Peer review declaration

Abstract

Peer Review Declaration Form Guidance On the following page you will find the declaration form.• Please answer each question.• You should submit the form along with the rest of your submission files.• The deadline is the submission date written in your publishing agreement. All conference organisers/editors are required to declare details about their peer review. We will published the information you provide as part of your proceedings. 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: Single blind● Conference submission management system: Through online using conference website (https://submit.confbay.com/conf/arcofs2021 > Online Submission)● Number of submissions received: 136● Number of submissions sent for review: 108● Number of submissions accepted: 90● Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 66.2%● Average number of reviews per paper: 2.5● Total number of reviewers involved: 143● Any additional info on review process: As follows:- Step 1. The editor in charge managed each submitted paper. The editor was appointed based on expertise related to that particular paper. Step 2. The editor in charge will start the first screening by plagiarism check using Turnitin. If the similarity is higher than 20%, the paper will be sent back to the author for improvement. A rejection email will be sent to author if the paper is not within the issue’s scopes. Only paper with a similarity less than 20% and subject area within the scopes will proceed to Step 3. Step 3. The editor in charge will appoint 2 reviewers (experts-related subjects) to review the paper. Reviewers are given 2 weeks to return the Reviewer’s Comment to the editor. The editor will appoint another reviewer if the Reviewer’s Comment contradict each other (1 reviewer Accept and 1 reviewer Reject). Step 4. The editor in charge will decide whether the Reviewer’s Comment is logical or not. If logical, the Reviewer’s Comment and Editor’s Comment will be sent to the author for paper revisions. If not logical, the editor can judge at his/her own. Step 5. Authors are required to revise their papers according to the points raised as in Reviewer’s Comment and Editor’s Comment. The revised paper must highlight the corrections made. Step 6. The editor will then evaluate a revised version to incorporate the points raised by the reviewers. Step 7. If the editor in charge approves the revised version of the manuscript, the paper will be accepted for publication. If not, the editor will send the revised paper to the author for another revision. Step 8. The editor will send a rejection email to the author if the revised version did not comply with the points raised by the reviewers and editor.● Contact person for queries: Name : Dr. Mohammad Mijanur RahmanAffiliation : Faculty of Agro-Based Industry, Universiti Malaysia Kelantan, MalaysiaEmail : mijanur.r@umk.edu.my