Statement of Peer Review †
, , - Type of peer review: open
- Conference submission management system: via email to the Association Secretariat
- Number of submissions sent for review: 14 for Poster session
- Number of submissions accepted: 13 for Poster session
- Acceptance rate (number of submissions accepted/number of submissions received): 92.8%
- Average number of reviews per paper: 2
- Total number of reviewers involved: 2 Primary reviewers for Poster Abstracts; the whole AISAL Board (7 members including the 2 primary reviewers) for plenum review and discussion when primary reviewers raised concerns on acceptance or rejection of Poster Abstracts
- peer-review process and regulations:
- ○
- For Poster Abstracts, 2 Primary Reviewers selected from the Association Board were responsible for peer review; All board members were included in a second plenary review and discussion when the primary reviewers raised concerns on acceptance or rejection of Poster Abstracts.
- ○
- For Oral presentations, speakers were all invited by the AISAL Board and Congress Scientific Committee; Presentations topics were approved by AISAL Board and Congress Scientific Committee. Abstracts were revised and approved by AISAL Board upon preparation of the Conference report.
- ○
- For Roundtable Summary, all involved participants contributed to the drafting of the summary; the final version of the summary was revised and approved by the AISAL Board upon preparation of the Conference report.
- ○
- English Language Review by V. Galligioni and S. Fuochi.
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. |
© 2024 by the authors. 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
Galligioni, V.; Campagnol, M.; Fuochi, S.; Pagano, V.; Raspa, M.; Sabbioni, S.; Zarattini, P. Statement of Peer Review. Biol. Life Sci. Forum 2024, 32, 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/blsf2024032002
Galligioni V, Campagnol M, Fuochi S, Pagano V, Raspa M, Sabbioni S, Zarattini P. Statement of Peer Review. Biology and Life Sciences Forum. 2024; 32(1):2. https://doi.org/10.3390/blsf2024032002
Chicago/Turabian StyleGalligioni, Viola, Marino Campagnol, Sara Fuochi, Valeria Pagano, Marcello Raspa, Silvia Sabbioni, and Paola Zarattini. 2024. "Statement of Peer Review" Biology and Life Sciences Forum 32, no. 1: 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/blsf2024032002
APA StyleGalligioni, V., Campagnol, M., Fuochi, S., Pagano, V., Raspa, M., Sabbioni, S., & Zarattini, P. (2024). Statement of Peer Review. Biology and Life Sciences Forum, 32(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/blsf2024032002
