Next Article in Journal
Multi-Sensor Indoor Air Quality Monitoring with Real-Time Logging and Air Purifier Integration
Previous Article in Journal
Numerical Modelling of Void Closure Diffusion Model
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Editorial

Statement of Peer Review †

by
Jongwan Hu
1,2,
Dongkeon Kim
3 and
Mosbeh Kaloop
2,4
1
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Incheon National University, Incheon 22012, Republic of Korea
2
Incheon Disaster Prevention Research Center, Incheon 21999, Republic of Korea
3
Department of Architectural Engineering, Dong-A University, Busan 49315, Republic of Korea
4
Department of Public Works Engineering, Mansoura University, Delta 35516, Egypt
Presented at the 2025 11th International Conference on Advanced Engineering and Technology, Incheon, Republic of Korea, 21–23 March 2025.
Mater. Proc. 2025, 22(1), 10; https://doi.org/10.3390/materproc2025022010
Published: 4 August 2025
In submitting conference proceedings to Materials Proceedings, the Volume Editors of the proceedings certify to the publisher that all papers published in this volume have been subjected to peer review, administered by the Volume Editors. Expert referees conducted the reviews to the professional and scientific standards that are expected of a proceedings journal.
  • Type of peer review: Triple-blind.
  • Conference submission management system: Our conference has a Secretary, who manages the conference papers. Authors send their papers to the conference email, and our Secretary receives these emails and initiates the process. The Secretary sends the papers to the Conference Chairs, who evaluate the submitted papers’ alignment with the conference’s scope.
  • Number of submissions sent for review: The submitted papers were revised based on the conference management system and committee organizations, and 23 papers were sent off for review.
  • Number of submissions accepted: After the review process, eight papers were accepted into the conference for publishing.
  • Acceptance rate (number of submissions accepted/number of submissions received): The acceptance rate was 34%.
  • Average number of reviews per paper: Different stages of review processing were implemented to improve the quality of the papers. On average, each paper that was processed was reviewed three times.
  • Total number of reviewers involved: Three reviewers took part in the review process. We only accepted a paper after receiving positive reports from at least two reviewers and after evaluating the reviewers’ reports and author responses.
  • Any additional information on the review process: The review process for this conference was carried out as follows: (1) The Secretary received the papers by email and conducted the initial checking of the papers. For each paper, he revised the formatting and language and roughly checked the paper’s contents. (2) The General Chairs received the processed papers and revised the papers’ scopes in accordance with the following criteria: technical criteria (scientific merit: notable scientific rigor, accuracy, and correctness); clarity of expression (communication of ideas, readability, and discussion of concepts); sufficient discussion of the context of the work and suitable referencing; and quality (Originality—is the work relevant and novel? Motivation—does the problem considered have a sound motivation? All papers should clearly demonstrate the scientific interest of their results. Repetition—have significant parts of the manuscript already been published? Length—is the content of the work of sufficient scientific interest to justify its length?). If the papers aligned with the conference scopes, they progressed to the next stage in the process; if not, they were rejected. (3) All accepted papers were divided into categories based on their contents and sent to three Committee Members who are well versed in the subjects discussed in each paper. (4) After receiving the review reports from the Committee Members, these were sent to the authors to allow them to respond to the reviewers’ comments. (5) At this stage in the review process, either the paper was accepted or the authors were encouraged to make minor or major revisions based on the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. A paper could be processed up to three times to improve its quality and contents. (6) Finally, the authors made revisions/responded to the comments and sent a reply via email. The process was not complete until the organizer had looked at the final review reports and decided whether to reject or accept each paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hu, J.; Kim, D.; Kaloop, M. Statement of Peer Review. Mater. Proc. 2025, 22, 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/materproc2025022010

AMA Style

Hu J, Kim D, Kaloop M. Statement of Peer Review. Materials Proceedings. 2025; 22(1):10. https://doi.org/10.3390/materproc2025022010

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hu, Jongwan, Dongkeon Kim, and Mosbeh Kaloop. 2025. "Statement of Peer Review" Materials Proceedings 22, no. 1: 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/materproc2025022010

APA Style

Hu, J., Kim, D., & Kaloop, M. (2025). Statement of Peer Review. Materials Proceedings, 22(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/materproc2025022010

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop