IV Encontro Panamericano de Manejo Agroecológico de Pastagens – PRV nas Américas

The Scientific Committee will receive the abstracts, classify them, and transmit them to reviewers, who will provide an opinion. The abstracts will be evaluated based on the quality of the writing, the quality of the work, and the framework within the principles of agroecological pasture management, as well as the usage of the Scientific Committee-defined submission standard. It is encouraged that authors submit their works for grammatical check before registering. The Scientific Committee’s opinions will be rendered irrevocably in the following categories:

1. Approved;
2. Approved with proposed modifications;
3. Failed.

The evaluation rubric to be utilized by reviewers will be organized as follows.

Technical Merit

Is the article presented solid? Is the assessment approach appropriate? Is the data accurate? Are there any fatal faults in research assumptions or premises?

1. Poor/Reject: Uncertain technique, data that could contain major (but unknown) mistakes, and questionable assumptions.
2. Acceptable: Minor defects in the approach or data.
3. Excellent: Complete and accurate technique and results.

Readability

How easy is it to interpret the article? Writing style, syntax, spelling, and the usage of equations or undefined acronyms can all have an impact on readability.

1. Poor/reject: Errors in language, spelling, or organization prohibit the reader from understanding the contribution, and the content cannot be evaluated.
2. Acceptable: Minor grammatical/spelling problems, minimal organization improvements, length that is not totally acceptable for the material, and/or figures that are too small to read.
3. Excellent: There are few grammatical and spelling issues, and the arrangement is good. Length appropriate for the material. Font size in figures is acceptable.

Relevance

How acceptable is this submission for the conference? Even good contributions sometimes be better suited for other events.

1. Relevant: The submission is relevant to the conference.
2. Irrelevant: The article does not relate to the conference’s theme.
3. Low relevance: The submission has little relevance to this conference.
4. Relevant: The submission is appropriate for this conference.

 

Originality

Will politicians learn something new from this submission?

1. Low originality: This article is just an incremental improvement over previously published works.
2. Medium originality: the concept has already been investigated, but this study introduces a novel approach or data that has not previously been provided.
3. Original article: This article is a significant development of a previously researched or entirely new topic.

 

Research ethics

Is there anything about the article reflected in this submission that raises ethical concerns?

1. Acceptable: The study has been approved by the ethics committee, or it does not use data acquired from animals or humans.
2. Unacceptable: The study collects data from animals or humans but does not provide documentation of approval from the relevant ethical commission.
3. At the discretion of the organization: The study uses data collected from animals or humans and does not present proof of approval by the respective ethics committee, but the authors provide a plausible justification for not presenting approval by the ethics committee

(recommended for minimally invasive diseases studies that did not obtain prior approval from the respective ethics committee due to force majeure).