Search Results Heading

MBRLSearchResults

mbrl.module.common.modules.added.book.to.shelf
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
    Done
    Filters
    Reset
  • Discipline
      Discipline
      Clear All
      Discipline
  • Is Peer Reviewed
      Is Peer Reviewed
      Clear All
      Is Peer Reviewed
  • Series Title
      Series Title
      Clear All
      Series Title
  • Reading Level
      Reading Level
      Clear All
      Reading Level
  • Year
      Year
      Clear All
      From:
      -
      To:
  • More Filters
      More Filters
      Clear All
      More Filters
      Content Type
    • Item Type
    • Is Full-Text Available
    • Subject
    • Country Of Publication
    • Publisher
    • Source
    • Target Audience
    • Donor
    • Language
    • Place of Publication
    • Contributors
    • Location
36,822 result(s) for "Plagiarism"
Sort by:
The words : there's more than one way to take a life
\"Struggling writer Rory Jansen (Bradley Cooper) rockets to fame after passing off a brilliant found manuscript as his own, but experiences an acute crisis of conscience after his stint in the spotlight changes him in ways he never expected\"--Allmovie.com, January 26, 2018.
Learning about plagiarism
\"Introduces readers to the media literacy skills needed to understand plagiarism. Includes a hands-on activity related to media literacy\"-- Provided by publisher.
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 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? • 1. Does the paper address relevant scientific questions within the scope of the conference? • 2. Does the paper present novel concepts, ideas, tools, or data? • 3. Are the results sufficient to support the interpretations and conclusions and substantial conclusions reached? • 4. Is the overall presentation well structured and clear and the language fluent and precise? • 5. Do the authors give proper credit to related work and clearly indicate their own new/original contribution? Resubmission is allowed. • Conference submission management system: Easychair.org and ai-conf.org • Number of submissions received: 32 • Number of submissions sent for review: 32 • Number of submissions accepted: 20 • Acceptance Rate (Number of Submissions Accepted / Number of Submissions Received X 100): 62.5% • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 4 • Any additional info on review process (ie plagiarism check system): Plagiarism check was performed on all accepted papers. • Contact person for queries: Igor Balk Global Innovation Labs, USA (science [at] ai-conf.org)
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: Double-blind □ All papers came through the basic review which included an initial technical criteria check (paper field, structure of submission, adherence to the submission instructions, English language usage and a check for the similarity rate). Any papers out of the scope or containing plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, were rejected. □ We used a double-blind system for peer review; both reviewers’ and authors’ identities remained anonymous. The submitted papers were reviewed by at least two experts: one editorial staff member as well as at least one external reviewer. The third/fourth reviewer is involved in case two reviewers have disputes about the content of the papers or the authors do not agree with the review result. The review process took from 5 to 10 days as a rule. The reviews were conducted to the professional and scientific standards. □ The decision to accept or reject the paper was based on the suggestions of reviewers. Acceptance/rejecting notifications were sent to the corresponding author(s). Conference submission management system, Any additional info on review process, Contact person for queries: all these headings are available in this PDF.