Peer review declaration

All papers published in this volume of IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 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-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 criteria used by the reviewers to accept or decline a paper are listed before and can be divided into two areas: ethical and technical. For the ethical area the reviewer had checked if this paper doesn′t contain: biased considerations in regard to race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship or political philosophy of the authors or offensive terminology or words might be perceived to be offensive to others. For the technical area the referee had given a clear statement of recommendation according to the following scheme: ○ Scientific merit (scientific rigour, accuracy of the scientific text, correctness of the scientific contents ○ Clarity of expression (clarity in driving ideas communication, paper reading fluency, concepts organization) ○ Discussion of the context of the work: (complete context discussion) ○ Referencing (suitability of the references) ○ Quality Criteria (originality, motivation, scientific interest of the main topic, parts of manuscript repetition, suitability of the length) ○ Presentation Criteria (title adequacy, Abstract lengths and completeness, Diagrams, figures, tables and captions clarity, Text and mathematics adequacy and clarity) ○ Conclusions (adequacy and completeness of the conclusions) After a first review process the paper could be resubmitted until the reviewers or the guest editors accepted it. ● Conference submission management system: No special system was used. The papers were submitted to the conference secretariat and then distributed to reviewers by the editors. The reviewers sent their reviews to the editors. The editors manage the whole editing process. ● Number of submissions received: 17 papers ● Number of submissions sent for review: 17 papers ● Number of submissions accepted: 15 papers ● Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 88,23% ● Average number of reviews per paper: 2 reviewers for papers ● Total number of reviewers involved: 30 reviewers Any additional info on review process (ie plagiarism check system): The plagiarism check has been done directly by the reviewer supervised by the editors. ● Contact person for queries: Prof. Sauro Filippeschi DESTEC – University of Pisa sauro.filippeschi@unipi.it