About the Journal

RPER (Revista Portuguesa de Estudos Regionais / Portuguese Review of Regional Studies) is a publication from the Portuguese Association for Regional Development (APDR).

Focus and Scope

The main purpose of RPER is to publish the results of the most recent research produced in the aim of the interdisciplinary area of Regional Science, embracing regional, local and urban studies.

RPER was originally created to be a privileged medium for presenting the results of research conducted in various Universities and research centers, and reporting practices employed in local and regional public administration bodies, so that experiences can be exchanged and further discussed.

The Review aims attaining an audience of academics and other professionals dealing with various space and territory issues: economists, urban planners, geographers, sociologists, engineers, etc.

The geographical reference in the name of the journal only means that the journal is an initiative of Portuguese scholars, acting in the aim of the Portuguese Association for Regional Development (APDR). There is no bias in favour of particular topics and issues. We enforce a rigorous, fair and prompt refereeing process of the papers submitted.

The RPER is a journal indexed in EconLit (and associated bases: JEL on CD, e-JEL and Journal of Economic Literature), Qualis (Brazil), Latindex, DOAJ, AskBisht and  Scopus.

In what regards Scopus, the metrics of the Journal are as follows:
- SJR (SCImago Journal Rank) (2024): 0.156
- Cite Score (% Cited) (2024): 0.5
- H index (2024): 9

Peer Review Process

Submissions to RPER are subject to a double-blind peer-review process. The peer-review process is organized by the journal's editorial team. Every article submitted to RPER will be screened by the editors for plagiarism by use of appropriate the software. Any issues arising there will be dealt with by the editorial team. Only contributions that are original, assessed by the reviewers and editors can be published in RPER.

Manuscripts will be evaluated exclusively on the basis of their scientific merit (importance, originality, study’s validity, clarity) and its relevance to the journal’s scope. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of the publication of that content.

Once the paper and its metadata have been registered by the author at the RPER website, as a first step, the paper will be reviewed by the Editor-in-chief or by one of Associate Editors to check if its content is alignment with the topics the journal deals with, and if it is in compliance with the style guide adopted. If the text is not aligned with the scientific topics of the journal, it will be rejected and the authors will be informed of the reason for that. In case of non-compliance with the style guide, the author will be informed of the need for correction and the deadline (ordinarily, no more than 15 days) to make it.

Once this first phase has been completed, an editor is assigned who will be responsible for selecting reviewers (at least two) and monitoring the assessment process. The review process will begin as soon as two reviewers have agree to assess the paper. The reviewers are invited to provide their assessment on the paper within a 30 days’ time span.

Once the two reviewers’ assessment received, in phase 3, the editor will decide to accept the paper as it is, claiming that minor or major revisions are made, or rejecting it, based on the reviewers’ reports and his/her editorial review, after one or more rounds of review. In the case a major revision is claimed to be performed, a time limit of 90 days will be established. If accepted for publication, the final version of the paper will undergo a final check by both the editor and the authors.

Publication Frequency

This journal publishes 3 regular issues per year. Articles will be published as they become ready for publication to ensure that new content is available to the scientific community as early as possible. 

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Although the Portuguese Review of Regional Studies (RPER) is not a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), its Editorial Board decided to adhere to the principles of the COPE Code of Conduct, from January 1st 2012 onwards.

Plagiarism

Plagiarism can be defined as using someone else’s work as his/her own without due acknowledgement and constitutes a serious breach of ethics and academic integrity. Any reference to another’s work should be properly referenced.

Plagiarism can occur in many ways, including by quoting or paraphrasing another’s work without proper acknowledgement, copying and pasting from online resources, using someone else’s research as his/her own work without referencing it or outright submitting another’s work as his/her own or not giving to the author(s) proper recognition. Also images, tables, codes, drawings are susceptible to plagiarism and, thus, his/her/their original authors should be properly identified.

If any sort of submission, in its entirety or partially body, is suspected to having been plagiarized, it is up to the editor to make the necessary inquiries. In cases of proved plagiarism we reserve the right to reject the submission or retract it, if it has been already published.

Access and fees applied to users and authors

RPER is a journal published under full open access, and uses the standardized Creative Commons CC BY-NC license. This means that all content is freely available without financial charges to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. They have, of course, to acknowledge properly the documents source. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access.

It should also be noted that the authors of the submitted articles and the articles accepted for publication do not incur in any fees.

Editors' responsibilities

Publication decision

The editor of the journal is responsible for deciding which of the submitted articles are published. The editor is guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board and constrained by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making the decision, as established in the section on the peers review process.

Fair play

Submitted manuscripts are evaluated for their intellectual content without regard to age, race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality

The editor and anyone else who has access to a submitted manuscript (editorial staff) must not disclose any information about the manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, and other editorial advisors, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in the own research of an editor or a member of the editorial staff without the explicit written consent of the author(s). Editors will recuse themselves managing the editorial process of  (i.e., should  ask a co-editor or a member of the editorial board to do it) manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the paper.

Reviewers' responsibilities

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author and may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and helps maintain scientific quality.

Promptness

Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research presented in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor in due time and excuse him/herself from the reviewing process.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the Editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published material of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.

Authors' responsibilities

Reporting standards

Authors presenting results of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be presented accurately in the manuscript. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

Originality and plagiarism

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgement of sources

Proper acknowledgement of the work of others must always be given. Authors should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where others have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be named in an Acknowledgement section.

The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or another substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation of the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her published work, the author must promptly notify the editor and cooperate with the editor to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.