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 (please describe) The peer review process was a single blind review. Each manuscript was reviewed by at least two reviewers.● Conference submission management system: The submission management was an on website uploading type one. Each abstract was uploaded on the conference website and the papers were sent directly via conference e-mail.● Number of submissions received: 76 ● Number of submissions sent for review: 54 ● Number of submissions accepted: 47 ● Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 61.8 ● Average number of reviews per paper: 2 ● Total number of reviewers involved: 54 ● Any additional info on review process: during the review process, all papers were checked for compliance with the topic of the conference, acceptable English language and the quality of images/figures, tables, equations and general aspect.The review process took into account the following key points:- Each reviewer was asked to fill in a paper review form containing: an overall evaluation (the manuscript was assessed by grade), an evaluation in which the reviewer was asked to grade the paper following “Contribution to existing knowledge”, “Quality of the presentation”, “Scientific soundness”, “If the conclusions are supported by data” and “Relevance to the literature review” and a detailed evaluation in which the reviewer was asked to fill the “strengths” and the “weaknesses” of the paper. Additional comments to the author(s) and to the editors (optional) were implied. The grades were from 1 – Poor to 5 – Excellent.- The criterion for accepting the paper was to have a minimum grade 2 from at least two reviewers. After the receiving of paper reviews, each author was asked to revised the manuscript according with the reviewer’s (and, where was the case, editor’s) comments.- For each revised paper, editors checked the respecting of the reviewer’s remarks and, where was the case, asked a second opinion from the reviewer(s).● Contact person for queries: Radu MUNTEAN (radu.m@unitbv.ro), Dorin RADU (dorin.radu@unitbv.ro)Please 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.