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

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: Single-blind / Double-blind / Triple-blind / Open / Other Single-blind review Single-anonymous: authors’ identities are known to the reviewers, reviewers’ identities are hidden from authors; • Describe criteria used by Reviewers when accepting/declining papers. Was there the opportunity to resubmit articles after revisions? The following criteria were applied: 1. Quality assessment Significance, novelty, correctness Special attention was paid to repetition and Plagiarism. 2. Technical Criteria Clarity of expression; readability and discussion of concepts Sufficient discussion of the context of the work, and suitable referencing. 3. Presentation Criteria 1. Is it clearly presented, well organized, and clearly written?( clear presentation, well organized, clearly stated) 2. Is the English satisfactory? (satisfactory english) 3. Is the title appropriate? (Title matches) 4. Does the abstract include the important points of the paper?( abstract contains important information on the article) 5. Are references to related work adequate, up to date and readily available? (links are relevant, relevant, available) 6. Are figures and tables necessary and adequate?( tables and figures are necessary and appropriate) 7. Are the conclusions satisfactory? (conclusion is appropriate) During the review process, the authors were given a one-time opportunity to re-submit the article for review. • Conference submission management system: • The peer review was carried out by the Forum Program Committee, organized according to the order of the General Director of the RSE INP No. 182 dated 22.24.2021. The Program Committee carried out a preliminary selection of articles to be sent to the reviewers. • Number of submissions received: 44 • Number of submissions sent for review: 42 • Number of submissions accepted: 35 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 79,54 • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 40 • Any additional info on review process (eg Plagiarism check system): • Review process consisted from few steps: • 1) submission by editorial committee • 2) 2 reviewers received publication (anonymously, author did not know any of reviewer) • 3) after check, authors fixed all mistakes and requirements from reviewers) Checking for plagiarism, showed no repeat or copy of submitted material. • Contact person for queries (Full name, affiliation, institutional email address) Name : Nassurlla Maulen Affiliation: Institute of Nuclear Physics Republic of Kazakhstan Email : nassurlla [email protected] ( additional: [email protected])

DIGITAL SAFETY MANAGER: IOT SERVICE TO ASSURE THE SAFE BEHAVIOUR OF MACHINES AND CONTROLS IN THE DIGITAL INDUSTRY

The digital industry requires increasingly complex and reliable software systems. They need to control and make critical decisions at runtime. As a consequence, the verification and validation of these systems has become a major research challenge. At design and development time, model testing techniques are used while run-time verification aims at verifying that a system satisfies a given property. The latter technique complements the former. The solution presented in this paper targets embedded systems whose software components are designed by state machines defined by Unified Modelling Language (UML). The CRESCO (C++ REflective State-Machines based observable software COmponents) platform generates software components that provide internal information at runtime and the verifier uses this information to check system-level reliability/safety contracts. The verifier detects when a system contract is violated and initiates a safeState process to prevent dangerous scenarios. These contracts are defined by internal information from the software components that make up the system. Thus, as demonstrated in the tested experiment, the robustness of the system is increased. All software components (controllers), such as the verifier, have been deployed as services (producers/consumers) of the Arrowhead IoT platform: the controllers are deployed on local Arrowhead platforms (Edge) and the verifier (Safety Manager) is deployed on an Arrowhead platform (Cloud) that will consume controllers on the Edge and ensure the proper functioning of the plant controllers. Keywords: run-time monitoring, robustness, software components, contracts, software models, state machines

BCR-ABL1 (p210) Transcript Kinetics

Context.— Delta checks are a powerful technique for monitoring clinical assays in many disciplines but have not been routinely used in molecular testing. Objective.— To determine if the biologically determined kinetics of BCR-ABL1's rise and fall could allow the development of a delta check in BCR-ABL1 testing. Design.— Nine years of BCR-ABL1 p210 results were evaluated and patients with 3 or more results were selected for inclusion. The kinetics of these percentages of international standard values were plotted against time along with the median and the 90th and 95th percentile lines. A Monte Carlo simulation of a batch mix-up was performed for 6 months of data to determine the efficacy of the proposed cutoff. Results.— The median kinetics showed a 1-log drop of the percentage of international standard in 90 days, with less than 5% of cases showing faster than a 2-log drop in 90 days, and less than 2.5% showing a faster than 3-log drop in 90 days (extrapolated to 1 log in 30 days). The Monte Carlo simulation of a batch mix-up showed that an average batch mix-up of 23 samples could routinely be flagged by this cutoff, albeit with wide variance. Conclusions.— These results suggest that using a drop in the percentage of international standard of greater than 1 log in 30 days can be a useful trigger in implementing a delta-check system for this molecular test.

Peer review declaration

All conference organisers/editors are required to declare details about their peer review. Therefore, please provide the following information: • Type of peer review: Single-blind Single-anonymous: authors' identities are known to the reviewers, reviewers' identities are hidden from authors Double-anonymous: author and reviewer identities are hidden to each other Triple-blind: author and reviewer identities are hidden to each other, and from the Editor(s) Open: author and reviewer identities are known to each other • Describe criteria used by Reviewers when accepting/declining papers. Was there the opportunity to resubmit articles after revisions? Some criteria when accepting/declining paper were including: (1). The depth of the research methods and results, (2). Whether the papers were written properly, (3). If the topics of the research matches our conference, (4). All the figures were correlated to the discussion. Time given to authors in resubmitting after revisions was approximately 1 month. • Conference submission management system: We use Easychair.org platform in managing our conference submission. Submissions were available for 2.5 months prior to conference date. We generally accepted all the papers submitted for presentation in the conference as long as they suit the theme. After conference, the review process was conducted by Reviewers. • Number of submissions received: 53 papers • Number of submissions sent for review: 53 papers • Number of submissions accepted: 43 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): 85% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 reviews • Total number of reviewers involved: 10 reviewers • Any additional info on review process (ie plagiarism check system): • Contact person for queries: Mohammad Rohmaneo Darminto [email protected]/[email protected] Laboratory of Geoinformatics Department of Geomatics Engineering Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember Surabaya Indonesia Please submit this form along with the rest of your files on the submission date written in your publishing agreement. The information you provide will be published as part of your proceedings.

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 • Describe criteria used by Reviewers when accepting/declining papers. Was there the opportunity to resubmit articles after revisions? ∘ The review was done by considering five (5) aspects : 1) Relevance with topics 2) Novelty and originality 3) Clarity 4) Systematic 5) Analysis techniques and deduction ∘ One reviewer gave points on each aspect between 1-4. Based on total points from those four aspects : 1) Definitely Accept : 16-20 2) Accept : 11-15 3) Possibly Accept : 7-10 4) Rejected : 5-6 ∘ There was an opportunity to resubmit articles after revisions. • Conference submission management system: The paper is uploaded via EDAS (https://edas.info/) • Number of submissions received : 70 papers • Number of submissions sent for review : 60 papers • Number of submissions accepted : 48 papers • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100) : 68.57 • Average number of reviews per paper : 2 • Total number of reviewers involved : 36 • Any additional info on review process (eg Plagiarism check system) : ∘ The similarity score was checked by the editors to find the plagiarism using https://www.turnitin.com/. ∘ The standard similarity score to be accepted is less than 15%. • Contact person for queries (Full name, affiliation, institutional email address) : Name : Ayodya Pradhipta Tenggara Affiliation : Universitas Gadjah Mada Email address : [email protected]

Multi-method Examination of Elder Mistreatment in the Age of COVID-19

A multi-method study exposed COVID-19 influence on the pre-existing epidemic of elder mistreatment in Utah. We found changes in 1) abuse types, 2) service responses, 3) firearm access and 4) policy implications. Gun sales were tracked by news surveillance and FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) for pre-pandemic (2018/2019) and pandemic years (2020/2021). New requests for permits skyrocketed during the pandemic. The 2021 Utah State Legislature loosened restrictions on concealed permits. Domestic violence (DV) Fatality Tracker Data in pre-covid years were compared to 2020-2021. A figure illustrates the prevalence of DV fatalities, ages of victims by year and methods used. We conducted 15 in-depth interviews of stake holders who serve DV victims (shelters, police, etc.). DV shelters had a relative lack of children during the pandemic, but increased use by older persons 60+. Susceptibility to chronic respiratory distress syndrome, required social distance for older persons. DV shelters obtained CARES Act funds to adapt solutions, like placing victims in hotel rooms. Most victims stayed at home, confined with abuser(s), some without technology, so isolation decreased their safety. Evidence suggests some fatalities among elder adults. A case study during the pandemic described a 73-year-old mother’s suspicious bank account activity. Bank employees sent police to her home. She was missing, but her co-resident adult son was in possession of her bank cards. She was later found in a shallow grave. Utah households have increased risks of DV fatalities in the wake of the pandemic and for years to come.

Peer review declaration

All papers published in this volume of Journal of Physics: Conference Series 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 • Describe criteria used by Reviewers when accepting/declining papers. Was there the opportunity to resubmit articles after revisions? • Conference submission management system: IDAS Conference management System • Number of submissions received: 336 • Number of submissions sent for review: 315 • Number of submissions accepted: 189 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 56.25% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: more than 600 • Any additional info on review process (ie plagiarism check system): We use Turnitin system for plagiarism checking • Contact person for queries: Dimitrios Vlachos Associate Professor, University of Peloponnese Email: [email protected] Tel: +30 6944 371526

Peer Review Declaration Form Guidance

On the following page you will find the declaration form. • Please answer each question. • You should submit the form along with the rest of your submission files. • The deadline is the submission date written in your publishing agreement. All conference organisers/editors are required to declare details about their peer review. We will published the information you provide as part of your proceedings. All papers published in this volume of Journal of Physics: Conference Series 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 • Conference submission management system: To participate in the PIRT-2021 Conference, Participants had to register on the website http://www.pirt.info/?lang=eng#reg_form Abstracts and papers had to be sent to the PIRT-2021 Organizing Committee by e-mail: [email protected] All information about the format of abstracts and papers was on the web-site: http://www.pirt.info/?lang=eng • Number of submissions received: 61 • Number of submissions sent for review: 51 • Number of submissions accepted: 38 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 62,29 • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved:12 • Any additional info on review process: Plagiarism check system: antiplagiat.ru Authors could resubmit the paper with the necessary revisions. • Contact person for queries: Name : Professor Vladimir Olegovich Gladyshev Affiliation: Head of the Faculty of Fundamental Sciences, Bauman Moscow State Technical University, 5, 2-nd Baumanskaya St., Moscow, 105005, Russian Federation Email : [email protected]