Revista Acadêmica Ciência Animal

 

A Revista Acadêmica Ciência Animal é uma publicação de fluxo contínuo vinculada ao Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciência Animal (PPGCA) da PUCPR, cujo objetivo pauta-se na divulgação de trabalhos originais de pesquisa destinados à área de Ciência Animal (Medicina Veterinária, Zootecnia, Ciência e Tecnologia de Alimentos de Origem Animal).

A revista adota o sistema de revisão por pares (peer review) e não cobra taxa de submissão ou publicação.

ISSN anterior: 1981-4178

Informamos que a classificação QUALIS Quadriênio 2013 da Revista Acadêmica Ciência Animal foi B4 na área de Medicina Veterinária e que o comitê de avaliação da CAPES fará a correção no sistema.

 

v. 18 (2020): n. cont.


edição 2020 já está disponível e as submissões estão abertas o ano todo.

As modalidades de publicação estão distribuídas em artigo, comunicação curta, nota técnica, relato de caso e revisão. Para mais informações, verifique as diretrizes para autores

Para acessar as publicações de 2019 e demais edições, clique aqui.


Notícias

 

Do case reports warrant peer review?

 


Case reports constitute a popular form of veterinary and medical scientific literature. Recently, journals dedicated to publishing case reports have proliferated; more than 160 such journals exist in medicine and at least three exist for veterinary medicine (Veterinary Record Open, Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery Open Reports, Case Reports in Veterinary Medicine). 

Case reports fall within the lower levels of evidence on the evidence hierarchy. Recently, one author criticized the field of small animal theriogenology for relying almost exclusively on case reports for some relatively common diseases. However, various authors have argued that case reports can provide useful information for clinicians. One study suggested that some 25% of case reports and case series published in a high-impact medical journal (Lancet) resulted in subsequent, larger studies. Reporting guidelines for case reports exist, providing a checklist for authors to ensure that they include important information.

The volume of scientific literature is growing – some have described this as a ‘paper glut’. Most of this requires peer review. Multiple editorials have claimed that successfully recruiting critical and incisive reviewers is increasingly difficult, although few studies have evaluated these claims. The average number of reviewer invitations sent by journals to garner the required number of reviewers has increased for several scientific journals, as has the number of manuscripts requiring >8 reviewer invitations. Conversely, the median frequency of reviewers accepting invitations to review has dropped. However, not all editors accept the premise that reviewers are becoming more scarce. Reasons that reviewers give for declining an invitation to review include ‘lack of time’, ‘excessive number of invitations’, ‘lack of expertise in the area of the manuscript’, ‘conflicts of interest’ and, to a lesser extent, ‘quality of the study’. Consequently, editors could view reviewers as a scarce and valuable resource, to be preserved and utilized where most appropriate. In essence, they could view the issue as a cost-benefit economic analysis. Similarly, reviewers who feel that they receive too many requests can do a cost-benefit analysis, based on the ‘return on investment’ for doing any particular review. Finally, authors themselves could determine whether a case report positively affects metrics that institutional administrators might use to determine promotion or reward.

Do case reports provide sufficient scientific content to justify the expense of precious reviewer time and energy, or should they be published without review? Do they allow the reviewer to do more than mostly critique the style, language and grammar? Do they benefit most readers of a journal? How do they affect journal-associated and author-associated metrics? If they do not warrant review, what alternatives exist?

 

Author: Mark Rishniw. 
Full article: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2020.105517

 
Publicado: 2020-08-11
 

XIX SIMPÓSIO PARANAENSE DE OVINOCULTURA E VI SIMPOVINO

 

 


Em sua 19ª edição, organizada pelo Programa de Pós-Graduação Stricto Sensu, Mestrado Acadêmico em Saúde e Produção Animal (UNOPAR), o XIX Simpósio Paranaense de Ovinocultura possui o objetivo de propiciar palestras e discussões sobre várias áreas da ovinocultura, tanto leiteira quanto de corte, e da caprinocultura, abrangendo assuntos concernentes ao bem-estar animal, saúde, produção, reprodução e nutrição das espécies. O evento contará com a presença de palestrantes de renome nacional, visando a alta qualidade do material intelectual oferecido aos participantes.

A comissão científica tem como foco oferecer uma programação diversificada, com discussões aprofundadas que permitam consolidar a base para a tomada de decisões a campo e para futuros projetos de pesquisa.

Ademais, o simpósio premiará o ilustre trabalho dos pesquisadores, alunos de pós-graduação e de iniciação científica através da publicação dos resultados de seus projetos de pesquisa nos Anais do XIX Simpósio Paranaense de Ovinocultura, a ser pulicado pela Revista Acadêmica Ciencia Animal.

As inscrições são GRATUITAS e devem serem realizadas entre os dias 31 de agosto e 31 de outubro de 2020 em: XIX Simpósio Paranaense de Ovinocultura - Inscrições.* 

Os resumos devem ser enviados através do site da Revista Acadêmica Ciência Animal entre os dias 31 de agosto e 31 de outubro de 2020 até as 23h59.


*Todas as incrições realizadas antes da prorrogação do evento em virtude da pandemia de Covid-19 foram CANCELADAS, portanto, solicitamos aos participantes que se INSCREVAM NOVAMENTE.

 
Publicado: 2020-05-04
 

How to review articles

 


By SAGE Publishing.

 

For the inexperienced or first time reviewer the peer review process can seem like a daunting one. Below we present some advice and guidance about how to conduct a review and put together a reviewer report that will be effective and beneficial to authors.

Identity – Sometimes a reviewer will want to involve junior researchers in the review of an article as it can be good practice and experience for that person. However, you should ensure that you obtain permission from the journal editor prior to accepting the invitation to review. The names of everyone involved in doing the review should be submitted to the editor so that the journal records accurately reflect the review process that took place. Full guidelines for peer reviewers can be found on the Committee on Publication Ethics website here.

Timeliness – We understand that our reviewers are busy so it won’t always be possible for invitations to be accepted. Please let us know as soon as possible if they need to refuse a review or if a problem arises after the invitation has been accepted. Most journal editors are grateful to receive suggestions about someone else that might be suitable to do the review if you have to decline the invitation.

Conflict of Interest – It is important to highlight to the journal editor any conflict of interest that you feel might occur if you review the paper. Please do so as discretely and as quickly as possible.

Discussion – It is important to discuss with the journal editor any concerns that you have about the paper or their specific requirements for review if you are being invited to review for the first time. Editors are usually open to discussing their expectations and journal requirements with reviewers.

Ethics – Read the COPE guidelines for peer reviewers and visit the Ethics page of this Reviewer Gateway for more information about ethics matters related to peer review. Watch our Peer Review Ethics video for information on ethical considerations when conducting peer review.



Read the full text here.

 
Publicado: 2020-04-23
 

How to identify and quantify pain due to dental disorders in horses?

 


Dental disorders can cause discomfort and chronic pain, affecting the athletic performance and welfare of the horses. However, dental disorders may not be manifested with recognizable clinical signs and may, therefore, lead to late diagnosis or care. Accurate recognition and adequate quantification of pain in horses is essential for the correct diagnosis and management of different painful conditions. Diverse models of systematic identification of pain have been described for many conditions in horses using vital parameters (heart rate, respiratory rate), behavioral evaluation, endocrine measurements, and facial expression. Pain scales based on facial expression changes have been developed for humans and other species, gaining prominence in equine medicine since it proved to be a sensitive tool that is easy to apply with a little investment of time and training, and high reliability within and between observers.

The present study aimed to evaluate the effect of dental disorders on equine welfare by analyzing the equine facial expression using the Horse Grimace Scale (HGS). Six different facial characteristics were evaluated in 33 adult horses, both males and females, that were regularly involved in sports or working activities. While two of the subjective evaluators identified an improvement, the other two did not. In conclusion, dental disorders result in discomfort or pain and modify the facial expression of the horses. The HGS is reliable for the identification and quantification of pain associated with dental disorders either by face-to-face evaluation or by evaluation of photographs. However, these images are not suitable for subjective evaluation.

Pesquisa realizada no Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciência Animal (PPGCA/PUCPR), de coautoria de dois coeditores da Revista Acadêmica Ciência Animal, Prof. Pedro Michelotto e Tâmara Duarte Borges, foi recentemente publicado na revista Applied Animal Behaviour Science e está disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2020.104970

 
Publicado: 2020-04-23
 

Juvenile osteochondral conditions in yearling thoroughbred racehorses

 


In Brazil, the equestrian industry generates about US$ 4.0 billion per year, employs around 610,000 people directly and indirectly, and involves about 5 million horses. The state of Parana in southern Brazil is the second largest breeding center of Thoroughbred (TB) racehorses in the country. Thoroughbred racehorses have a great number of regions in the musculoskeletal system that could potentially encounter problems requiring veterinary medical attention, which can affect their performance and limit their sports career. Among them, joint diseases are particularly important and may occur during skeletal development (osteochondrosis and bone cysts) or because of excessive acute impact or repetitive strain resulting from training and racing. Juvenile osteochondral conditions (JOCCs) encompass osteochondrosis, avulsion fractures of the ossifying epiphyseal or metaphyseal bone, and physitis in young horses.

This study demonstrates the prevalence of radiographic findings related to JOCCs in Brazilian TB yearlings. Most of the radiographic findings observed in the TB weanlings were maintained or worsened as yearlings, but there were a few improvements and even resolutions. 

Mais uma pesquisa realizada no Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ciência Animal (PPGCA), da Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUCPR), disponível na íntegra em: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jevs.2020.102997

 
Publicado: 2020-04-23
 

Highlight negative results to improve science

 

By Devang Mehta, via Nature.


Data from a 2012 study of more than 4,000 published papers show that scientific literature as a whole is trending towards more positivity. The study’s author, Daniele Fanelli, found that the frequency at which papers testing a hypothesis returned a positive conclusion increased by more than 22% from 1990 to 2007. By 2007, more than 85% of published studies claimed to have produced positive results. Fanelli concluded that scientific objectivity in published papers is declining.

When negative results aren’t published in high-impact journals, other scientists can’t learn from them and end up repeating failed experiments, leading to a waste of public funds and a delay in genuine progress. At the same time, young scientists like me are bombarded with stories only of scientific success, at conferences and in journals, leading to an exacerbation of ‘imposter syndrome’ when our own work doesn’t match these expectations.

The pressure to publish a positive story can also lead scientists to spin their results in a better light, and, in extreme instances, to commit fraud and manipulate data. In fields such as biotechnology and genomics, social scientists have already pointed out that hyping up the science could foster unrealistic expectations in an already sceptical public, counter-intuitively leading to greater distrust when real-world advances come at a slower pace.

The problem is worsened by funding agencies that reward only those researchers who publish positive results, when, in my view, it’s the scientists who report negative results who are more likely to move a field forward.

We need reviewers and publishers to commit to publishing negative results in their journals. We need academic conferences to embrace honest discussions of failed experiments. We need funding agencies to support scientists who produce sound negative results. And, as scientists, we must acknowledge that all important work should be recognized, irrespective of its outcome.



Read the full text here

 
Publicado: 2020-02-20
 
Outras notícias...