Peer review declaration

Abstract

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the proceedings 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 (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? Appointed reviewers have some criterias when accepting/declining papers such as original content, scope of the research, methodology/approach, data presentation and interpretation, writing accuracy, and contribution to science. Furthermore, there was the opportunity to resubmit articles after revisions with the article status minor or major revision. The author was given a deadline for it.• Conference submission management system: Conference submission management system was using email correspondence among the conference committee and participants/authors, as well as appointed reviewers.• Number of submissions received: 91 papers• Number of submissions sent for review: 90 papers, 1 paper was directly rejected due to irrelevant scope.• Number of submissions accepted: 79 papers• Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 86.81%• Average number of reviews per paper: 2.19• Total number of reviewers involved: 5 persons• Any additional info on review process: Among all the manuscripts received, the Editors pre-selected manuscripts to send for reviewers. All manuscripts had undergone plagiarism check with Turnitin and accepted manuscripts did not exceed 30% score in similarity. All reviewers have academic status and are scientific experts in their field. The checklist for the reviewers included the following criteria: relevance to the scope, contribution to science, originality, systematic, writing accuracy, etc. The reviewers could give the following recommendation: accept the paper as it is, accept the paper with minor/major revision, or reject the paper. Review results were sent to authors to revise the manuscript accordingly. Revised version was evaluated by the editors and then the editor sent the revised manuscript to the reviewers again for re-evaluation. The review process was repeated, if it is required. The decision to accept or reject was based on the suggestions of reviewers.• Contact person for queries: Dr. Adi Susanto (Editor in Chief), Faculty of Agriculture, University of Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa, Serang, Indonesia, email: adisusanto@untirta.ac.id