• Complete title of the journal
• Objectives of the journal
• Areas of interest of the journal
• History of the journal
• Abbreviated title
Web of Science – Clarivate Analytics (através do SciELO Citation Index)
SciELO/Portugal – Scientific Eletronic Library Online
DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) - https://doaj.org/toc/2184-0385
Catálogo Latindex – Sistema Regional de Información en Línea para Revistas Científicas de América Latina, el Caribe, España y Portugal - http://www.latindex.unam.mx/latindex/ficha?folio=14734
ERIH PLUS (European Reference Index for the Humanities) - https://dbh.nsd.uib.no/publiseringskanaler/erihplus/periodical/info?id=482587
Qualis CAPES (Brasil) - https://qualis.capes.gov.br/
SHERPA/RoMEO - http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/issn/0874-5560/pt
FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
ex æquo is a scientific, interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary peer reviewed journal open to contributions of multiple disciplines and currents of thought. ex æquo , while keeping a plurality and multiplicity of perspectives in the texts published, reserves the right only to accept manuscripts that respect the fundamental Human Rights in line with the value of diversity of the human beings as well as their integrity and dignity. The journal ex æquo is published by the Portuguese Women's Studies Association (APEM), thus bound by its mission to support and promote the Women's Studies/Gender Studies/ Feminist Studies in all fields.
The principles of ex æquo are upheld in those of the Declaration of Ethics and Good Practice, following the rules of the Committee on Publication Ethics (available at: http://publicationethics.org/).
Editors' decisions to accept or reject an article for publication are based on the guidelines of the journal (available at: http://exaequo.apem-estudos.org/page/submissao-de-artigos?lingua=en) as well as by the legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
Provide guidance to invited editors, authors and reviewers on their role, as well as clarification on the peer review process;
Inform the new members of the editorial boards on their functions, journal practices and projects being launched;
Guarantee that articles evaluation is based only on its scientific and intellectual merit, regardless of factors such as race, age, sex, sexual orientation, disability, ethnic origin, religion, nationality, social class or political orientation of the author(s);
Ensure that the peer review process is anonymous (double-blind peer review), fair, accurate and impartial and that all information concerning it remains confidential. Ensuring at the same time the protection of the identity of both authors and reviewers;
Developing and maintaining an updated database of suitable reviewers;
Ensuring that appropriate reviewers are selected in each new edition of the journal;
Ensuring that the unpublished materials are not used in research carried out by members of the Editorial Boards without the express written consent of the author(s);
Timely respond to any complaints about a submitted or published article. If any suspicion exists, should be followed the proceedings presented in the flowcharts in COPE (available at: http://publicationethics.org/files/Full%20set%20of%20flowcharts.pdf);
Always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.
Good practices for editors should consider
Auscultate the views of authors, readers, reviewers and editorial board members about ways of improving the ex æquo journal.
Encouraging and being aware of research into peer review and publishing and reassessing the ex æquo journal processes in the light of new findings.
Always supporting initiatives to educate researchers about publication ethics.
Assessing the effects of the ex æquo journal policies on authors and reviewers encouraging responsible behaviour and discouraging misconduct.
Ensuring that all published reports and reviews of research have been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers (including statistical review where appropriate) who are able to judge the work and are free from disqualifying competing interests.
Respecting requests from authors to exclude someone from reviewing their submission, if these are well reasoned.
Encouraging reviewers to comment on the originality of submissions and to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism monitoring the performance of peer reviewers and taking steps to ensure this is of high standard.
Scientific board Responsibilities
Supporting the Editorial Board in interpreting and guiding editorial policy of the ex æquo ;
Ensuring that appropriate reviewers are selected for submissions (i.e. individuals qualified in the relevant areas of expertise);
Forging links with potential reviewers to the peer review process and in situations in which articles gave conflicting advice or other questions, analyse opinions and, based on them, recommends rejection or publication of original;
Disseminating the calls for proposals within their network.
Contributing to the dissemination of the ex æquo ;
Participating in the Scientific Committee meetings that may be convened.
Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review helps the editorial board in decision making and may also contribute to the improving of manuscript by the authors.
Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or who knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
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 editorial board.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author(s) is inacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the author(s). Reviewers should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.
Conflict 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.
Authorship of the paper
The authorship referrers to those who have made a significantly contribution to the study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Authors reporting results of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements are unacceptable. The journal rules must be strictly observed .
Originality and plagiarism
The author(s) should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that they has been appropriately cited or quoted.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
Authors should not concurrently submit articles describing essentially the same research or submitting the same article to more than one journal. This constitutes unethical publishing behaviour.
Fundamental Errors in Published Works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her submitted manuscript, s/he must immediately notify the editors.
The published articles will be removed if reviewers, readers, librarians, publishers or other subjects noticed a significant errors or plagiarism. Before removing an article, editorial board should talk with authors and should provide enough time to have authors' explanation. If the decision is to remove the article, then it follows: the article in the journal database should be removed; the link in online publication site should also be removed; the announcement should be visible in this article online location, including in the APEM's website, and a reference should be made in the next issue.
The publisher defines clearly the respective roles of publisher and of editors in order to ensure the autonomy of editorial decisions, without influence from advertisers or other commercial partners.
Intellectual property and copyright.
The publisher must protect the intellectual property and copyright, its imprints, authors and publishing partners by promoting and maintaining record of each article's published version. Advocate a transparency of each published article with respect to: conflicts of interest, publication and research funding, publication and research ethics, cases of publication and research misconduct, confidentiality, authorship, article corrections, clarifications and retractions, and timely publication of content.
In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all the appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of a correction statement or erratum or, in the most severe cases, the retraction of the affected work.
© 2018 Associação Portuguesa de Estudos sobre as Mulheres - APEM
Centro Maria Alzira Lemos
Casa das Associações, Parque do Alvito
Estrada do Alvito, Lisboa 1300-054