficient content quality. • The reviewer may consider, with regard to quality, the conference nature of the articles than would be normal for a regular paper but, should be careful not approve papers of poor scientific standard/quality. • Referees should give a clear statement of recommendation by selecting any of the options “Accept, Major Revision, Minor Revision or Reject in the iVy League interface. • Provide comments to the author(s) in support of the recommendation and that suitable for improving the quality of the paper. • Ensure that the content possesses enough scientific rigour, accuracy, correctness, clarity of expressions, organization of content and results are supported with scientific reasoning. • With regard to content quality and organization of the paper, check and ensure the following ○ The work reported is relevant and novel ○ The content of the paper is not published and contribute to the scientific literature ○ The title is adequate and appropriate for the content of the article ○ The abstract is apt, highlight the principal findings and postulates and suitable for inclusion in an abstracting service ○ The figures possess sufficient clarity, the inflammation in tables are adequate, the figure and table captions are appropriate and the figures and tables given are essential ○ The scientific and mathematical information in the text is concise, sufficient and clear ○ The conclusions are consistent with the nature and extent of investigations and findings reported in the paper ○ Adequate and up to date literature are cited in the article 2. Revised Submission • Ensure that the authors have rationally addressed the reviewer’s comments in the response to reviewer’s comments provided by the author(s) • Ensure that the corrections / modifications suggested by the reviewers are incorporated in the revised paper • If it is convinced that the authors have not addressed the review comments rationally and major changes are still required, the paper may be rejected • Ensure that the figures and tables are correctly numbered and captioned as per the author guidelines. • Ensure that the paper is formatted strictly in accordance with the formatting guidelines of Materials Science and Engineering journal of IOP publishers