Statement of Peer Review †
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch 7600, South Africa
†
All proceeding papers published in this volume were presented at the Micro Manufacturing Convergence Conference, Stellenbosch, South Africa, 7–9 July 2024.
Eng. Proc. 2025, 109(1), 1; https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2025109001
Published: 4 September 2025
In submitting conference proceedings to Engineering Proceedings, the Volume Editors of the proceedings would like to certify to the publisher that all papers published in this volume have been subjected to peer review by the designated expert referees and were administered by the Volume Editors strictly following the policies and procedures in Appendix A.
The whole process was supervised by the conference committee and the Volume Editors and adhered to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by MDPI and complied with the peer review policy and guidelines of Engineering Proceedings, which can be found at the following link: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/engproc/instruction_for_conference_organizers. The review reports were checked and archived by the Editorial Office of Engineering Proceedings.
- Type of peer review: single-blind;
- Conference submission management system: WP ABSTRACTS (WordPress);
- Number of submissions of abstracts received: 68;
- Number of submissions of proceeding papers received for review: 22;
- Number of submissions of proceeding papers accepted: 19;
- Acceptance rate (Number of submissions of proceeding papers accepted/Number of submissions of proceeding papers received for review): 0.86;
- Average number of reviews per paper: 0.4 (9/22);
- Total number of reviewers involved: 9.
The Conference Committee extends our heartfelt thanks to the dedicated reviewers whose expertise and commitment have been key to the Micro Manufacturing Convergence 2024 conference’s success.
Conflicts of Interest
The author declares no conflicts of interest.
Appendix A
Appendix A.1. Review Procedures
In the initial communication confirming acceptance of abstracts, authors were informed that they would be afforded the opportunity to submit a full paper for consideration in Engineering Proceedings, subject to the successful completion of a peer review process. The correspondence included a link to the MDPI conference proceedings webpage, where the official paper template was made available for download. The deadline for paper submission was also given.
A subsequent circular was distributed to all authors prior to the commencement of the conference, reiterating the opportunity to submit papers in accordance with the criteria prescribed for Engineering Proceedings. This communication emphasized that all submissions would be subject to formal peer review.
Following the conclusion of the conference, a final communication was addressed to all presenting authors. This correspondence provided comprehensive guidelines regarding the preparation and submission of papers and included the link to the WP ABSTRACTS (WordPress) submission portal designated for the uploading of manuscripts.
Each paper received was allocated to two independent reviewers. Reviewers were provided with a standardized template detailing the evaluation criteria, and all manuscripts were assessed in accordance with a single-blind peer review process. The outcomes of the review process were communicated to all submitting authors. In the case of accepted papers, the reviewers’ reports were consolidated by the Academic Editor into a single document, which was then sent to the respective authors, together with a formal request for revision and resubmission by a specified deadline. Revised papers were to be returned directly to the Academic Editor for further consideration.
Upon completion of this process, the revised papers were formally submitted for publication in Engineering Proceedings.
Appendix A.2. Review Model
The peer review process adopted for Engineering Proceedings followed the single-blind review model. Under this model, reviewers remained anonymous to the authors, while reviewers were provided with the full details of the authorship, including names, affiliations, and institutional backgrounds. This approach ensured that manuscripts were assessed on the basis of their academic merit, while also enabling reviewers to contextualize the work within the relevant field.
Appendix A.3. Allocation of Reviewers
Each submitted manuscript was allocated to two independent reviewers with subject-matter expertise relevant to the paper. Reviewers were selected by the Academic Editor in consultation with the Scientific Committee to ensure balanced and competent evaluation.
Appendix A.4. Reviewer Guidelines and Criteria
Reviewers were furnished with a standardized review template outlining the criteria against which manuscripts were to be evaluated. These criteria included, but were not limited to, the following:
- Overall organization (logical presentation, good grammar, and spelling);
- Technically sound (sufficient introduction and background, no errors);
- Justified methodology (theoretical and/or experimental);
- Good quality data;
- Well-considered discussion and supported conclusion;
- Contribution to body of knowledge (original work)
- References appropriate (related to topic, recent, and a range of sources).
Reviewers were required to provide qualitative assessments, expressed on a scale of Good, Fair, or Poor. In addition, reviewers were expected to include constructive comments and, where appropriate, recommendations for improvement.
Appendix A.5. Confidentiality and Ethical Considerations
Reviewers were bound by strict confidentiality obligations. Manuscripts and associated materials were not to be disclosed, discussed, or used for any purpose other than the preparation of the review report. Reviewers were also required to declare any conflicts of interest prior to accepting an assignment.
Appendix A.6. Review Outcomes
Following the evaluation, reviewers were required to recommend one of the following outcomes:
- Accept without revision;
- Accept with revisions as provided in the comments;
- Reject.
The Academic Editor consolidated the feedback from both reviewers and communicated a unified decision to the authors. In cases where reviews were divergent, a third reviewer could be appointed at the discretion of the Academic Editor.
Appendix A.7. Revision and Resubmission
For manuscripts requiring revision, consolidated reviewer feedback was provided to the authors in a single document, accompanied by a formal request for corrections. Authors were given a specified deadline by which to submit their revised manuscripts directly to the Academic Editor. Revised submissions were subject to re-evaluation to ensure that all requested amendments had been satisfactorily addressed.
Appendix A.8. Final Acceptance and Submission
Upon successful completion of the peer review and revision process, manuscripts were formally accepted for inclusion in Engineering Proceedings. The Academic Editor confirmed that all review procedures had been adhered to and authorized final submission to MDPI for publication.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Perold, W. Statement of Peer Review. Eng. Proc. 2025, 109, 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2025109001
AMA Style
Perold W. Statement of Peer Review. Engineering Proceedings. 2025; 109(1):1. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2025109001
Chicago/Turabian StylePerold, Willem. 2025. "Statement of Peer Review" Engineering Proceedings 109, no. 1: 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2025109001
APA StylePerold, W. (2025). Statement of Peer Review. Engineering Proceedings, 109(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2025109001
