Peer review declaration

The Organiser and/or the Editor(s) are required to declare details about their peer review processes. Therefore, please provide the following information: • Type of peer review: Double-blind Double-anonymous: author and reviewer identities are hidden to each other • Describe criteria used by Reviewers when accepting/declining papers. Was there the opportunity to resubmit articles after revisions? The submission will first be reviewed for its topic and length, then go through an originality check. The peer-review process will begin soon after the paper is found to be qualified. The paper will be sent to have a double-blind peer review by 2 reviewers. They will judge the paper based on the theme, coverage, innovation, integrity, depth, and language. One of the final acceptance suggestions including: Accept, Accept with Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject will be given. Articles can be resubmitted after revision except receiving Reject. • Conference submission management system: https://registration.confmcee.org/ • Number of submissions received: 179 • Number of submissions sent for review: 179 • Number of submissions accepted: 64 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received × 100): 35.8% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 35 • Any additional info on review process (eg Plagiarism check system): Plagiarism check system: iThenticate • Contact person for queries (Full name, affiliation, institutional email address) Han Gao, [email protected]

Peer review declaration

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Double-blind peer review • Conference submission management system: conference website (https://conferences.hcmut.edu.vn/ICCFB2021) • Number of submissions received: 83 papers • Number of submissions sent for review: 83 papers • Number of submissions accepted: 50 papers • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 60.24% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 reviews per paper • Total number of reviewers involved: 60 reviewers • Any additional info on review process: All papers were reviewed in two rounds, led by the Session Editors. - Round 1: all papers were sent to 2 reviewers with double-blind process. According to the comments from the reviewers, Session Editors decided the paper status: accept, minor revision, major revision or reject. - Round 2: after revised and corrected by authors, the papers were re-sent to the reviewers for the decision: accept or reject. The final decisions were made by Session Editors. - With accepted papers: the format, the language and the similarity index were checked by Technical Committees. All accepted papers must be oral-presented at the conference. • Contact person for queries: Dr. Tran Tan Viet Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology (HCMUT, VNU-HCM), Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam [email protected]

Segmentation of Cerebral Small Vessel Diseases-White Matter Hyperintensities Based on a Deep Learning System

Objective: Reliable quantification of white matter hyperintensities (WHMs) resulting from cerebral small vessel diseases (CSVD) is essential for understanding their clinical impact. We aim to develop and clinically validate a deep learning system for automatic segmentation of CSVD-WMH from fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) imaging using large multicenter data.Method: A FLAIR imaging dataset of 1,156 patients diagnosed with CSVD associated WMH (median age, 54 years; 653 males) obtained between September 2018 and September 2019 from Beijing Tiantan Hospital was retrospectively analyzed in this study. Locations of CSVD-WMH on the FLAIR scans were manually marked by two experienced neurologists. Using the manually labeled data of 996 patients (development set), a U-shaped novel 2D convolutional neural network (CNN) architecture was trained for automatic segmentation of CSVD-WMH. The segmentation performance of the network was evaluated with per pixel and lesion level dice scores using an independent internal test set (n = 160) and a multi-center external test set (n = 90, three medical centers). The clinical suitability of the segmentation results, classified as acceptable, acceptable with minor revision, acceptable with major revision, and not acceptable, was analyzed by three independent neuroradiologists. The inter-neuroradiologists agreement rate was assessed by the Kendall-W test.Results: On the internal and external test sets, the proposed CNN architecture achieved per pixel and lesion level dice scores of 0.72 (external test set), and they were significantly better than the state-of-the-art deep learning architectures proposed for WMH segmentation. In the clinical evaluation, neuroradiologists observed the segmentation results for 95% of the patients were acceptable or acceptable with a minor revision.Conclusions: A deep learning system can be used for automated, objective, and clinically meaningful segmentation of CSVD-WMH with high accuracy.

Peer Review Declaration

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single-blind Table 1 shows the evaluation aspects in the review process at The 3rd ICoGEE 2021. Several essential things in scientific articles are reviewed through this evaluation aspect, such as novelty, originality, clarity of methods and analysis, and their significance in science and technology. If an evaluation aspect has less than good quality, the reviewer provides suggestions for improvement, and the author must improve it or provide feedback. The reviewer will also offer recommendations such as: (i) accept without revision (if all aspects of the evaluation have exceptional score), (ii) accept with minor revision (if there are less than two evaluation aspects whose quality is below good), (iii) accept with major revision (if there are about 2 - 4 evaluation aspects that are below good quality), and (iv) reject (if more than four evaluation aspects have below good quality or are considered not to meet the essential requirements of scientific articles). • Conference submission management system: For official The 3rd ICoGEE 2021 webpage, we used: http://icogee.org, while for paper management system, we used Easy Chair: https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=icogee2021 • Number of submissions received: 197 • Number of submissions sent for review: 197 • Number of submissions accepted: 114 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 57,86% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 41 • Any additional info on review process: All papers had undergone plagiarism check (using Turnitin) and single-blind review by two reviewers • Contact person for queries: Name : Yuant Tiandho Affiliation : Department of Physics, Universitas Bangka Belitung Email : [email protected] / [email protected]

Peer review declaration

• Type of peer review: Single-blind/Double-blind/Triple-blind/Open/Other (please describe): Double Blind a. All papers submitted were checked their similarity index using Turnitin. b. Papers have similarity index more than 25% were rejected. c. After that, the format of the papers was checked. Papers that did not follow the IOP template will be sent back to the authors for revision. d. All papers passed the similarity index and have already follow the IOP template will be sent to the reviewers. e. Reviewers reviewed the papers and give comments to the papers. f. Scientific committee decided if the papers: accepted, accepted with major revision, accepted with minor revision, or rejected. g. Author revised their papers and send back their revision h. After that editor will check again using Turnitin to make sure similarity source not more that 5% for each source in each article i. Editor will check again manual to see similarity index and source to make sure all is good • Conference submission management system: All papers from the conference submitted using our system where each author must register first and send article through email [email protected] • Number of submissions received: 256 Submission were received • Number of submissions sent for review: 227 Submission was sent for review, and the rest was rejected because out of scope, low-quality article and high similarity • Number of submissions accepted: 147 Paper accepted based on IOP JPCS Scope and quality • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): (147/227) x 100 = 64.7 % • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 Times • Total number of reviewers involved: 10 Reviewer Involved+ 5 Editors, each reviewer received 8-10 papers with 2 weeks review process • Any additional info on review process: NONE • Contact person for queries: Robbi Rahim, Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Manajemen Sukma, Medan, Indonesia and University Malaysia Perlis, Malaysia Email: [email protected], Whatsapp+62 8126326393

Peer review declaration

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science have been peer reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: a. All papers submitted were checked their similarity index using Turnitin. b. Papers have similarity index more than 25% were rejected. c. After that, the format of the papers was checked. Papers that did not follow the IOP template will be sent back to the authors for revision. d. All papers passed the similarity index and have already follow the IOP template will be sent to the reviewers. e. Reviewers reviewed the papers and give comments to the papers. f. Scientific committee decided if the papers: accepted, accepted with major revision, accepted with minor revision, or rejected. g. Author revised their papers and send back their revision • Conference submission management system: All papers from the conference submitted to using JOTForm Submission System • Number of submissions received: 143 Submission were received • Number of submissions sent for review: 143 Submission was sent for review, and the rest was rejected because out of scope, low-quality articles and high similarity • Number of submissions accepted: 100 Paper accepted based on IOP EES Scope and quality • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): (100/143) × 100 = 69.93 % • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 Times • Total number of reviewers involved: 21 Reviewer Involved + 4 Editors • Any additional info on review process: NONE • Contact person for queries: Dr. Esther Kembauw, SP., M.Si Pattimura University Email: [email protected]

In-office Endonasal Minor Revision Rhinoplasty

The revision rhinoplasty presents many unique challenges to the facial plastic surgeon. While many cases will require a full revision in the operating room, there are several isolated deformities which may be repaired in the office via an endonasal approach. This provides many benefits to the patient and surgeon including decreased cost, shorter recovery time, avoidance of general anesthesia, and less discomfort. It is critical to identify defects appropriate for endonasal repair, establish clear expectations with the patient, and work within one's skill set and level of experience. The surgeon who can comfortably navigate both open and endonasal techniques can offer their patients a comprehensive set of solutions for revision rhinoplasty. In this article we outline the defects amenable to this type of repair as well as technical considerations for each defect addressed. We hope it serves as a useful framework for the range of deformities the rhinoplasty surgeon may take on for in-office repair.

Growing Strawberries in the Florida Home Garden

Florida is the winter strawberry capital of the world. In commercial and home production, strawberries are grown as an annual crop rather than as perennials. This 4-page publication of the UF/IFAS Horticultural Sciences Department presents guidelines for the successful production of strawberries in the Florida home garden. Minor revision with an updated byline of Chandler, C. K., N. A. Peres, V. M. Whitaker, H. A. Smith, and S. P. Brown. 2014. "Growing Strawberries in the Florida Home Garden." EDIS 2008 (6). https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/hs403

La Grama St. Augustine Para Patios de Florida

La grama o césped St. Augustine (Stenotaphrum secundatum [Walt.] Kuntze) está muy adaptada a las zonas calurosas y húmedas (subtropicales) del mundo. Se cree que es nativa de las regiones costeras del Golfo de México y del Mediterráneo. St. Augustine es la especie de grama más usada en Florida (Figura 1). Esta publicación está destinada a propietarios de casas y encargados de pasto y césped que manejan grama St Augustine en el paisaje de Florida. Minor revision of Trenholm, Laurie, Joseph Bryan Unruh, Travis W. Shaddox, Carlos F. Balerdi, and Henrique Mayer. 2018. “La Grama St. Augustine Para Patios De Florida: ENH1288/EP552, 1/2018”. EDIS 2018 (1). https://doi.org/10.32473/edis-ep552-2018.

2021–2022 Quick Reference Guide to Foliar Fungicides

Minor Revision