Reviewer Guide

The Scientific Committee for the IPPC-Argentina 2018  appreciates contributions of all members of the Committee who will review a number of abstracts. A copy of one or more abstracts will be added to each member’s account. The review process is designed as a blind-process where the list of authors, their affiliations, and addresses or contact information are not shared with a Reviewer.  Abstracts will be of two types: (1) Original Research Reports; and (2) Comprehensive Review Summary

Review guidelines for “Original Research Reports” type abstract

Abstract needs to be in four parts, written using a total of 400 words or less. 

  1. Introduction
  2. Materials and Methods
  3. Results 
  4. Conclusions

in addition, each abstract must provide a maximum of six Keywords

Evaluators/Reviewers are invited to consider each of the following items and provide a justifiable score per question in return table.

  • A score of 5 is reasonable if the introduction ends by stating the research aims, and it provides a reasonably succinct set of background information in less than four sentences. A reviewer ought to be able to formulate a good impression of the explicit aims of the study, otherwise, the introduction needs improvement and a lesser score (than 4) is reasonable.
  • A score of 5 is reasonable if the Materials and Methods section describes in detail but briefly all major steps of the experimental process. Commonly, the parts of this section address (a)  Controls for the experiment; (b) Processing of the samples during collection, analysis, and storage; and (c) Data manipulation that may include specific and appropriate statistical analysis to obtain valid information to build the conclusion of the study. A score of less than 4 is reasonable if any of the three elements is missing.
A score of less than 3 is given if a revision is mandated because (1) experimental method is not appropriate, (2) a description of a part (a-c) is vague, and 3) Data manipulation and analysis needs further description, data is not sufficient, and/or they may not be reliable. Overall a reviewer shall deduce that samples are used to make sure the observed trends are not due to chance, and the utilized statistical analyses support methods as a replicable approach by other researchers.
  • A score of 5 is reasonable if the Results (and Discussion) section provides succinct information about findings/discoveries or final outcomes of the experiment. The description ought to be simple, make reference to statistical analyses, and the results may be compared to other published research.

A score of less than 3 is given if (1) trends are not clearly supported by data and statistical analyses, (2) the reported outcome(s) are not supported by the analysis of the data collected, and (3) all the experimental information does not coagulate as a single whole story. If two of these three are observed, request for revision is justified (score of less than 2).

  • A score of 5 is reasonable if the Conclusions in less than two paragraphs reflects upon the aims and are supported by both results and the observed trends. A lesser score is reasonable if either clarity, or relevance, or supporting reference material is missing. Authors may receive revision request if a conclusion receives a score of less than three.

Review guidelines for “Review or Case-study” type abstract

  • A score of 25 is reasonable if reviewers feel confident that the abstract:
    • summarizes what the review process and aims are, including:
      • establish new finds, and why they are important
      • relate the existing literature and current knowledge in a comprehensive but a unique picture
      • address challenges and need for any further investigation
    • presents an in-depth, documents and comprehensive argument
  • A lesser score is reasonable if any of the above is not true or:
    • there any major flaws
    • similar work has already been published and the authors did not acknowledge it