Statement of Peer Review †
- Type of peer review: Single-blind—peer reviewers were appointed based on recommendations from the Secretariat Committee Members as well as from the reviewers’ experience in the specific research field. The submission of manuscripts is made via the Conference Management System (ConBay) that was linked to the conference website. The flow of the submission and reviewing process is as below.
- Author submits paper(s) via conference management system linked from the conference website;
- Secretariat receives the paper and notifies the author confirming the reception. Secretariat screens the paper to fulfil basic criteria outlined by the conference. The screening includes the scope of the paper, a similarity test, and formatting. Papers that do are not confirmed by the screening process are rejected and returned to the author;
- Papers that pass the screening are forwarded to (ONE) peer-review (Reviewer 1) for the reviewing process. If the reviewer does not review the paper in the given time, or no scientific comments are provided for improvement, or there is no clear justification of rejection of the manuscript, another reviewer will be appointed to evaluate the manuscript;
- Reviewer forwards the suggested correction/s to the editor and the article is returned to the author for a revision;
- After receiving the revised version from the author, the conference secretariat evaluates the paper for the second time to make sure that all the corrections are addressed properly;
- Rejected paper that does not meet the criteria of the correction/s suggested will be rejected and returned to the author;
- Accepted papers that pass the second review are compiled. Full papers are submitted to the publisher for publication;
- Conference submission management system: ConfBay System
- Number of submissions sent for review: 13
- Number of submissions accepted: 9
- Number of submissions published: 9
- Acceptance rate (number of submissions accepted/number of submissions received): 0.69
- Average number of reviews per paper: 1
- Total number of reviewers involved: 11
- Any additional information on the review process: Not applicable.
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. |
© 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
Mohamed Noor, N. Statement of Peer Review. Environ. Earth Sci. Proc. 2025, 33, 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/eesp2025033010
Mohamed Noor N. Statement of Peer Review. Environmental and Earth Sciences Proceedings. 2025; 33(1):10. https://doi.org/10.3390/eesp2025033010
Chicago/Turabian StyleMohamed Noor, Norazian. 2025. "Statement of Peer Review" Environmental and Earth Sciences Proceedings 33, no. 1: 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/eesp2025033010
APA StyleMohamed Noor, N. (2025). Statement of Peer Review. Environmental and Earth Sciences Proceedings, 33(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/eesp2025033010