Submissions

Author Guidelines

Please read the guidelines below before submitting your manuscript. Please note that manuscripts that do not comply with these guidelines may be returned.

Análise Social is a Diamond Open Access journal. It does not charge submission fees, page charges or an article processing charge (ACP) if accepted.

The opinions expressed in papers published in Análise Social are those of the author(s) and do not represent the opinion(s) or policy(s) of the Instituto de Ciências Sociais of the Universidade de Lisboa or the editor(s) of the journal.

1. What do we publish?

1.1 Aims & Scope

Before submitting your manuscript to Análise Social, please make sure you have read the ‘About the journal' section.

1.2 Article Types

Análise Social operates with a range of manuscript types. All manuscripts are considered for publication on the condition that they have that they are not under consideration elsewhere. Submission of preprints is accepted.

The main manuscript types are as follows:

1.2.1 Research Articles

1. Research Articles should generally contain between 7,000 and 9,000 words (including all notes, tables, figures and references).
2. Articles published in Análise Social are refereed. The Editorial Board screens submissions for suitability for the journal. After this screening process, articles are sent for critical evaluation by at least two blind reviewers. The refereeing process is blind, so contributors should take care to remove any indications of authorship.
3. The publication language is Portuguese or English. In exceptional cases, Spanish will also be accepted.
4. The reviewing process usually takes about 6 to 8months, but can sometimes take longer.

1.2.2 Review Articles

1. Normally review articles are 4,000 to 6,000 words long (including all notes, tables, figures and references).
2. Review articles can be of a single important book, a series of books or journal articles on a particular topic, or a more general review of a particular field or emergent area.
3. They are commented on by editorial board members and associate editors and occasionally blind-refereed.

1.2.3.Forum

The Análise Social Forum section offers a platform for critical reflections, inviting scientists and experts to share their opinions and analyses on emerging trends in the Social Sciences or to revisit classic works from fresh perspectives. The texts for the Forum section are primarily by invitation from the editors, although unsolicited submissions are encouraged. Interviews are accepted solely by invitation. Submissions to this section may be subject to peer review at the editors' discretion.

Material for this section may take the following formats:

• Perspectives: This format welcomes submissions that highlight recent, exciting research and emerging themes of broad interest, without primarily focusing on the author’s own work. Typically, Perspectives should be authored by a single individual and should be around 2,500 words long, with a maximum of 15 references and 1 figure or table.
• Debate hosts a structured, moderated discussion that brings together 2 to 5 diverse viewpoints on relevant topics, whether exploring new methodological debates or examining the intersections between social sciences and societal issues with potential policy impacts. The ideal structure includes a brief introduction by the moderator and is organized around 1 to 3 guiding questions, with an option to include a concluding section. The total length of the debate, including all contributions, cannot exceed 10,000 words.
• Expert Voices - Interviews is design to present a more conversational discussion with an expert, allowing them to share their perspective and insights on issues arising in a particular field. The maximum length should not overcome 3,000 words.

1.2.4 Book Reviews

Análise Social publishes Book reviews of up to 1500 words.

 It also welcomes the submission of books for review.

Address: Revista Análise Social, Instituto de Ciências Sociais da Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Prof. Aníbal de  Bettencourt, 9, 1600-189 Lisboa.

1.2.5 Special Issue/Special Section Articles

Análise Social regularly produces special issues and sections. We welcome proposals from prospective guest editors.

How to Submit a Proposal

1. Please email your Special Issue/Special Section Proposal to social@ics.ulisboa.pt
2. The proposal needs to provide a rationale (1000-1,500 words in length), outlining the main thematic areas to be addressed, including a specific section on the proposal’s fit with the aims and scope of the journal. The proposal should include draft titles and abstracts of articles, along with biographical notes for authors and editors.
3. Análise Social aims to turn around all proposals within three to six months. During this time, we may need to obtain reviews from external referees, which can take up more time.

Length

1. A special issue should normally contain 7-10 articles (between 7,000 and 8,000 words, including all notes, tables, figures and references)).
2. A special section should normally contain 4-5 articles (between 7,000 and 8,000 words, including all notes, tables, figures and references).
3. It is expected that editors of both special issues and sections will provide full-length introductions (3000-5,000 words for special issues and special sections).

 Pre-submission Editing

It is expected that Special Issue and Special Section Editors will have reviewed and commented on drafts of all papers prior to submission. This may require some authors to produce substantially revised versions before submission for review. Such an approach will help to ensure that the papers are of an appropriate standard and ready for peer review. It is also important that authors present work that is both relevant to the theme of the special issue and sufficiently connected to the overall aims and scope of the journal.

Submission Procedure

It is advisable to ensure that papers are submitted at approximately the same time. 

It is normally expected that all papers will be submitted within 6 months of acceptance of the proposal.  If there is a long period of inactivity after acceptance of the proposal - a year or more - it will be assumed that the issue will not take place.  If the Special Issue Editors wish to reactivate the Special Issue after this period, a new proposal will be required.

Refereeing procedures

Once a proposal has been accepted, each article must be submitted separately by the authors.

Análise Social uses a double-blind peer review system for all manuscripts. Each manuscript is read by the Area Editor, who makes a preliminary assessment. This assessment is based on the following criteria

- Original theoretical or empirical contribution with relevance to one or more of the disciplinary areas favoured by Análise Social;

- Adequate formal structure, including relevant thematic sections, following the journal's referencing system (see Stylebook), an up-to-date and complete bibliography, and adequate quality of writing;

- Respect for ethical aspects;

- Suitability of the article's subject or topic to the audience and thematic scope of Análise Social.

If the manuscript is deemed suitable for publication, it will be sent to at least two external referees on the Editorial Board. If both referees give a positive opinion, the manuscript is considered for publication. In cases where one or more referees make their acceptance conditional on (minimal or substantial) changes to the text, acceptance of the manuscript is subject to these changes being made within the deadline set by the Editor. Authors of accepted manuscripts will be given the opportunity to approve proofs before final publication.

In the case of special issues and thematic sections, the organisers are invited to appoint a number of reviewers who should be available to assist in the review process. Articles will also be peer-reviewed by regular reviewers. Issue and Special Section organisers will receive the reviewers' reports and will have the opportunity to provide feedback and ask questions before final decisions are made on the articles. Issue and Special Issue organisers may also send their own comments and additional guidance to authors.

The final decision on each article will be made by the Editors and the Editorial Board in accordance with the journal's normal peer review procedures.

2. Preparing your manuscript

2.1 Authorship

All parties who have made a substantial contribution to the article should be listed as authors. Lead authorship, order of authorship, and other publication credits should be based on the relative scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved, regardless of their status. A student will normally be listed as lead author on any multi-authored publication that is substantially derived from the student's thesis or dissertation.

In the case of interviews, the interviewer will be listed as an author; unless the interviewee has contributed to the article by emailing responses or helping to edit the manuscript, they will not be listed as an author. Please note that AI chatbots, for example ChatGPT, should not be listed as authors. For more information see the Análise Social policy on Use of ChatGPT and generative AI tools.

2.2 Acknowledgements

All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an Acknowledgements section. Examples of those who might be acknowledged include a person who provided purely technical help, or a department chair who provided only general support.

Please supply any personal acknowledgements separately to the main text to facilitate anonymous peer review.

2.3. Ethics

The journal follows COPE’s guidelines (Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines. The editors will prevent plagiarism, falsification, or citation manipulation using the plagiarism detection software Urkund.

See our section on Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.

2.4. Submission process – Author Guidelines

1. The article should be uploaded as the 'main document', and begin with the title, a 150-word abstract and four to six keywords. A cover page file must also be prepared and it should include include the article's title, the author’s name, institutional affiliation, e-mail, postal address, Orcid, and a biographical note not exceeding 100 words. For papers with several authors, provide complete information for each author and indicate the corresponding author.
2. The disciplinary and/or thematic area(s) of the proposed paper should also be explicitly indicated by the author(s) in the Cover Page.
3. Research articles, Review articles and Debates & Comments must be accompanied by a 100-word abstract and four keywords in the language in which they are written and in English.
4. All information concerning the author, such as self-citations or references to previous works, must be blinded, both in the text and in the final bibliography, in order to guarantee anonymity. For example, the in-text citation of an article published by the author of the manuscript Maria Santos in 2021, should read: (Author 2021). The citation for this article should read  “Author     (2021)” in the list of bibliographic references.
5. Notes must be numbered. All tables, figures, illustrations, maps, etc. must be numbered and identified with a title in the place where they should be inserted in the text. The bibliography should be included at the end of the text, alphabetically ordered,  and must contain only those sources actually cited.
6. Citations and references should be made in the following way: “(Pinto, 2002)” when referring to a work in general; “(Pinto, 2002, pp. 32-33)” when citing a specific feature or reproducing a direct quotation; “Pinto (2002a)” when referring to one of two or more works of Pinto that appear in the bibliography; “Pinto and Ferreira (2003)” and Pinto, Ferreira and Sousa (2003), when referring to a work having two or three authors; “Pinto et al. (2002)” when referring to a work having more than three authors.
7. Citations in the bibliography should follow these examples:

Books

• PINTO, J. M. (2007), Indagação Científica, Aprendizagens Escolares e Reflexividade Social, Porto, Afrontamento.

Collections

• PROSSER, J. (ed.) (2000), Image-based Research — A Sourcebook for Qualitative Researchers, Londres, Routledge and Falmer Press.

Articles in collections

• EISENSTADT, S. N. (2005), “Axial civilizations and the Axial Age reconsidered”. In J. P. Arnason, S. N. Eisenstadt, B. Wittrock (eds.), Axial Civilizations and World History, Leiden, Brill, pp. 531-564.

Articles in journals

• PARR, J. B. (2004), “The polycentric urban region: a closer inspection”. Regional Studies, 38 (3), pp. 231-240.

Online Publications

• COFFEY, A., HOLBROOK, B., ATKINSON, P. (1996), “Qualitative data analysis: technologies and representations”. Sociological Research Online, 1(1), Disponível em, em 31-1-2006.
• MOREY, C. C. et al. (2015), “The color-sharing bonus: roles of perceptual organization and attentive processes in visual working memory”. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 3, 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000014.

Doctoral Dissertations

• FIDALGO, J. M. (2006), O Lugar da Ética e da Auto-Regulação na Identidade Profissional dos Jornalistas. Tese de doutoramento, Braga, Instituto de Ciências Sociais, Universidade do Minho.

Reprinted Historical Sources

• ESPINOSA, B. (1988 [1670]), Tratado Teológico-Político (trad. D. P. Aurélio), Lisboa, Imprensa Nacional-Casa da Moeda.

 3. On acceptance and publication

3.1 Revising your paper after peer-review

The revised version of your paper should show all the changes you have made and should be accompanied by a revision letter explaining these changes and responding to the referees.

When revising an article for publication in Análise Social, please make sure that all changes to the original article are highlighted. The best way to highlight changes is to use the Microsoft (MS) Word Track Changes feature.

If the revisions are too extensive for Track Changes to be useful, please highlight in yellow the sections of the text that have been most extensively revised.

Revised papers will be re-reviewed, usually by the original group of reviewers.

To maintain anonymity, please ensure that any changes you make do not reveal your name, abbreviated or otherwise, in the automatic tags. To do this, go to the track changes function in MS Word and either 'remove all tags' to make changes anonymous, or change your username to something like 'author'.

The refereeing process should again take around three to six months.

3.2 For Papers Accepted with Minor Revisions

1. All minor revisions to papers should be highlighted in the same way as described above for revised papers. This will allow deletions and new material to be visible to the editors and will assist the reviewers in reviewing the revised version. It will also help Board members to check that the required revisions have been made.
2. Papers accepted with minor revisions will not normally be returned to the original referees, but will be commented on by members of the Editorial Board.
3. The refereeing process should take about one to three months.

 3. 3. Accepted Papers

Proofs will normally be sent out to contributors approximately three months before the issue goes to press.

3.4 Key to Editorial Decision Categories

ACCEPT: Your article has been accepted.

AMR (ACCEPT WITH MINOR REVISIONS): Your article will be accepted upon satisfactory completion of minor revisions. The revised version of the article will not be sent for peer-review but will be considered directly by the editorial board.

REVISE: Your article must be revised and the revision sent again for peer-review (normally to the same set of referees) before it can be considered again by the editorial board.

RESUBMIT: Your article has not been accepted, but requires a radical rethinking and recasting, not just major changes. You are encouraged to rethink the paper along the lines suggested and resubmit it as a new article. It will then be sent again for peer-review (normally to a new set of referees) before it can be considered again by the editorial board.

REJECT: Your article has been rejected.