All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 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.• Describe criteria used by reviewers:CITC peer review focuses on innovation, originality, technical correctness, academic value, practicality, and significance of the topic deducted from the content of the paper. In addition, the organization of the paper, the presentation of results in form of figures, diagrams, and tables, the references and the language were evaluated.Five categories for the evaluation of a paper were defined: 1. to be rejected, 2. weak, 3. satisfactory, 4. very good, and 5. excellent. The category of each paper was decided by the combination of scores for a list of cf quality criteria. The reviewer also had the task to provide comments on how to modify the paper to improve its quality concerning the theoretical contribution, accuracy of the applied methods, suitability of the concept, discussion of results, logical structure of the paper, clarity of the language, readability, etc..If the paper was classified in a category lower than “satisfactory”, the paper was rejected. If the paper was evaluated better than the category “very good”, the paper was accepted, but the reviewer still required the paper authors to respond to his comments in a revised version of the paper to improve the paper quality. The author was asked to submit the revised version of the paper after a given period of time.• Type of peer review: Double-blind• Conference submission management system: CITC submission management system (http://conference.cftn.cn)• Number of submissions received: 260• Number of submissions sent for review: 140• Number of submissions accepted: 57• Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 20%• Average number of reviews per paper: 2• Total number of reviewers involved: 65• Any additional info on review process:Detailed description of the peer review process:Authors needed to upload their papers to the CITC website. The conference organizers assigned at least two reviewers to each paper. Reviewers could accept or reject the invitation to review a paper. If the invitation was accepted, reviewers were obliged to provide review comments within 15 days. Peer-reviewers had three options: 1. reject the paper, 2. accept the paper, 3. send comments with requests for changes to the authors. The peer-reviewers rejected a paper, if the quality did not satisfy the requirements specified in the call for papers. If the quality of an article was sufficiently high, peer-reviewers could accept the paper without changes. In most of all cases, however, the peer-reviewers sent comments and requests for changes to the authors of the paper. Authors were obliged to provide a revised version of the paper according to the reviewer comments within 20 days. Once authors submitted the revised paper document, the editors checked whether all requested changes were addressed. If so, the article was sent to a reviewer to approve the changes. In case the reviewers approved the changes in the revised version of the paper, the paper was considered as accepted for the CITC2020. In case editors could not verify that the article was changed according to the reviewers’ comments, they sent the paper back to authors with a second request to revise the paper.• Contact person for queries: Hong Wang, Email: sfjjs@163.com.