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 / Double-blind / Triple-blind / Open / Other (please describe) Double-blind peer review: All submitted full papers have been peer-reviewed by two reviewers. The acceptance would be granted if the recommendations from the reviewers were positive. The criteria are based on the technical criteria, quality criteria, presentation criteria and format. Authors should make sure the submitted papers use the template for this conference. • Conference submission management system: Submit to the conference mailbox as an attachment • Number of submissions received: 35 submissions received • Number of submissions sent for review: 35 submissions were sent for review • Number of submissions accepted: 17 submissions are accepted • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted/Number of Submissions Received X 100): 48.6% • Average number of reviews per paper: Average two reviews per paper • Total number of reviewers involved: 45 reviewers • Any additional info on review process: The conference organisers evaluated each submission to determine if its topic and content are suitable for consideration before being reviewed. Manuscripts that do not meet the conference topic were returned to the authors. Submissions that passed the initial review would be sent to two or three referees based on their expertise. The reviewers were asked to evaluate the manuscript based on its originality, significance, technical quality, relevance and completeness, and to complete their reviewing work (review form and revised draft) within two weeks. After collecting the referees’ reports, the conference organisers would make a recommendation on the acceptability of the manuscript. The final recommendation can be 1) Paper accepted for publication without changes (only in case at least 7 out of 13 criteria were evaluated positive and no criterion was evaluated negative); 2) Paper accepted for publication after modification; 3) Paper not eligible for publication (obligatory in case at least 7 out of 13 criteria were evaluated negative). If the paper requires corrections, the reviewer would specify suggested remarks and comments for the author(s). Then the conference organisers would sent the remarks and comments to the author(s). • Contact person for queries (please include: name, affiliation, institutional email address) Emma FONG Modern International Green Culture Communication Association (MIGCCA) No. 888, Xiong Chu Road, Hongshan District, Wuhan, Hubei, China icmed2017@outlook.com; emma@migcca.com