Peer review declaration

Abstract

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 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? We advertised the conference with the expectation that each participant would author or co-author a presentation, and that most presentations would lead to a paper in the proceedings. Peer reviewers were directed to the IOPP Conference Series guidance, including the Proceedings peer review policy.Two peer reviewers were assigned to each paper: care was taken to ensure good mixing of pairings of reviewers.As many of the authors were students or early career researchers, we anticipated that there would be a need for multiple review iterations. Reviewer feedback was intended to be helpful and focussed on the technical content and the clarity of exposition. In addition to review of the technical content, there was also support for using the template, improving the layout of content, and referencing. We encouraged resubmissions and encouraged the authors to make as many improvements as would be feasible within reasonable amount of time. • Conference submission management system:The papers were numbered, and resubmitted versions were also numbered. Progress with the submission and the review process was monitored using a spreadsheet. • Number of submissions received:Initially, there were expected to be 35 papers, but one missed the abstract deadline, two did not register for the conference, and one withdrew after the conference. As a result, 31 paper submissions were received. • Number of submissions sent for review:31 submissions were sent for review. • Number of submissions accepted:27 submissions were accepted. • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100):Acceptance rate = 87%• Average number of reviews per paper:Each paper was reviewed by two reviewers• Total number of reviewers involved:13 reviewers• Any additional info on review process (ie plagiarism check system):Some support was provided for use of Word templates, English language grammar, checking accuracy of reference information.The two proceedings Editors provided support to reviewers and authors when required. • Contact person for queries:Alison McMillan a.mcmillan@glyndwr.ac.uk