Peer review statement

Abstract

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 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• Conference submission management system: conference websites: http://www.ping.zcu.cz/en/zaslat_prispevek.html• Number of submissions received: 15• Number of submissions sent for review: 10• Number of submissions accepted: 6• Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 60%• Average number of reviews per paper: 2,3• Total number of reviewers involved: 14• Any additional info on review process: Step 1. Authors submit articles through online systems.The authors submitted the manuscript before the conference via the conference website(http://www.ping.zcu.cz/en ---> Submit a contribution, abstract). Step 2. The responsible editor checks the formalities: whether the article thematically corresponds to the conference, whether the correct template is used and whether the required number of pages is observed, etc. If the formalities are met, the editor-in-chief appoints 2 reviewers. Reviewers are given 2 weeks to prepare a review and send the review to the editor. Reviewers are sent a prescribed review form with areas and questions for review which includes the following sections:A. Professional and science level,B. Formal structure,C. Total evaluation of the paper and publishing.The editor nominates another reviewer if the reviewer’s comment contradicts itself (1 reviewer accepted the article and 1 reviewer rejected it). Step 3. The responsible editor decides whether the reviewer’s comment is relevant or not. If the comment is relevant, the reviewer’s comment and the editor’s comment will be sent to the author for revision of the article. If they are not relevant, the editor can judge the article himself or request another revision by another reviewer. Step 4. Authors are required to revise their contributions according to the points listed in the reviewers’ comments and the editor’s comments. Step 5. The editor then evaluates the revised version to incorporate the points raised by the reviewers. If the reviewer requested a new review of the edited article, it is sent to the original reviewer. If the editor approves a revised version of the manuscript, the paper will be accepted for publication. If not, the editor sends the edited document to the author for further revision. Step 6. If the revised version does not match the points raised by the reviewer and the editor, the editor will send a rejection email to the author. Contact person for queries: Name: Štěpán JeníčekAffiliation: University of West BohemiaEmail : jeniceks@rti.zcu.cz