(Open Framework for Authors and Organizing Committee)
This checklist is designed not only as a selection tool, but as a shared guideline to support the development of high-quality contributions. It reflects the principles of the conference and helps align all participants within a common research framework. The process is open and transparent. We view this conference as a collective learning process.
1. Core Requirements (Mandatory)
Submissions should meet all of the following criteria:
• Clear relevance to the conference theme:
War – Pollution – Soil – Freshwater – Health
• Ability to be integrated into the shared analytical framework of the conference
• Scientific focus (analytical, evidence-based), rather than political or purely descriptive content
Submissions that do not meet these basic requirements may not be considered.
2. Evaluation Criteria
Each contribution is evaluated across the following dimensions:
A. Scientific Value
• Does the contribution present empirical data, research results, or grounded evidence?
• Is there a clear research question or problem?
• Does it go beyond description toward analysis?
B. Connection to the Conference Framework
• Does the contribution explicitly relate to the core themes (soil, water, health, pollution, war)
• Can it be positioned within the shared analytical structure?
• Does it engage with key questions of processes, impacts, or systems?
C. Representativeness and Contribution to the Program
• Does it add geographical or thematic diversity?
• Does it provide a unique case or perspective?
• Does it complement other contributions?
D. Methodological Clarity
• Is the methodology clearly explained?
• Are data sources and limitations acknowledged?
• Can the approach be useful for further research?
E. Discussion Potential
• Does the contribution raise important or unresolved questions?
• Does it help identify research gaps or blind spots?
• Can it stimulate structured discussion?
3. General Evaluation Approach
Each criterion may be considered along a simple scale:
• Strong
• Moderate
• Limited
The goal is not to exclude contributions mechanically, but to ensure overall coherence and scientific quality.
4. Additional Consideration
A guiding question used in the selection process:
→ Would the absence of this contribution weaken the overall conference?
If yes, the contribution is likely to be valuable.
5. Priority Types of Contributions
Particular value is given to:
• Empirical studies and data-driven research
• Long-term environmental and health impact analysis
• Understudied or overlooked topics
• Methodological contributions
• Comparative and international perspectives
6. Contributions Less Aligned with the Conference
The following types of submissions are generally less suitable:
• Purely descriptive overviews without analytical insight
• General or opinion-based discussions
• Politically focused arguments not grounded in scientific analysis
• Repetition of well-established knowledge without new contribution
7. Final Note
This conference is conceived as a structured and cumulative research process. The purpose of this checklist is not to restrict participation, but to support clarity, coherence, and meaningful scientific exchange.
We recognize that many questions cannot yet be fully answered. However, the ability to clearly formulate and frame these questions is itself a significant scientific outcome.