Single-blind Review Research Articles

Posterior Tibial Slope Measured on Plain Radiograph Versus MRI and Its Association With Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Matched Case-Control Study.

Posterior tibial slope (PTS) has been identified as a possible modifiable risk factor for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury and ACL reconstruction (ACLR) failure. However, the findings in the literature are inconsistent. This may be explained by several different reasons, including different measurement methods, differing definitions of ACLR failure, and possible inclusion of suboptimal films. To compare PTS values obtained using plain radiographs (XR-PTS) in a young (≤21 years of age), skeletally mature patient population with those obtained using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), as well as to quantify the number of suboptimal lateral knee radiographs obtained across an integrated health care system and determine the potential effect of including these radiographs on summary statistics of XR-PTS. Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Skeletally mature adolescent and young adult patients ≤21 years of age were identified from the ACLR registry of Kaiser Permanente. The cases of concern were patients requiring revision ACLR. The controls were patients who had an ACLR and did not require a revision procedure. The XR-PTS measurements were made on plain radiographs by a single blinded reviewer. These results were compared with measurements obtained using MRI. The quality of each plain radiograph was evaluated by measuring posterior/distal femoral condylar overlap and length of tibial diaphysis captured on the radiograph. Summary statistics with and without inclusion of measurements made on suboptimal radiographs were calculated. Of the initial 634 patients with ACLR (317 case-control pairs), 561 (88.5%) had radiographs available and were included for the analysis comparing radiograph to MRI slope measurements. For the evaluation of slope between case and control pairs with radiograph information available, there were 257 case-control pairs; there were 124 pairs when those with suboptimal radiographs were excluded. There was no difference in MRI-measured lateral tibial posterior slope or medial tibial posterior slope for the 257 case-control pairs with XR-PTS information and for the 124 pairs with optimal radiographs. XR-PTS in the revision cohort was significantly steeper than in the control group when suboptimal radiographs were included in the analysis. There was no difference when patients with suboptimal radiographs were excluded. PTS measurements made on plain radiographs were larger than those made on MRI. There was a poor correlation between measurements made using these 2 modalities (r = 0.22 for radiograph and medial PTS). This study did not find a significantly steeper XR-PTS in patients who had to undergo revision ACLR when suboptimal radiographs were not included in the analysis. The present study's results confirmed the findings from a previous study of the same patient population that used MRI. However, there was poor correlation between PTS measurements made using plain radiograph and MRI.

Do grant proposal texts matter for funding decisions? A field experiment

Scientists and funding agencies invest considerable resources in writing and evaluating grant proposals. But do grant proposal texts noticeably change panel decisions in single blind review? We report on a field experiment conducted by The Dutch Research Council (NWO) in collaboration with the authors in an early-career competition for awards of 800,000 euros of research funding. A random half of panelists were shown a CV and only a one-paragraph summary of the proposed research, while the other half were shown a CV and a full proposal. We find that withholding proposal texts from panelists did not detectibly impact their proposal rankings. This result suggests that the resources devoted to writing and evaluating grant proposals may not have their intended effect of facilitating the selection of the most promising science.

Blinding of Peer Review and the Impact on Geographic Diversity of Authors in the Medical Literature.

Blinding of reviewers is hypothesized to improve the peer review process by removing potential bias. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of blinding of peer review on the geographic diversity of authors in medical/clinical journals. MEDLINE-indexed medical journals were evaluated, where journals that only publish in basic sciences or administration, non-English journals, journals that publish solely solicited materials, and journals that employ open review process were excluded. Journals were divided into single-blinded or double-blinded. Diversity was calculated by dividing the number of countries from which 20 evaluated articles come and multiplying by 100 (%diversity). The second method involved calculating Simpson's diversity index (SDI). Of 1054 journals, 766 employ single-blinded review and 288 were double-blinded. Journals had a median age of 28 years and were mostly international (n=355 single-blinded and 97 double-blinded). No difference was observed between the two groups in median %diversity (45 in both groups; P=0.199) and SDI (0.84 vs 0.82; P=0.128). The indexing of journals in Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) collection of Web of Science and Scopus, and a higher CiteScore were significantly associated with higher %diversity and SDI (P<0.05). Although double blinding of peer review was not associated with higher geographic diversity of authors, several factors are also involved in the review process that could not be evaluated, such as blinding of editors. However, editors and publishers are encouraged to consider work from different countries to be able to index their journals in SCIE, Scopus, and MEDLINE where geographic diversity is a requirement.

177 International Authorship Trends in Academic Neurosurgery and Effect of Double-Blind Review

INTRODUCTION: There is a lack of data on international publication rates and whether reviewer biases exist that may affect diversity of authorship. METHODS: Articles published within Neurosurgery, Journal of Neurosurgery (JNS), and World Neurosurgery (WNS) were collected from 2000-2019. Country affiliation data was assigned and analyzed with respect to journal, year of publication, neurosurgical subspeciality, and relative impact. RESULTS: Across 23,325 articles, lead authorship consisted of United States (42.9%, N = 10,005), Japan (9.9%, N = 2,305), China (9.3%, N = 2,167), Germany (5.1%, N = 1,187), South Korea (3.3%, N = 773), Italy (3.3%, N = 773), Canada (3.3%, N = 769), and other nations (22.9%, N = 5,346). Rates of publications did not differ across United States, Asian countries, South/Latin American countries, or African countries pre- and post-initiation of double-blind review in Neurosurgery (p &gt; 0.05). Annual percentage of publications showed highest relative decrease for the United States (-0.48% per year, r2 = 0.194) and increase for China (0.87% per year, r2 = 0.761). WNS published fewer articles from the United States compared to Neurosurgery or JNS (Mean difference [MD] -20.6%, p &lt; 0.001), and more articles from Asian (MD +23.5%, p &lt; 0.001), Latin/South American (MD +1.4%, p &lt; 0.001), and African countries (MD +0.8%, p &lt; 0.001). Unbiased co-authorship clustering by country demonstrated that certain countries were more likely to publish together based on geopolitical characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: There is a higher relative contribution to neurosurgery publications from authors in the United States compared to other countries. This effect is not due to potential biases in single-blind review, as evidenced by a natural experiment comparing authorship rates at Neurosurgery pre- and post-initiation of double-blind review in 2011. Additional research is needed to determine whether other biases contribute to differences in publication rates across countries.

ICRAIC 2022-Preface

Recent years have seen exciting new research and developments in Robotics, Automation and Intelligent Control. Computer and control technology, intelligent control, robotics and automation are changing many aspects of our productive lives. Thanks to computers and control algorithms brought by intelligent control and artificial intelligence, machines are becoming smarter. ICRAIC 2022 focused on the development and integration of robotics, digitalization, automation and artificial intelligence technologies. Therefore, the 2nd International Conference on Robotics, Automation and Intelligent Control (ICRAIC 2022) took place on December 9th-11th, 2022 in Changsha.ICRAIC 2022 has brought together leading academic scientists, researchers and research scholars to exchange their experience and research results in the field of intelligent robotics and systems and share their discoveries, insight and lessons learned, and take home exciting new ideas to perform further state of the art research to make mind-blowing collaborations and innovations.ICRAIC 2022 accepted 50 full papers which was divided into 3 tracks, including Robotics, Automation and Intelligent Control. And all submissions were peer-reviewed through a single-blind review process by an international panel of expert referees, and decisions were taken based on the criteria.Thanks to the ICRAIC 2022 Committee for their efforts in preparing the conference and ensuring its smooth running.:List of General Chairs, Program Chairs, Technical Chairs, Technical Program Committee, Organizers, Co-Organizer, Editors are available in this pdf

Celebrating 10 years of JBI Evidence Synthesis online.

Celebrating 10 years of JBI Evidence Synthesis online.

Institution and gender-related differences in publication speed before and during COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic elicited a substantial hike in journal submissions and a global push to get medical evidence quickly through the review process. Editorial decisions and peer-assessments were made under intensified time constraints, which may have amplified social disparities in the outcomes of peer-reviewing, especially for COVID-19 related research. This study quantifies the differential impact of the pandemic on the duration of the peer-review process for women and men and for scientists at different strata of the institutional-prestige hierarchy. Using mixed-effects regression models with observations clustered at the journal level, we analysed newly available data on the submission and acceptance dates of 78,085 medical research articles published in 2019 and 2020. We found that institution-related disparities in the average time from manuscript submission to acceptance increased marginally in 2020, although half of the observed change was driven by speedy reviews of COVID-19 research. For COVID-19 papers, we found more substantial institution-related disparities in review times in favour of authors from highly-ranked institutions. Descriptive survival plots also indicated that scientists with prestigious affiliations benefitted more from fast-track peer reviewing than did colleagues from less reputed institutions. This difference was more pronounced for journals with a single-blind review procedure compared to journals with a double-blind review procedure. Gender-related changes in the duration of the peer-review process were small and inconsistent, although we observed a minor difference in the average review time of COVID-19 papers first authored by women and men.

The Impact of Double vs. Single-blinded Review on Plastic Surgery Authorship

The Impact of Double vs. Single-blinded Review on Plastic Surgery Authorship

Triple-blind review as a solution to gender bias in academic publishing, a theoretical approach

ABSTRACT Existing research has found that when a journal transitions from single-blind review to double-blind review, female authorship increases. This article reports the findings of a first-of-its-kind study designed to measure if transitioning to triple-blind review would further reduce gender bias in academic publishing. The findings as to whether triple-blind review is an effective gender bias mitigation strategy helps better inform journals as to the costs and benefits of its implementation. Furthermore, the finding provides a better understanding to the academic community at large regarding issues of gender bias and scholarship. Finally, these findings invite further investigation in future research for peer review best practices and the problem of female underrepresentation in academic publishing.

Dispirited Away: The Peer Review Process

Dispirited Away: The Peer Review Process

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: Our conference opted the single-blind review. All submitted full papers were peer-reviewed by one reviewer. The acceptance of a paper was granted if the paper has positive recommendation from the reviewer. The criteria were based on the quality of data, quality of interpretation and conclusions, extent to which the interpretation/conclusions are supported by data, importance of the work, organization of the paper, clarity of the paper using correct grammar and syntax, title whether informative and reflects the content of the paper, usefulness and necessity of the tables/illustrations, quality of tables/illustration, relevancy and recentness of the references, and the overall quality of the work. Finally, the reviewer will decide whether the paper is acceptable in its form or acceptable with either minor or major corrections. Conference submission management system: Our conference has a technical committee for the management of conference papers. Authors send their papers to Conference E-mail (http://estcon.utp.edu.my/icer/) and the committee will evaluate the suitability after which the committee will channel the paper according to the conference tracks. Number of submissions received: Initially, our conference expected to receive about 120 papers but due to the Covid-19 issue and the conference being held virtually, we only received 68 papers. Number of submissions sent for review: Only 52 papers were sent for reviewed. Some papers from the oil and gas company cannot be published due to confidentiality while some authors decline as they managed to have their papers published by other journals. Our conference was delayed for about a year. Number of submissions accepted: One author did not response to the recommendations by the reviewer thus was not included for publication thus only 51 papers submitted to the publisher for publication. However, 4 papers were rejected by the publisher due to similarity thus only 47 papers were accepted for publication. Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): The acceptance rate is 69%. Average number of reviews per paper: From the submission stage to acceptance followed by reviewing and after recommendation, a paper can be said to be reviewed three times. Total number of reviewers involved: Ten reviewers were involved in the reviewing of the papers which include mostly internal with a few from other universities. Any additional info on review process: Paper received by the committee was forwarded to the reviewer for a blind review. The results were return to the author to be revised according to the reviewer suggestions. Then, the author sent the final paper to the committee through email. The committee also take the initiative to correct the grammar for some papers. Contact person for queries: Name : Mohd Suhaili IsmailAffiliation: Universiti Teknologi PETRONASEmail : suhaili.ismail@utp.edu.my

Peer review declaration

The 1th International Conference Science Physics and Education (ICSPE 2021) 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 Review• Review Criteria: All submitted papers received by the Conference Committee will be to determine whether they are properly prepared and meet the scope of conference. Paper that do not fit the meet the standards of the conference will be rejected before peer-review. Once a paper passes the initial checks, it will be continued to similarity check (turnitin) and assigned to at least two independent experts for peer-review by single-blind review. Peer review comments are sent to the author for revision or accepted/decline the article with reviewer’s name is confidental. All the papers go through the peer-review process and receive at least two reviews by three main criteria (Technical Criteria, Quality Criteria, and Presentation Criteria); then the decision which will be one of the following: Accepted: The paper is accepted and ready to publish without any flawed Accept after Minor Revisions: The paper is in principle accepted after revision based on the reviewer’s comments. Authors are given one week for minor revisions. Reconsider after Major Revisions: The acceptance of the paper would depend on the revisions. The author needs to provide a point by point response or provide a rebuttal if some of the reviewer’s comments cannot be revised. Authors will be asked to resubmit the revised paper within a suitable time frame, and the revised version will be returned to the reviewer for further comments. Reject: The paper has serious flaws, and/or makes no original significant contribution. No offer of re-submission to the journal is provided.• Conference submission management system: Submission conference using the website that is https://icspe.unram.ac.id/registration/• Number of submissions received: 74• Number of submissions sent for review: 72• Number of submissions accepted: 53• Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 72%• Average number of reviews per paper: 2 reviews per paper• Total number of reviewers involved: 24 reviewers• Any additional info on review process (eg Plagiarism check system): All submissions were checked for plagiarism with Turnitin and Grammar checking by Grammarly• Contact person for queries (Full name, affiliation, institutional email address) Assoc. Prof. Drs. Aris Doyan, M.Si., Ph.DUniversity of Mataram aris_doyan@unram.ac.id

Pedal arterial calcification score is associated with the risk of major amputation in chronic limb-threatening ischemia.

The medial arterial calcification (MAC) score is a simple metric that describes the burden of inframalleolar calcification using a plain foot radiograph. We hypothesized that a higher MAC score would be independently associated with the risk of major amputation in patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). We performed a single-institution, retrospective study of 250 patients who had undergone infrainguinal revascularization for CLTI from January 2011 to July 2019 and had foot radiographs available for MAC score calculation. A single blinded reviewer assigned MAC scores of 0 to 5 using two-view minimum plain foot radiographs, with 1 point each for calcification of>2cm in the dorsalis pedis, plantar, and metatarsal arteries and >1cm in the hallux and non-hallux digital arteries. The MAC score was 0 in 36%, 1 in 5.2%, 2 in 8.4%, 3 in 14%, 4 in 14%, and 5 in 21%. The MAC score was trichotomized to facilitate analysis and clinical utility (mild, MAC score 0-1; moderate, MAC score 2-4; and severe, MAC score 5). The variables independently associated with a higher MAC score were male sex, diabetes, end-stage renal disease, and the global limb anatomic staging system pedal score. The MAC score was not associated with the Society for Vascular Surgery WIfI (wound, ischemia, foot infection) grade or overall WIfI stage (P= .58). The median follow-up was 759days (interquartile range, 264-1541days). A higher MAC score was significantly associated with the risk of major amputation (P< .0001). In a Cox proportional hazards multiple regression model for major amputation that included the trichotomized MAC score, diabetes, end-stage renal disease, and WIfI stage (1-3 vs 4). The MAC score (MAC score 5: hazard ratio [HR], 4.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9-13.1; P= .001; MAC score 2-4: HR, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.3-8.8; P= .01) and WIfI stage (WIfI stage 4: HR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.1-3.9; P= .03) were significantly associated with the risk of major amputation. In the subsets of patients with the most advanced WIfI stage of 3 to 4 (191 of 250; 76%) and patients with diabetes (185 of 250; 74%), the MAC score further stratified the risk of major amputation on univariate and multivariate analyses. The MAC score is a simple, practical tool and a strong independent predictor of major amputation in patients with CLTI. It provides novel clinical data that are currently unmeasured using any validated CLTI staging system. The MAC score is a promising standardized measure of inframalleolar disease burden that can be used in conjunction with the WIfI staging system to help improve outcomes stratification and determine the optimal treatment strategies for patients with CLTI.

Peer review declaration

The Organiser and/or the Editor(s) are required to declare details about their peer review processes. Therefore, please provide the following information:• Type of peer review: Single-blind / Double-blind / Triple-blind / Open / Other Single-blind review 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 theopportunity to resubmit articles after revisions?The following criteria were applied:1. Quality assessmentSignificance, novelty, correctnessSpecial attention was paid to repetition and Plagiarism.2. Technical CriteriaClarity of expression; readability and discussion of conceptsSufficient discussion of the context of the work, and suitable referencing.3. Presentation Criteria1. Is it clearly presented, well organized, and clearly written?( clear presentation, wellorganized, clearly stated)2. Is the English satisfactory? (satisfactory english)3. Is the title appropriate? (Title matches)4. Does the abstract include the important points of the paper?( abstract contains important information on the article)5. Are references to related work adequate, up to date and readily available? (links arerelevant, relevant, available)6. Are figures and tables necessary and adequate?( tables and figures are necessary andappropriate)7. Are the conclusions satisfactory? (conclusion is appropriate)During the review process, the authors were given a one-time opportunity to re-submit the article for review.• Conference submission management system:• The peer review was carried out by the Forum Program Committee, organized according to the order of the General Director of the RSE INP No. 182 dated 22.24.2021. The Program Committee carried out a preliminary selection of articles to be sent to the reviewers.• Number of submissions received: 44• Number of submissions sent for review: 42• Number of submissions accepted: 35• Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 79,54• Average number of reviews per paper: 2• Total number of reviewers involved: 40• Any additional info on review process (eg Plagiarism check system):• Review process consisted from few steps:• 1) submission by editorial committee• 2) 2 reviewers received publication (anonymously, author did not know any of reviewer)• 3) after check, authors fixed all mistakes and requirements from reviewers)Checking for plagiarism, showed no repeat or copy of submitted material.• Contact person for queries (Full name, affiliation, institutional email address)Name : Nassurlla MaulenAffiliation: Institute of Nuclear Physics Republic of KazakhstanEmail : nassurlla lnps@inp.kz ( additional: nespad@mail.ru)

Editorial 2022

Editorial 2022

Transparency in peer review: Exploring the content and tone of reviewers’ confidential comments to editors

Recent calls to improve transparency in peer review have prompted examination of many aspects of the peer-review process. Peer-review systems often allow confidential comments to editors that could reduce transparency to authors, yet this option has escaped scrutiny. Our study explores 1) how reviewers use the confidential comments section and 2) alignment between comments to the editor and comments to authors with respect to content and tone. Our dataset included 358 reviews of 168 manuscripts submitted between January 1, 2019 and August 24, 2020 to a health professions education journal with a single blind review process. We first identified reviews containing comments to the editor. Then, for the reviews with comments, we used procedures consistent with conventional and directed qualitative content analysis to develop a coding scheme and code comments for content, tone, and section of the manuscript. For reviews in which the reviewer recommended "reject," we coded for alignment between reviewers' comments to the editor and to authors. We report descriptive statistics. 49% of reviews contained comments to the editor (n = 176). Most of these comments summarized the reviewers' impression of the article (85%), which included explicit reference to their recommended decision (44%) and suitability for the journal (10%). The majority of comments addressed argument quality (56%) or research design/methods/data (51%). The tone of comments tended to be critical (40%) or constructive (34%). For the 86 reviews recommending "reject," the majority of comments to the editor contained content that also appeared in comments to the authors (80%); additional content tended to be irrelevant to the manuscript. Tone frequently aligned (91%). Findings indicate variability in how reviewers use the confidential comments to editor section in online peer-review systems, though generally the way they use them suggests integrity and transparency to authors.

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 Review • Conference submission management system: E-mail Submission (icapsm2021@gmail.com) • Number of submissions received: 594 • Number of submissions sent for review: 376 • Number of submissions accepted: 298 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 50.2 % • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 to 3 (Screening review, technical review and editorial review) • Total number of reviewers involved: 124 • Any additional info on review process:The conference received full length papers. The papers have been assigned to screening to check for scope, technical merit & similarity level. The papers passed in the screening have been assigned reviewers. The conference followed single blind review in which the reviewers know the author details of the paper & the authors were not disclosed the reviewer details. The reviewers were asked to evaluate the papers based on the following criteria’s:Scope, Technical Relevance, Preciseness, Contribution, Novelty, Originality, Technical merit & the quality of figures & tables. The reviewers have also given detailed comments for the papers assigned to them.• Contact person for queries (please include: name, affiliation, institutional email address) Name : Dr. Kumaravelan R, Prof, Velalar College of Engineering & Technology, Tamil Nadu, India E-mail IDs : icapsm2021@gmail.com , hodmech@velalarengg.ac.inPlease 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.

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 Peer review conducted was a single-blind review.• Review criteria:• Conference submission management system : Easychair and• Number of submissions received: 37• Number of submissions sent for review: 37• Number of submissions accepted : 11• Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 29.72 %• Average number of reviews per paper: 2• Total number of reviewers involved : 18• Any additional info on review process:Criteria are based on scientific content, clarity and format. Authors must ensure that the papers submitted use the symposium format. There are three review processes: Initial Review, Peer Review and Acceptance Decision.Initial ReviewThe Editors-in-Chief evaluates each manuscript in the submission theme to determine if its topic and content can be considered for the conference before being reviewed. Manuscripts that do not meet the initial criteria are rejected.Peer ReviewPapers accepted in the first stage underwent a review and revision process that took an average of two rounds for each paper. The peer review of each paper concentrates on objective and technical concerns to determine whether the research has been sufficiently well conceived, well executed, and well described to justify inclusion in the scientific evidence. After acceptance, articles were reread in English and checked for similarity via Turnitin. Articles with a similarity index greater than 20% were rejected.Acceptance decisionBased on the reviewers’ comments, the editor-in-chief makes a final decision on the acceptability of the manuscript and communicates the decision to the authors, along with the reviewers’ reports. Contact person for queries:Dr. IREKTI Amar, a.irekti@univ-boumerdes.dz

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 / Double-blind / Triple-blind / Open / Other (please describe) The ICMSS 2021 article review process was carried out using a single-blind review system. One reviewer reviewed 1 article. The number of papers submitted was 52 articles. The number of ICMSS 2021 reviewers is 8 people. 1 article reviewed by 1 reviewer. The review process is done via email and or OCS. The results of the review of the article are returned to the author for revision within a certain period of time. The author sends the revised results and the plagiarism check results of the article. The editor then rechecks the revision result. If it is suitable, it will be forwarded to the editor, whether it is checked for plagiarism, language, or template.• Conference submission management system: OCS (https://conference.ulm.ac.id/index.php/icmss/icmss/)• Number of submissions received: There are 50 articles submitted to ICMSS 2021• Number of submissions sent for review: There are 50 articles reviewed by reviewers ICMSS 2021.• Number of submissions accepted: 31 articles were accepted for recommendation/publication to JPCS IOP Publishing.• Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 62%• Average number of reviews per paper: One article was reviewed 4 times, reviewed content twice, reviews related to language 1x, and review template 1x.• Total number of reviewers involved: There are 8 reviewers (review content), There are 5 editors (review content and templates), and 6 people (review language)• Any additional info on review process: The author sends the revised article along with the similarity check (maximum 20%).When an article is declared fit for publication, a similarity check is also carried out using Turnitin (maximum 20%). So, the similarity check is done 2 times.• Contact person for queries: +628975586104 (Misbah) Misbah_pfis@ulm.ac.id Universitas Lambung Mangkurat

Peer review declaration

All conference organizers/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 SNPF 2021 article review process was carried out using a single-blind review system. The number of papers submitted was 84 articles. The number of SNPF 2021 reviewers is 14 people. One reviewer reviewed one article. The review process was done via email and or OCS. The article review results were returned to the authors for revision within a certain period of time. The author sent the revised results, and the plagiarism checked results of the article. The editor then rechecked the revision result. If suitable, it would be forwarded to the editor, either for plagiarism, language, or template.• Conference submission management system: OCS (http://snpfmotogpe.ulm.ac.id/ocs/index.php/snpf/2021)• The number of submissions received: There were 84 articles submitted to SNPF 2021• The number of submissions sent for review: There were 84 articles reviewed by reviewers of SNPF 2021.• The number of submissions accepted: There were 40 articles accepted for recommendation/publication to JPCS IOP Publishing.• Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 47,61%• The average number of reviews per paper: One article was reviewed four times: content review 2x, language review 1x, and template review 1x.• The total number of reviewers involved: There were 14 reviewers (content review), 10 editors (content and template review), and 4 people (language review)• Any additional info on the review process: The author sent the revised article along with the similarity check (maximum 20%). A similarity check was also carried out using Turnitin (maximum 20%) when an article was declared fit for publication. So, the similarity check was done two times.• Contact person for queries: +628975586104 (Misbah)Universitas Lambung MangkuratMisbah_pfis@ulm.ac.id