Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Peer review declaration
View through CrossRef
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)
SCSET2020 adopts double-blind review. 1) The first step is the preliminary examination. We would reject the submissions whose topics did not meet the publication requirements. Besides, submissions with suitable topics would be further checked for their similarity through the Turnitin system. Accordingly, the manuscript would be rejected also if the repetition rate does not meet the standard. 2) The second step is double-blind review. The manuscripts will be assigned to the eligible reviewers in own review system. Meanwhile, the reviewer cannot see the authors’ names and affiliation information during reviewing period, and also, the author cannot see the reviewer’s information when viewing the review results. Reviewers will rate the article from the following aspects (1 is the lowest, and 7 is the highest) a) Appropriateness to the Conference b) Originality c) Technical Strength d) Presentation At the same time, the reviewer will give the comments and review results: rejection, modification, or acceptance.
• Conference submission management system: http://www.scset.org/submission
• Number of submissions received: 348
• Number of submissions sent for review: 336
• Number of submissions accepted: 204
• Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 58.6%
• Average number of reviews per paper: 2
• Total number of reviewers involved: 95
• Any additional info on review process:
• Contact person for queries: Mr. Kang Li, scset@foxmail.com
Title: Peer review declaration
Description:
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)
SCSET2020 adopts double-blind review.
1) The first step is the preliminary examination.
We would reject the submissions whose topics did not meet the publication requirements.
Besides, submissions with suitable topics would be further checked for their similarity through the Turnitin system.
Accordingly, the manuscript would be rejected also if the repetition rate does not meet the standard.
2) The second step is double-blind review.
The manuscripts will be assigned to the eligible reviewers in own review system.
Meanwhile, the reviewer cannot see the authors’ names and affiliation information during reviewing period, and also, the author cannot see the reviewer’s information when viewing the review results.
Reviewers will rate the article from the following aspects (1 is the lowest, and 7 is the highest) a) Appropriateness to the Conference b) Originality c) Technical Strength d) Presentation At the same time, the reviewer will give the comments and review results: rejection, modification, or acceptance.
• Conference submission management system: http://www.
scset.
org/submission
• Number of submissions received: 348
• Number of submissions sent for review: 336
• Number of submissions accepted: 204
• Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 58.
6%
• Average number of reviews per paper: 2
• Total number of reviewers involved: 95
• Any additional info on review process:
• Contact person for queries: Mr.
Kang Li, scset@foxmail.
com.
Related Results
Challenges faced in the peer review system in open access journals
Challenges faced in the peer review system in open access journals
The whole mechanism of academic journal’s peer review system process effectively depends on how editors manage the journal work. The handling of the peer review system will determi...
Non-Recommended Publishing Lists: Strategies for Detecting Deceitful Journals
Non-Recommended Publishing Lists: Strategies for Detecting Deceitful Journals
Abstract
The rapid growth of open access publishing (OAP) has significantly improved the accessibility and dissemination of scientific knowledge. However, this expansion has also c...
Evaluating the Science to Inform the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report
Evaluating the Science to Inform the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report
Abstract
The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (Guidelines) advises older adults to be as active as possible. Yet, despite the well documented benefits of physical a...
Identifying Patterns and Motivations of ‘Mega’ Peer-Reviewers
Identifying Patterns and Motivations of ‘Mega’ Peer-Reviewers
Abstract
Background. The demand for peer reviewers is disproportionate to the supply and availability of reviewers. Identifying the factors associated with peer review beha...
Towards Theorizing Peer Review
Towards Theorizing Peer Review
Despite more than 50 years of research, academic peer review and its contexts remain seriously undertheorized. Studies on peer review focus on discovering and confirming phenomena,...
538 Peer MRCS Teaching Among Surgical Trainees in the East Midlands Deanery, UK
538 Peer MRCS Teaching Among Surgical Trainees in the East Midlands Deanery, UK
Abstract
Background
During the covid-19 pandemic, the East Midlands South Deanery ran virtual peer-MRCS OSCE teaching. We analys...
Rethinking Scientific Publishing
Rethinking Scientific Publishing
Dear Reader,
Welcome to the inaugural Editorial of a unique journal: ScienceOpen Research.
The birth of the academic journal goes back more than 300 years, when the very first vol...
Investigating the Impact of Peer Influence on Academic Performance: A Quantitative Cross-Sectional Study Among Medical Students
Investigating the Impact of Peer Influence on Academic Performance: A Quantitative Cross-Sectional Study Among Medical Students
Background: A peer group consists of individuals of similar age, socioeconomic status, and ability, significantly influencing behaviors and beliefs, including academic success. Pee...

