Here are some suggestions for evaluators to make their opinions:
– Note that there are three types of work: scientific articles; technological reports; and posters. Target your assessment to the specific type of work you receive;
– Bring not only the weak points of the article, but also the positive aspects of the work;
– Try not to just point out problems in the assessment. Offer tips on how the author(s) can improve their work;
– Your evaluation is qualitative (minimum of 125 words to describe strengths and opportunities for improvement) and quantitative (evaluating with grades from 1 to 5 the objective, method, bibliography used, writing, contribution and relevance of the work);
– Try to be constructive in your assessments. Remember that it is an article submitted for a congress and that it can still be adjusted for a later definitive submission in a journal;
– Keep in mind that your evaluation is important to the author(s) and that it can help them to improve their work;
– Be clear in your notes about work. Avoid reviews that may further confuse the author(s);
– Be kind in your assessment. Treat the author(s) of the article the same way you would like to be treated;
– Any sensitive information about the work that you deem relevant to be directed to the theme leaders and organizing team – that is not made available to the author(s) – put it in the field “Comments restricted to coordination”. Use this field to be clear about your final opinion of the quality of the article. Avoid indecisions in your impressions of work;
– If you understand that the article is good and can already be directed to publication in a journal, indicate it to the fast track. Otherwise, do not make this recommendation.
To assist evaluators, we suggest reading the following texts:
Brei, V. A., Farias, S. A. D., Matos, C. A. D., & Mazzon, J. A. (2017). Um guia de avaliação de artigos científicos em marketing. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 57(4), 391-400.
https://www.scielo.br/j/rae/a/GTkKgyr7MHcLJ6453xrt4mb/
Ferreira, M. (2014). Comentário editorial. Como rever um artigo: O papel do revisor e um roteiro para novos revisores. Revista Ibero Americana de Estratégia, 13(2), 1-9.
https://periodicos.uninove.br/riae/article/view/15202/7398
Ferreira, M. P., Pinto, C. F., & Belfort, A. C. (2016). O que é uma boa revisão de artigo em administração?. Revista Eletrônica de Estratégia & Negócios, 9(2), 88-105.
https://iconline.ipleiria.pt/bitstream/10400.8/6036/1/2016_REEN_boa%20revisao%20de%20artigo.pdf
Serra, F. A. R., & Ferreira, M. P. (2015). Proposta de um Modelo para o Instrumento de Avaliação pelos Pareceristas. Revista Ibero-Americana de Estratégia, 14(1), 1-6.
https://periodicos.uninove.br/riae/article/view/15568/7589
Shigaki, H. B., & Patrus, R. (2016). Avaliação de artigos científicos em administração: Critérios e modelos de avaliadores experientes. Teoria e Prática em Administração (TPA), 6(2), 107-135.
https://periodicos.ufpb.br/index.php/tpa/article/view/28445
Vídeo: Capacitação de novos avaliadores ADI
https://youtu.be/vcPnsx3FrlI
