Statement of Peer Review ^†

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, as administered by the Volume Editors. Expert referees conducted the reviews to the professional and scientific standards 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 begins the process. The Secretary sends the papers to the Conference Chairs, who evaluate the submitted papers’ alignment with the conference scopes.
• Number of submissions sent for review: The submitted papers were revised based on the conference management system and committee organizations, and 24 papers were sent for reviewing.
• Number of submissions accepted: After the review process, nine papers were accepted into the conference for publication.
• Acceptance rate (number of submissions accepted/number of submissions received): 37.5%.
• 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 check 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 criteria (communication of ideas, readability, and discussion of concepts), whether there was a sufficient discussion of the context of the work and suitable referencing, and quality criteria (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 the 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, they 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 can 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 looked at the final review reports and decided whether to reject or accept each paper.