Minor Revision Research Articles

Peer review declaration

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. All papers published in this volume of Journal of Physics: Conference Series 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/Double-blind/Triple-blind/Open/Other (please describe) All papers submitted were checked their similarity index using Turnitin. b. Papers have similarity index more than 25% were rejected. c. After that, the format of the papers was checked. Papers that did not follow the IOP template will be sent back to the authors for revision. d. All papers passed the similarity index and have already follow the IOP template will be sent to the reviewers. e. Reviewers reviewed the papers and give comments to the papers. f. Scientific committee decided if the papers: accepted, accepted with major revision, accepted with minor revision, or rejected. g. Author revised their papers and send back their revision h. After that editor will check again using Turnitin to make sure similarity source not more that 5% for each source in each article i. Editor will check again manual to see similarity index and source to make sure all is good• Conference submission management system: All papers from the conference submitted using our system where each author must register first and send article through email vicest@konferensi.id• Number of submissions received: 256 Submission were received• Number of submissions sent for review: 227 Submission was sent for review, and the rest was rejected because out of scope, low-quality article and high similarity• Number of submissions accepted: 147 Paper accepted based on IOP JPCS Scope and quality• Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): 64.7 %• Average number of reviews per paper: 2 Times• Total number of reviewers involved: 10 Reviewer Involved + 5 Editors, each reviewer received 8-10 papers with 2 weeks review process• Any additional info on review process: • Contact person for queries: Robbi Rahim, Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Manajemen Sukma, Medan, Indonesia and University Malaysia Perlis, Malaysia Email: robbirahim@ieee.org, Whatsapp +62 8126326393

Peer review Declaration

All papers published in this volume of Journal of Physics: Conference Series 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. The Organiser and/or the Editor(s) are required to declare details about their peer review processes. All the received submissions were reviewed by the experts and checked for plagiarism. The scope of the articles submitted under this conference NCAIEV’21 are verified and involved for further process. The editors assigned independent reviewers to handle the review process. Acceptance is given to the corresponding paper only if both the reviewers have given positive decision. These papers have been recommended to submission for publication with minor revision as suggested by the reviewers. The comments of reviewers are communicated to authors for the revision. Editors cross checked the revision carried out by the authors with respect to the comments given by the reviewers, based on that the final acceptance is made.Therefore, please provide the following information: Type of peer review: Double-blind - author and reviewer identities are hidden to each other Describe criteria used by Reviewers when accepting/declining papers. The reviewers have carried out the review as per the criteria specified by IOP peer review policy Was there the opportunity to resubmit articles after revisions? Yes. After acceptance, the authors were allowed to revise the paper as per the reviewer’s comments. Conference submission management system: Easy chair Number of submissions received: 90 Number of submissions sent for review: 82 Number of submissions accepted: 45 Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 50 % Average number of reviews per paper: 2 Total number of reviewers involved: 80 Any additional info on review process (e.g Plagiarism check system): Plagiarism check has been done. Contact person for queries:Dr. S. Bharathi,Conference Convener,Assistant Professor (SS),Electronics and Communication Engineering,Dr. Mahalingam College of Engineering and Technology, Pollachi, Tamilnadu, Indiasbharathi@drmcet.ac.in

Grammar and Punctuation

This 4-page publication covering proper grammar and punctuation for news media writing is the third of a five-part series on news media writing. This series also covers an introduction to news media writing, news writing for print, news writing for television and radio, and interviews for news stories. Minor revision by Ricky Telg and Ashley McLeod-Morin; published by the UF/IFAS Department of Agricultural Education and Communication.

The Feasibility and Efficacy of Self-help Relaxation Exercise in Symptom Distress in Patients With Adult Acute Leukemia: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

AimsTo examine the feasibility and efficacy of self-help relaxation exercises in alleviating symptom distress in adult patients with acute leukemia (AL). MethodsA pilot randomized controlled trial was used. Thirty adult patients with AL who were hospitalized in a teaching hospital were enrolled and randomly divided into a wait-list control group or an intervention group. The intervention group received self-help relaxation exercise twice per day for 4 weeks. The feasibility indicators, patients’ symptom distress were assessed by a blinded data collector. ResultsTwenty-nine patients completed the study. The recruitment rate, retention rate, and adherence rate was 65.2%, 93.3%, and 98.2%, respectively. The intervention group had a significantly decreased distress score for pain symptoms (F1, 27 = 6.594, P = .016, the partial η2 = 0.20, 90% confidence interval = 0.02-0.39). ConclusionsSelf-help relaxation exercises were feasible for the AL patients and significantly reduced their pain symptoms. Minor revision of the protocol for future definitive trials is needed.

The Impact of Racism, Power, Privilege, and Positionality on Communication Sciences and Disorders Research: Time to Reconceptualize and Seek a Pathway to Equity.

Purpose The purpose of this article is to explore how racism, privilege, power, and positionality negatively impact clinical research conducted in the discipline of communication sciences and disorders. Conclusions Evidence suggests solutions will not emerge from a minor revision or adjustment of current research approaches. Instead, to make deep and necessary changes, a complete restructuring of the research process is needed. This restructuring calls for a reconceptualization of how research questions and hypotheses are formed, how methods are selected, how data are analyzed and interpreted, and who is at the table throughout this process of knowledge generation. Such an overhaul of current research approaches will offer the field a solution-oriented roadmap for scientific investigation that facilitates greater equity in the research enterprise that translates into improved clinical outcomes for all clients served.

Peer review declaration

All papers published in this volume of Journal of Physics: Conference Series 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, when authors did not know the identity of the reviewer.• Conference submission management system: The submission processing had no a software system. Call-for-paper was placed on the Conference web page (https://aik.mai.ru/en/proceedings_en), the papers were submitted via e-mail. The reviews were asked and received via e-mails.• Number of submissions received: 125 • Number of submissions sent for review: 109 • Number of submissions accepted: 91 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 0.73 • Average number of reviews per paper: 2.46 • Total number of reviewers involved: 1406 • Any additional info on review process: The consideration of the submitted manuscripts included independent peer review single-blind process. At least two reviewers gave their view and remarks for each paper sent for review. The evaluation of the quality of the manuscripts was done on a high level according to the follow criteria: novelty of the presented work, reasonable and detailed description of the experimental procedure, understandable interpretation of the presented data, significant and evident proves to verify the proposed hypothesis, the absence of plagiarism, adequacy of references, the quality of language by eminent specialists in different scientific subject areas. All reviewers also were asked to provide their recommendations about paper acceptance (to publish the paper “as is”; to publish the paper after minor revision; to publish the paper after major revision; to reject the paper).• Contact person for queries: Dr. Anna Godymchuk, National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, Russia, godymchuk@tpu.ru

The Logic ofKleinkrieg: The “Book of Halil Beg” in Habsburg-Ottoman Diplomacy, 1550–76

AbstractThe Ottoman conquest of Szigetvar and Gyula (1566) exposed the weakness of the Habsburg monarchy. Unable to mount a military response, Maximilian II depended on his diplomats to ward off the imposition of a conqueror's peace along the Hungarian border. But an official register, the Book of Halil Beg, put forward the sultan's claims to a wide swath of towns and villages, including many still held by Habsburg loyalists. Moreover, the Ottomans said, His Majesty had best accept a settlement on these terms; victorious Turkish captains wanted more and were restrained only by Selim II's orders. This essay describes the efforts of Maximilian's ambassadors to forestall additional losses in peacetime. After years of tough negotiation, they managed to obtain minor revision of the relevant treaty text. Although the Book of Halil Beg would indeed be the basis for any border settlement, as the Porte insisted, the Ottomans acknowledged that Vienna disputed certain of its provisions. This mere protest may have been enough to assure loyalist magnates in Hungary that the dynasty had not abandoned them, or their hereditary lands. Hence the paradox of Habsburg-Ottoman diplomacy. The 1576 treaty of peace, formally ending hostilities, was at the same time a charter forKleinkrieg.

Peer review declaration

☐ Type of peer review: Double Blind a. All papers submitted were checked their similarity index using Turnitin. b. Papers have similarity index more than 25% were rejected. c. After that, the format of the papers was checked. Papers that did not follow the IOP template will be sent back to the authors for revision. d. All papers passed the similarity index and have already follow the IOP template will be sent to the reviewers. e. Reviewers reviewed the papers and give comments to the papers. f. Scientific committee decided if the papers: accepted, accepted with major revision, accepted with minor revision, or rejected. g. Author revised their papers and send back their revision☐ Conference submission management system: All papers from the conference submitted using our system where each author must register first using https://achost.kresnanusantara.com/☐ Number of submissions received: 155 Submission were received☐ Number of submissions sent for review: 151 Submission was sent for review, and the rest was rejected because out of scope, low-quality article and high similarity☐ Number of submissions accepted: 97 Paper accepted based on IOP EES Scope and quality☐ Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): (97/124) x 100 = 64.2 %☐ Average number of reviews per paper: 2Times☐ Total number of reviewers involved: 1010 Reviewer Involved + 3 Editors, each reviewer received 8-10 papers with2 weeks review process☐ Any additional info on review process: NONE☐ Contact person for queries: Robbi Rahim, Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Manajemen Sukma, Medan, Indonesia and University Malaysia Perlis, MalaysiaEmail: robbirahim@ieee.org

Peer review declaration

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• Conference submission management system: Manual by Email• Number of submissions received: 89 manuscript• Number of submissions sent for review: 89 manuscript• Number of submissions accepted: 77 manuscriptAcceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): 86.52• Average number of reviews per paper: 1• Total number of reviewers involved: 20• Any additional info on review process:A review process was conducted in four main steps: (i) A minimum of one reviewer was assigned to referee the manuscript. (ii) suggestions/comments from reviewers were mailed to the corresponding authors. There will be 21 days period for the authors to revise the manuscript (iii) once the manuscript was declared accepted by the reviewers, the committee looked over the format of the manuscript and conduct the similarity check using Turnitin software. (iv) if the manuscript has a similarity higher than 40%, the manuscript was sent back again to the corresponding authors and ask for another revision. On the other hand, if the format and the similarity check has fulfilled the criteria, the manuscript was ready to be submitted. The main criteria when assessing the paper are originality, quality and clarity of contents, suitability of references used, contribution to the related fields, depth of research, and quality of English. The reviewer was asked to fill in the comments in the provided tables including general comment and comments on introduction, methodology, results and discussion, bibliography/references, other comments, and final notes. There are five referee’s decisions on review process including: (i) can be published without revision (ii) can be published with minor revision (iii) can be published with major revision (iv) shall be returned to the reviewer after revision (v) rejected.• Contact person for queries: Wibawa Hendra Saputera (hendra@che.itb.ac.id)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.

Primary Cleft Rhinoplasty: Long-Term Outcomes of a Single Technique Used Over 2 Decades.

Primary cleft rhinoplasty has become widely accepted owing to evidence of improved outcomes and need for fewer revisions. Several techniques have been described, but few surgeons have reported long-term outcomes of repairs performed via a single method. The present study examines long-term outcomes of a single surgeon's experience over 22 years using the same primary cleft rhinoplasty technique. All consecutive cases of primary cleft rhinoplasty performed by the senior author at the time of unilateral cleft lip repair from 1996 to 2018 were selected for retrospective review. Patients older than 3 years or lacking documented follow-up were excluded. The primary outcome was the need for secondary rhinoplasty at age 15 years or later. Fifty-six patients met inclusion criteria. Median follow-up time was 7.52 years (interquartile range, 1.38-14.82). Twelve patients required minor long-term lip revision. No school-aged patients required additional correction of the nasal deformity before beginning school. Fifteen patients had follow-up beyond 14 years of age, 5 of whom had undergone definitive rhinoplasties as adolescents (8.9% of cohort; 33.3% of patients with follow-up beyond 14 years). Of the remaining 10 patients older than 14 years at last follow-up, none were seeking additional rhinoplasty. This series represents one of the longest-running published experiences of primary cleft rhinoplasty. Using a technique that requires no nasal incisions, the senior author has had excellent long-term results, with no need for any elementary school age rhinoplasties and with the majority of patients with follow-up older than 14 years not requiring a rhinoplasty in adolescence.

An Enterprise Resource Planning System Solution for Small-Mid Size Enterprises: An Information System Development Case Study

The paper aims to present a solution of managing an enterprise information system or enterprise resource planning (ERP) in small-mid size enterprises (SMEs). The research was focused on developing an integrated enterprise information system for resolving faced problems in managing SMEs’ business. The methods were investigating business requirements regarding information system, system analysis, system design which included processes, data, and interface model, implementation of system design using selected programming language, and system testing which included unit and integrated testing. The research produced a tested model of the enterprise information system and a working enterprise resource planning information system software named Qinova ERP. The system is implemented in a real environment, a hazardous waste transporter company in Indonesia, and the system has been tackling their business information system management problems. The system is ready to be employed to the different companies in the same industry with minor revision and to the other industries with some customizations to adapt their business requirements.

Improved Alternated Charting Statistic Multi-Attribute Control Chart to Identify Process Deterioration

Leoni and Costa [R. C. Leoni and A. F. B. Costa, Monitoring bivariate and trivariate mean vectors with a Shewhart chart, Quality Reliab. Eng. Int. 33 (2017) 2035–2042] developed the ‘Alternated Charting Statistic’ (ACS) control chart to control the mean vector of a bivariate and trivariate processes and verified that the chart is easier to operate and faster than the classical Hotelling’s [Formula: see text] chart in signaling changes in the mean vector. Gadre and Rattihalli [M. P. Gadre and R. N. Rattihalli, Some group inspection based multi-attribute control charts to identify process deterioration, Econ. Quality Control 20(2) (2005) 191–204] developed some multi-attribute control charts for process deterioration. For bivariate processes, Gadre and Venegurkar [M. P. Gadre and S. S. Venegurkar, Multi-attribute control chart to identify process deterioration, Submitted to Journal of Indian Statistical Association (JISA) (*) after a minor revision] developed ‘Alternated Charting Statistic Multi Attribute control chart for number of defectives in a sample of size [Formula: see text]’ (ACS-MA-np) chart. For multi-attribute processes, here, we propose a control chart by using the ACS along with the test procedure related to the exact distributions of the number of defectives in multi-attribute cases. It is illustrated that the developed control chart is efficient to the related available control charts.

Development of Educational Media For Type II Diabetes Mellitus Patients in the Work Area of Kedundung Health Center, Mojokerto City

Diabetes is one of the big four non-communicable diseases. According to the Mojokerto City Health Office, the incidence reached 3,365 in 2019 with the highest recorded at the Kedundung Health Center with 822 patients. Although the Ministry of Health has introduced dietary programmes for tackling the incidence of diabetes, a survey of the dietary rules of diabetes patients at the Kedundung Health Center revealed that it is only limited to consultation with nutritionists. Thus, it is necessary to develop a health-education media product in the form of a booklet explaining a more practical diet for diabetes mellitus patients. This study comprised of 10 stages adopted from the Sugiyono’s development model using a qualitative and quantitative descriptive analysis. The booklet produced b this study is titled “How to Diet Diabetes?” and contains information on understanding diabetes diet, the purpose, the calories needed, eating schedule, type of food, diet composition, dietary restrictions, and various menus. An assessment of the final product showed that 91.6% of the media experts considered it “very worthy” and 75% of the members providing the material included in the booklet considered it “eligible with minor revision.” Similarly, 92.7% of a small test group and 88.7% of a large test group classified it as “very worthy.” However, further work is needed to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of the booklet. Expansion of the subject is expected so that the booklet could reach more targets.
 Keywords: booklet, diabetes mellitus Diet, educational media

Peer review declaration

All papers published in this volume of Journal of Physics: Conference Series 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 BlindThis conference operates a single-blind reviewing policy in which the reviewer’s name is always concealed from the submitting author. Authors should present their papers honestly without fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or inappropriate data manipulation. Every submitted paper reviewed by at least two peer-reviewers. Reviewing process will consider novelty, objectivity, method, scientific impact, conclusion, and references. The review process also pay attention and follow the criteria of the IOP Proceedings peer review policy.• Conference submission management system: Easychair Conference Management System• Number of submissions received: 132 • Number of submissions sent for review: 105 • Number of submissions accepted: 81 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100):61.36% • Average number of reviews per paper: Each paper will be reviewed by a minimum of two reviewers. The average number of comments given by reviewers was 8 comments per article, with the chair’s decision as minor revision, major revision, or rejected.• Total number of reviewers involved: 30 Any additional info on review process: Our reviewers come from various countries and reputable affiliates. Apart from conducting a rigorous review process, we also check for plagiarism using the Turnitin software. Contact person for queries: Gede Aditra Pradnyana (gede.aditra@undiksha.ac.id)

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: Double-blind□ Describe criteria used by Reviewers when accepting/declining papers. Was there the opportunity to resubmit articles after revisions? Reviewers gave their judgement based on the criteria Scope, Language, Organization, Reference, Originality and Significance.Final Decision were divided into Accept without Revision, Minor Revision and Accept, Major Revision and Resubmit and Reject. At least two reviewers have checked each paper. If the review comments collected was Revision, the comments would be sent to the authors for modification accordingly and assigned for a second (third) round of review.□ Conference submission management system: The link for Conference submission management system is https://paper.easyaca.cn/paper/login/id/13.Contributors register and submit their manuscript via this system and can check their paper process status.□ Number of submissions received: 87 submissions were received.□ Number of submissions sent for review: 69 submissions were sent for review.□ Number of submissions accepted: 33 submissions were accepted.□ Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): The Acceptance Rate was 38%□ Average number of reviews per paper: Every paper was sent to at least two reviewers. If reviewers have different opinion on it, more reviewers would be selected to help make a final decision. Average number of reviews per paper was 3.□ Total number of reviewers involved: 62 reviewers were involved.□ Any additional info on review process (ie plagiarism check system): Pre-review was conducted first. The topic of manuscript must be included in the conference’s aims and scope. Then, the Platform Ithenticate was used for Plagiarism check. Manuscripts out of topic or plagiaristic would be rejected. Next, double-blind system was used for Manuscripts Peer-Review; both reviewers’ and authors’ identities remain anonymous. Each manuscript would be reviewed by at least 2-3 experts in related field: one editorial staff member as well as one to three external reviewers. The review process takes about 1-3 weeks.□ Contact person for queries: Contact name: Assoc. Prof. Wenchao LiAffiliation: College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, Hebei Agricultural University, ChinaEmail: dachao279@hebau.edu.cn OR Contact name: Chunlei DangTel: +86-15007187191Email: acwr@acwr-conf.com

Peer review Declaration

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 Journal of Physics: Conference Series 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: All papers submitted were checked their similarity index using Turnitin. b. Papers have similarity index more than 25% were rejected. c. After that, the format of the papers was checked. Papers that did not follow the IOP template will be sent back to the authors for revision. d. All papers passed the similarity index and have already follow the IOP template will be sent to the reviewers. e. Reviewers reviewed the papers and give comments to the papers. f. Scientific committee decided if the papers: accepted, accepted with major revision, accepted with minor revision, or rejected. g. Author revised their papers and send back their revision• Conference submission management system: All papers from the conference submitted using our system where each author must register first using https://iciasga.pnm.or.id/register• Number of submissions received: 160 Submission were received• Number of submissions sent for review: 160 Submission was sent for review, and the rest was rejected because out of scope, low-quality article and high similarity• Number of submissions accepted: 84 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 52.5% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 8 Reviewer Involved + 4 Editors• Any additional info on review process: • Contact person for queries: Robbi Rahim, Email: robbirahim@ieee.org Whatsapp +62 8126326393

Peer review declaration – ICETEST 2020

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.• Type of peer review : Single-blind • Conference submission management system : iVy League Conference Management System, Bangalore, India (iThenticate plagiarism detection software integrated in the system) • Number of submissions received : 261 • Number of submissions sent for review : 238 • Number of submissions accepted : 110 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100) : 42.15% • Average number of reviews per paper : 2 • Total number of reviewers involved : 62 • Any additional info on review process : • Contact person for queries : Well defied review guidelines have been followed for the first and revised submissions of the manuscripts (*Detailed peer review guidelines followed are appended below) Dr. K K Ramachandran, Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Government Engineering College Thrissur, Kerala, India e-mail: kkramachandran@gectcr.ac.in *Peer Review Guidelines: 1. First Submission Give unbiased consideration to all manuscripts regardless of race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship or political philosophy of the authors. Ensure that no terminology is used in the paper that is offensive or might be perceived to be offensive to others. • Ensure that the paper should meet the standards of quality for an IOP Publishing publication. • Ensure that the content of the paper is not published elsewhere but, review article may be considered, if it possesses sufficient content quality. • The reviewer may consider, with regard to quality, the conference nature of the articles than would be normal for a regular paper but, should be careful not approve papers of poor scientific standard/quality. • Referees should give a clear statement of recommendation by selecting any of the options “Accept, Major Revision, Minor Revision or Reject in the iVy League interface. • Provide comments to the author(s) in support of the recommendation and that suitable for improving the quality of the paper. • Ensure that the content possesses enough scientific rigour, accuracy, correctness, clarity of expressions, organization of content and results are supported with scientific reasoning. • With regard to content quality and organization of the paper, check and ensure the following ○ The work reported is relevant and novel ○ The content of the paper is not published and contribute to the scientific literature ○ The title is adequate and appropriate for the content of the article ○ The abstract is apt, highlight the principal findings and postulates and suitable for inclusion in an abstracting service ○ The figures possess sufficient clarity, the inflammation in tables are adequate, the figure and table captions are appropriate and the figures and tables given are essential ○ The scientific and mathematical information in the text is concise, sufficient and clear ○ The conclusions are consistent with the nature and extent of investigations and findings reported in the paper ○ Adequate and up to date literature are cited in the article 2. Revised Submission • Ensure that the authors have rationally addressed the reviewer’s comments in the response to reviewer’s comments provided by the author(s) • Ensure that the corrections / modifications suggested by the reviewers are incorporated in the revised paper • If it is convinced that the authors have not addressed the review comments rationally and major changes are still required, the paper may be rejected • Ensure that the figures and tables are correctly numbered and captioned as per the author guidelines. • Ensure that the paper is formatted strictly in accordance with the formatting guidelines of Materials Science and Engineering journal of IOP publishers

Peer review declaration

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.• Type of peer review: Single-blind • Conference submission management system: Google form • Number of submissions received: 243 • Number of submissions sent for review: 243 • Number of submissions accepted: 152 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 62.6 % • Average number of reviews per paper: 2.5 • Total number of reviewers involved: 97 • Any additional info on review process: The first screening for the review process was evaluating the topic of the manuscripts. Only manuscripts that meet our topic of interest will be reviewed. At least two reviewers assessed the manuscripts. The point to be reviewed was the Originality, Scientific Contributions, Potential Impact, Presentation Quality, Potential for the interest of the readers, and the ethical aspects (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication, or any ethical misconduct). Each criterion has five scales of the evaluation, which was judges from very poor to excellent. The similarity check was determined using Turnitin Software by the Organizer at Universitas Sebelas Maret. To avoid the rejection, the similarity index must be less than 20% similarity. The review process results were decided by the overall recommendation with the criteria Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. The decision for each manuscript were announced after receiving at least two statements from reviewers. • Contact person for queries: Prof. Dominicus Danardono Dwi Prija Tjahjana; ddanardono@staff.uns.ac.id

Synthetic Approaches for Building Tricyclic Cage-like Motifs Found in Indoxamycins

Indoxamycins A-F, a novel class of polyketides, were isolated from the saline culture of marine-derived actinomyces by Sato et al. in 2009. Intriguing stereochemical complexity involving tricyclic [5.5.6] cage-like structures with six consecutive chiral centers challenged many organic chemists. Chemical ingenuity, implementation of pioneered reactions along with fine chemical transformations allowed not only the rapid construction of the central core but also allowed minor structural revision and paved the information to delineate the absolute stereostructures of these complex polyketide marine natural products. To achieve the central core structure in indoxamycins A-F, reactions like the Ireland-Claisen rearrangement, an enantioselective 1,6-enyne reductive cyclization, and one-pot cascade reactions of 1,2- addition/oxa-Michael/methylenation were employed. Using the chiral pool approach, the readily available R-carvone was employed as a cost-effective starting material to achieve the concise total syntheses of (-)-indoxamycins A and B, in which Pauson-Khand, Cu-catalyzed Michael addition and tandem retro-oxa-Michael addition/1,2-addition/oxa-Michael addition reactions were employed. The antipodes, (+)-indoxamycins can be easily accessed by simply switching to S-carvone as the starting material. Synthetically prepared indoxamycins A-F are devoid of antiproliferative properties, which disagree with the work reported by Sato and co-workers for (-)- indoxamycins A and F. Nevertheless, ready access to such complex natural products allows probing the untapped potential biological activities of these polyketides including cytotoxicity. A concise overview of interesting, key chemical transformations including named reactions in establishing the architecture of indoxamycins was compiled to inspire organic chemists and help reinvigorate novel strategies for the asymmetric synthesis as well as the development of novel derivatives of indoxamycins with unique physicochemical and biological properties.

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 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 (Single-anonymous: authors’ identities are known to the reviewers, reviewers’ identities are hidden from authors)• Describe criteria used by Reviewers when accepting/declining papers. Was there the opportunity to resubmit articles after revisions? Appointed reviewers have some criterias when accepting/declining papers such as original content, scope of the research, methodology/approach, data presentation and interpretation, writing accuracy, and contribution to science. Furthermore, there was the opportunity to resubmit articles after revisions with the article status minor or major revision. The author was given a deadline for it.• Conference submission management system: Conference submission management system was using email correspondence among the conference committee and participants/authors, as well as appointed reviewers.• Number of submissions received: 91 papers• Number of submissions sent for review: 90 papers, 1 paper was directly rejected due to irrelevant scope.• Number of submissions accepted: 79 papers• Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 86.81%• Average number of reviews per paper: 2.19• Total number of reviewers involved: 5 persons• Any additional info on review process: Among all the manuscripts received, the Editors pre-selected manuscripts to send for reviewers. All manuscripts had undergone plagiarism check with Turnitin and accepted manuscripts did not exceed 30% score in similarity. All reviewers have academic status and are scientific experts in their field. The checklist for the reviewers included the following criteria: relevance to the scope, contribution to science, originality, systematic, writing accuracy, etc. The reviewers could give the following recommendation: accept the paper as it is, accept the paper with minor/major revision, or reject the paper. Review results were sent to authors to revise the manuscript accordingly. Revised version was evaluated by the editors and then the editor sent the revised manuscript to the reviewers again for re-evaluation. The review process was repeated, if it is required. The decision to accept or reject was based on the suggestions of reviewers.• Contact person for queries: Dr. Adi Susanto (Editor in Chief), Faculty of Agriculture, University of Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa, Serang, Indonesia, email: adisusanto@untirta.ac.id