In order to meet the demands of CAPES (CAPES Ordinance No. 148/2018) to implement and systematize a Strategic Planning and Self-Evaluation of Graduate Programs, the UFRPE Permanent Self-evaluation Committee (CPA) promoted in 2019 the II Symposium of Institutional Self-Assessment with the theme “Self-assessment on the agenda: undergraduate and graduate”. 


The PRPG Self-evaluation Committee was then set up, which outlined the following methodological procedure:

Phase 1: Planning / Goal: Build the standards for self-evaluation of UFRPE PPGs.
Phase 2: Execution / Goal: Make the self-evaluation instrument available for the coordinators of the Programs to be sent to the professors and students of the Graduate Programs. The data collection period was from 03/09 to 04/14/2020.
Phase 3: Results Analysis / Goal: Generate a PRPPG Self-evaluation report.
Phase 4: Dissemination of Results / Goal: Widely disseminate the results presented in the global report.

The complete results of the analysis carried out within the scope of UFRPE can be seen in the institutional report presented annually on the PRPG website (

Within the scope of the PPGBio, it is important to highlight that the proposal to merge the Programs was approved only in the last month of the quadrennium, despite having been submitted in early 2020. However, before we received the official statement from CAPES, approving the merger, a Teacher Integration Seminar was held, in which we established which committees would participate in the management of the new Program (as mentioned in item 1.1. of this report). The Self-evaluation Committee (CAA) is composed of two professors, in addition to the coordinator and one student. Although we decided to adopt the methodology proposed by the PRPG, we understand that in order to achieve the goals proposed by the PPGBio Strategic Planning, the CAA will have to orchestrate the results of the other three committees of the Program. Therefore, in addition to analyzing the results of research carried out with professors and students, the CAA must also analyze the reports issued by the other committees, especially those for monitoring professors (CAD) and students (CGBE). Thus, at the end of each annual evaluation, it must issue a critical opinion with proposals for changes necessary to achieve the goals established for the quadrennium.


As the Program only started in December 2020, the Self-evaluation, first carried out in March, does not reflect the proposal of PPGBio, but of the PPGB and PPGE in isolation. However, we present here some conclusions regarding this initial analysis, considering some strengths and weaknesses pointed out for the PPGs, and what we bring from innovation in the PPGBio that may overcome some of these challenges indicated by the two sectors consulted (teachers and students).



1. Research lines and teaching quality: The research lines as well as the curricular structure of the two PPGs were reformulated at the beginning of the quadrennium, with the goal of better adapting both to the profile of professors and to the profile of the graduates that we intend to train facing the new challenges of the academic career in the area of ​​biodiversity. For this reason, we invest in practical, field courses, as well as courses focused on scientific methodology, focused on problem detection, formulation and testing of hypotheses. The curricular structure, the offer and quality of the subjects were considered as a strong point of our groups by both teachers and students. We believe that providing a good practical and theoretical basis is fundamental in the training of researchers and therefore, the idealization of the PPGBio curriculum structure followed the same premise as the original courses. The quality of the orientation of theses and dissertations was also mentioned as a strong point of the Program. Therefore, we have sought to strengthen the group of professors who are involved in graduate activities - supervision, teaching, quality publication and social inclusion.


2. Research Laboratories: The suitability of laboratories for research activities was also reported by the majority as good or very good. In addition to the laboratories coordinated by the professors linked to PPGBio, UFRPE has two major advantages for those who research in the area of ​​biodiversity: 1. CENAPESQ, a multi-user laboratory, which provides expensive equipment and maintenance (ex.: scanning electron microscope ); and 2. Research Program. 


3. Visibility: Program visibility was defined as “average” by most survey respondents. In recent years, the Institution has invested in improving communication channels, and the websites of all PPGs have been standardized and adapted to the main communication needs - such as clarity in the presentation of regulations, forms, models, notices, disciplines, professors, in addition to the archives of the theses and dissertations defended (with the possibility of translation into a foreign language). In 2020, a new version of the website was made available, even more complete, including to meet the new demands of CAPES, such as the presentation of the strategic planning and self-assessment processes of the Programs. The new platform was made available recently, and so it has been powered for a very short time. As a result, we believe that the program's actions will be increasingly to the public. In addition, we have also invested in publicity on social networks - Instagram, Facebook and Youtube channel.


4. Student production: Although we still have a low rate of student production - perhaps one of the main weaknesses of the PPG - with the changes in the monitoring of students both in the PPGB and in the PPGE, which will be continued in the PPGBio, we hope to see positive impact in the medium and long term. Therefore, encouraging student production is seen here as a strong point of our proposal. Among the measures of student monitoring, we cite: the new formatting of the presentation of projects, initially passing through a “high impact” panel, made up of professors with productivity grants from the different lines of research of the program, who judge the idea before the conception of the project itself; the integrated seminars, which  master's and doctoral students throughout the development of the project, in which the evaluators point out alternatives to overcome the difficulties that are being faced by the students; the requirement to prove the submission of manuscripts to obtain the title will help to reduce the rate of students who abandon academic activities soon after the thesis presentation, without ever publishing their results.


5. Affirmative actions and accessibility: In the last three years, the UFRPE PPGs have been including in their public notices inclusive policies, with a quota system for blacks, indigenous people and transsexuals (Resolution 048/2018, available at http://www.prppg. We believe that science should be inclusive and diversity expands the possibilities of meeting the different demands of the population. The buildings where the PPGBio works were recently adapted for accessibility (with elevator, handrails, and guides on the floor for people with low vision), and the secretary's employee received a qualification course in Libras.

WEAKNESSES: The perception of the issues that need to be improved as a whole demonstrates awareness of the scientific quality criteria on the part of the PPGBio professors. The self-assessment of this sector indicates a deficit in two main axes: 1. Low production in high-impact journals (A2/A1) and 2. Few partnerships and international insertion. We understand that, to some extent, these two axes are interconnected and are dependent on teacher qualifications. Therefore, in our strategic planning, we have established clear goals to be achieved in the next two evaluation cycles for the qualification of the faculty, as well as goals for the internationalization of the program. On the other hand, we understand that the Systematics and Evolution line, present in our Program, and which includes basic and descriptive science, despite having a low impact (in terms of citation), negatively influencing production metrics, is essential for knowledge of the biota and to support any and all applied research. In addition, research of local interest is often necessary to solve problems in the region, which is one of the purposes of a graduate program, despite not having an international impact.


The main objective of merging the PPGs was to increase the number of professors of the Program. This is because the number of permanent professors in the two PPGs was low - 14 DP in the PPGB and 16 DP in the PPGE, which often led to a looseness of the criteria for teaching evaluation so that the operation of the Program's activities were not made unfeasible. This number has become very close to what is required as a minimum in the new APCN in the Biodiversity area (13 DP), and generates a direct impact on the metrics of teacher evaluation, since the 4 main productions (with the highest impact) of the 15 most productive professors in the Program. Thus, programs that have less than 15 SD or that of 15, have a margin of professors with low production, end up being harmed. Therefore, expanding the number of permanent professors, bringing together the most active in both Programs, will allow us to establish stricter evaluation criteria - enrrolement, maintenance and granting of vacancies in selection processes.


For this, we will have the follow-up of the Professor Evaluation Commission (CAD), which has structured a database for teacher assessment, including information such as: year of admission to the PPG, whether or not they participate in other PGs, number of titled students, number of guidance in progress, H index, if there is a financed project, record of production equivalent to qualis B3 or higher, and if this has the participation of students or graduates of PPGBio, in addition to the rate of use of the guided course completion works. All professors will be evaluated annually and a report will be presented to the CCD and the Program coordination.