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 / Double-blind / Triple-blind / Open / Other Single-anonymous: authors’ identities are known to the reviewers, reviewers’ identities are hidden from authorsDouble-anonymous: author and reviewer identities are hidden to each otherTriple-blind: author and reviewer identities are hidden to each other, and from the Editor(s) Open: author and reviewer identities are known to each other However both author and reviewer do not know each other, nor have any acquaintance • Describe criteria used by Reviewers when accepting/declining papers. Was there the opportunity to resubmit articles after revisions? The papers presented in this volume were selected after meticulous review of three independent and international reviews and the reviewers had no acquaintance with the authors, and papers were sent to reviewers in different countries avoiding the country of papers’ origin. All papers were scores and the reviewers gave their levels of confidence. In some doubtful cases such as borderline or contradicting reviews, and, where the level of confidence of the reviewers were low, papers were resent to two additional reviewers making a total of five reviews. All articles were revised and resubmitted along with a plagiarism check report. After a final check by the organising committee of both the manuscript and the plagiarism report, authors were asked to format their papers and produce a camera-ready version. With this stringent review process over sixty percent of the submitted paper were reject, and this ensured the quality of the work presented here.Since GCMM covers a broad range of subjects area, the accepted papers were group in three sections, and one of the selections is presented here in this collection.The GCMM2021 organising committee scrutinised further all the papers and awarded four prizes for the best technical papers, the best presenter and the best poster. The winners received a prize in form of Amazon voucher.• Conference submission management system:Papers were handled using the Easychair conference platform, along with an online payment system that dealt with the registration fee.• Number of submissions received:320 papers were submitted• Number of submissions sent for review:250 papers were sent to reviewers• Number of submissions accepted:120 were accepted.• Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received × 100): (120/250)100 = 37.5% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2.5 • Total number of reviewers involved:297 carried out the reviewing process, however other reviewers outside the main list were involved in border line and conflicting reviews.• Any additional info on review process (i.e. plagiarism check system):Turnitin was used (https://www.turnitin.com) along with other similar software to check the uniqueness, similarities and plagiarism.• Contact person for queries:Dr Andre Batako,Liverpool John Moores University, Byrom Street, L3 3AFEmail : a.d.batako@ljmu.ac.uk Tel. 0151 231 2020Please 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.