Peer review declaration

• Published in: IOP conference series. Materials Science and Engineering Vol. 1029; no. 1; p. 11002
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 01.01.2021
• ISSN: 1757-8981; 1757-899X
• DOI: 10.1088/1757-899X/1029/1/011002

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 / Double-blind / Triple-blind / Open / Other Single-blind review • Describe criteria used by Reviewers when accepting/declining papers. Was there the opportunity to resubmit articles after revisions? All papers are reviewed to clarify the next question: → Is the subject matter within the scope of the conference? → Does the paper contain enough original results to warrant publication? → Is the paper technically sound and free of errors? → Is the work clearly and concisely presented? Is it well organized? → Does the title clearly and sufficiently reflect its contents? → Is the abstract informative? Are the main results and conclusions mentioned? → Are the illustrations of adequate quality, relevant and understandable? → Does the bibliography give a clear view of the current state-of-the-art in the domain? → Is the quality of the language satisfactory? Only «yes» for all questions allow paper to be published. The process of reviewing is iterative, and authors have the opportunity to improve paper. • Conference submission management system: google forms • Number of submissions received: 150 • Number of submissions sent for review: 142 • Number of submissions accepted: 136 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 90.7 • Average number of reviews per paper: two reviews • Total number of reviewers involved: six persons • Any additional info on review process (ie plagiarism check system): All articles were assessed for compliance with the IMRAD principle. The reviewers were also asked to answer a number of questions related to the quality of the content and design of the work. Authors didn’t know, who were their reviewers. Reviewers, otherwise, have a full information about authors to control a self-citing. Thus, the review process was largely formalized and impersonal (single-blinded). Plagiarism was checked by using Grammarly. • Contact person for queries: Lukyanov Alexander, conf.dstu@gmail.com +79080569508,