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 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 Review• Conference submission management system:We use the Conference Management Tool services provided by www.conftool.net. The conference tool page of The 5th PlanoCosmo International Conference can be accessed on the website link https://www.conftool.net/planocosmo2020/• Number of submissions received:76• Number of submissions sent for review:39• Number of submissions accepted:36• Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100):47,37 %• Average number of reviews per paper:Each abstract was reviewed by two reviewers. In average, each full paper was sent to two potential reviewers. Although not every reviewer was able to provide feedback within the given time, there should at least be one review report available to decide the acceptance of the full paper (inclusion in the proceedings).• Total number of reviewers involved:There were 85 reviewers invited in the peer-review process, including the scientific committee as well as external reviewers from Institut Teknologi Bandung and other universities in Indonesia, and also scholars’ base in Australia, Malaysia, The Netherlands, United States of America, and India.• Any additional info on review process: The review was carried out in several layers:1. The first review was conducted to assess the quality of the abstract, which determines whether the participant was fit to continue submitting the full paper or not. The criteria for abstract review were: a). The themes proposed in the abstract must had conformity with the big theme of the conferences, “Infrastructure for all: Smart, Innovative, and Inclusive”; b). should consist a brief of: background, purpose and potential contributions, methodology, preliminary results, conclusion and keywords.2. After that, in the second review, as the participants had submitted their full papers, the editorial team conducted a preliminary check regarding plagiarisms (using the Turnitin software), potential conflict of interests and adherence to the standard formatting requirements.3. If the paper passed this preliminary check, the reviewers were then invited to assess the quality of the full paper in accordance with these criteria:a. Is the thesis argument introduced clearly and positioned in the current literature?b. Is the methodology sound?c. Does evidence provided in the paper support the core argument?d. Is the paper concluded by a solid synthesis?e. Is the English language clear and understandable?4. After the author sending back the revised paper from the second step above, then a final review was carried out by the editors to then check whether the improvements recommended by the reviewer had been accommodated or not by the author. If there were still things that have not been fixed, then the paper was returned to the author to be revised again.5. As to the point 3, in a small number of cases, major revisions were needed, and the revised paper was sent again to the reviewers before the editors decided the acceptance.• Contact person for queries: Dr. I Gusti Ayu Andani ayuandani@sappk.itb.ac.id Jl. Ganesha 10, Labtek IX A Sugijanto Soegijoko Building, 5th Floor, Bandung 40132, Indonesia