Login or Register to make a submission.

Submission Preparation Checklist

As part of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission's compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.
  • The submission has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal for consideration (or an explanation has been provided in Comments to the Editor).
  • The submission file is in OpenOffice, Microsoft Word, or RTF document file format.
  • Where available, URLs for the references have been provided.
  • The text is single-spaced; uses a 12-point font; employs italics, rather than underlining (except with URL addresses); and all illustrations, figures, and tables are placed within the text at the appropriate points, rather than at the end.
  • The text adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines.

Author Guidelines

2024 Calendar

Abstracts and papers received until 14 of April (extended deadline):
- Will be considered for Urban Creativity conference (if sumbited for GSA, UXUC, CAP, BBDS journals);
- Will be included in the 1st review cycle with publishing predicted for July*;

June 20, 21 and 22 Lisbon - Faculty of Fine Arts / hybrid conference


Papers submited until 30 of August

- Will be included in the 2nd review cycle with publishing predicted for November*;

*depending on the number of accepted papers for each journal;

 

Submission guidelines

1 – Use our Template and write your paper in one of the following formats:
- Conference Abstract (250-300 words);
- Reviews - Short Notes ( ± 500 words);
- Essay - Working Papers ( ± 1000 words);
- Article - Full Papers ( ± 5000 words or more).

Authors can extend the paper length during review process.
The word count includes title, abstract, tables, notes and references.
Each paper can have from none to 15 images (or more if justificable).

2 – Register or, if already registered log in 
​3 - Select "New Submissionand follow the instructions.

Original or revisited research that has not been published elsewhere.
Use English editing service prior to submission.

4 - We start the Blind Peer Review (internal, by journal Scientific Committee);
5 - Acepted papers APC payment or validation is requested (mandatory)
6 - Layout and author(s) last confirmation (during June or November)
7 - Paper is published (until July or until December)

Publication, indexation and DOI
All published papers are Open Access (OA) and have one Digital Object Identifier (DOI). The platform allows the fast indexation of all articles and authors in the most relevant scientific data bases. Some publications will be also available in print, hard copy paper based format (on demand).

Article Processing Charge (APC)
Authors are advised to check with their departments and libraries if funds are available to cover Open Access publication costs. AP2 Journals Article Processing Charge rates are:

- 250 eur for independent researchers 
- 750 euros for institutions (eg, Universities, research centres, corporations)
Here for all payments

The payment must be processed after the  paper acceptance for publication.
The paper will not be processed and published without the respective payment.

Free for authors included in the institutions with agreements, (authors that are members of the scientific committees or other invited authors).
Universities and funding agencies allocate funds to cover article processing charges. We welcome flat rate or post payed agreements (Diamond OA). 
For new agreements email info@ap2.pt referencing the institution department/ person.



Guidelines

Essential title page information
• Title. Concise and informative. Titles are often used in information-retrieval systems. Avoid abbreviations and formulae where possible.
• Author names and affiliations. Where the family name may be ambiguous (e.g., a double name), please indicate this clearly. Present the authors' affiliation addresses (where the actual work was done) below the names. Indicate all affiliations with a lower-case superscript letter immediately after the author's name and in front of the appropriate address. Provide the full postal address of each affiliation, including the country name and, if available, the e-mail address of each author.

Abstract

A concise and factual abstract is required. The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results and major conclusions. An abstract is often presented separately from the article, so it must be able to stand alone. For this reason, References should be avoided, but if essential, then cite the author(s) and year(s). Also, non-standard or uncommon abbreviations should be avoided, but if essential they must be defined at their first mention in the abstract itself.

Keywords
Immediately after the abstract, provide a maximum of 6 keywords, using either British or American spelling, but be consistent, and avoiding general and plural terms and multiple concepts (avoid, for example, "and", "of"). Be sparing with abbreviations: only abbreviations firmly established in the field may be eligible. These keywords will be used for indexing purposes.

Contributors
All authors must have materially participated in the research and/or article preparation, so roles for all authors should be described.

Copyright
This journal will be Open access. Upon acceptance of an article, authors will acknowledge automatic full availability of the content. Authors retain the copyright to their work, licensing it under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-NC). Authors are permitted to post their work online in institutional/disciplinary repositories or on their own websites.

Language
Please write your text in British or American spelling. One spelling must be used consistently throughout the text.

Structure
Subdivision - numbered sections
Divide your article into clearly defined and numbered sections. Subsections should be numbered 1.1 (then 1.1.1, 1.1.2, ...), 1.2, etc. (the abstract is not included in section numbering). Use this numbering also for internal cross-referencing: do not just refer to 'the text'. Any subsection may be given a brief heading. Each heading should appear on its own separate line.

Introduction
State the objectives of the work and provide an adequate background, avoiding a detailed literature survey or a summary of the results.

Conclusions
The main conclusions of the study may be presented in a short Conclusions section, which may stand alone or form a subsection of a Discussion or Results and Discussion section.

Appendices
If there is more than one appendix, they should be identified as A, B, etc. Formulae and equations in appendices should be given separate numbering: Eq. (A.1), Eq. (A.2), etc.; in a subsequent appendix, Eq. (B.1) and so on. Similarly for tables and figures: Table A.1; Fig. A.1, etc.

Acknowledgements
Collate acknowledgements in a separate section at the end of the article before the references and do not, therefore, include them on the title page, as a footnote to the title or otherwise. List here those individuals who provided help during the research (e.g., providing language help, writing assistance or proof reading the article, etc.).

Footnotes
Footnotes should be used sparingly. Number them consecutively throughout the article, using superscript Arabic numbers. Indicate the position of footnotes in the text and present the footnotes themselves separately at the end of the article.

Image Formats
TIFF or JPEG: Color or grayscale photographs (halftones), keep to a minimum of 200 dpi.

Reference Style

Text: All citations in the text should refer to:
1. Single author: the author's name (without initials, unless there is ambiguity) and the year of publication;
2. Two authors: both authors' names and the year of publication;
3. Three or more authors: first author's name followed by 'et al.' and the year of publication. Citations may be made directly (or parenthetically).
Groups of references should be listed first alphabetically, then chronologically. Examples: "as demonstrated (Allan, 1996a, 1996b, 1999; Allan and Jones, 1995). Kramer et al. (2000) have recently shown ...."
Journal titles should be spelled out in full. Personal communications should be cited as such in the text and should not be included in the reference list. Please note the following examples:

Reference to a journal article
Anselin, L., Varga, A., Acs, Z., 1997. Local geographic spillovers between university and high technology innovations, Journal of Urban Economics 42, 442-448.

Reference to a book
Marlow-Ferguson, R., Lopez, C., 2001. World Education Encyclopedia: A Survey of Educational Systems Worldwide, second ed. Thomson Gale, Detroit, MI.

Reference to a chapter in an edited book
Eberts, R.W., McMillen, D.P., 1999. Agglomeration economies and urban public infrastructure, in: Cheshire, P., Mills, E. (Eds.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, vol. 3, in: Applied Urban Economics, Elsevier, New York, pp.1455-1495.

Citing and listing of Web references. As a minimum, the full URL should be given. Any further information, if known (Author names, dates, reference to a source publication, etc.), should also be given.

 

Editorial Procedures and Peer-Review

Initial Checks
All submitted manuscripts received will be checked to determine whether they are properly prepared and whether they follow the ethical policies of the journal. Manuscripts that do not fit the journal's ethics policy or do not meet the standards of the journal will be rejected before peer-review. Manuscripts that are not properly prepared will be returned to the authors for revision and resubmission. After these checks, the Managing Editor will consult the journals’ Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editors to determine whether the manuscript fits the scope of the journal and whether it is scientifically sound. No judgment on the potential impact of the work will be made at this stage. Reject decisions at this stage will be verified by the Editor-in-Chief.

Peer-Review
Once a manuscript passes the initial checks, it will be assigned to one or two reviewers. A double-blind internal, by journal Scientific Committee, review is applied where authors' identities are not known to reviewers. Peer review comments are confidential and will only be disclosed with the express agreement of the reviewer. 

The journal's Editors will meticulously choose all reviewers from journal Scientific Committee for every submitted manuscript, ensuring that they meet the following requirements:

1. Possess a PhD degree and/or hold recognized expertise in the field.
2. Have not collaborated on any publications with the author(s) within the past 5 years.
3. Are not associated with the same institution as the author(s).

The journal's editor(s) will not consider unsolicited applications from scholars seeking to join the pool of reviewers. Instead, the editor(s) will actively select and invite reviewers based on their expertise in the respective field, matching them with relevant submissions for manuscript review.


Editorial Decision and Revision
All the articles, reviews and communications go through the peer-review process. The editor will communicate the decision of the member of the scientitic committee, which will be one of the following:

  • Accept after Minor Revisions:
    The paper is in principle accepted after revision based on the reviewer’s comments. Authors are given five days for minor revisions.
  • Reconsider after Major Revisions:
    The acceptance of the manuscript would depend on the revisions. The author needs to provide a point by point response or provide a rebuttal if some of the reviewer’s comments cannot be revised. Usually, only one round of major revisions is allowed. Authors will be asked to resubmit the revised paper within a suitable time frame, and the revised version will be returned to the reviewer for further comments.
  • Reject and Encourage Resubmission:
    If additional experiments are needed to support the conclusions, the manuscript will be rejected and the authors will be encouraged to re-submit the paper once further experiments have been conducted.

All reviewer comments should be responded to in a point-by-point fashion. Where the authors disagree with a reviewer, they must provide a clear response.

Production and Publication
Once accepted, the manuscript will undergo copy-editing, English editing, proofreading by the authors, final corrections, pagination, and, publication on journals.ap2.pt.

Privacy Statement

The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.

ETHICS AND MALPRACTICE STATEMENT

Our Journals have COPE’s Core Practices for scholarly publishing as reference. It is expected that authors, reviewers and editors will follow these guidelines on ethical conduct.

EDITOR RESPONSIBILITIES

IMPARTIALITY
The editor will assess submissions to the journal based solely on the intellectual content of the manuscripts, without considering factors such as race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s).

EDITORIAL RESPONSIBILITY
The editor of a peer-reviewed journal holds the responsibility of determining the suitability of submitted articles for publication and is accountable for all content published in the journal. When making publishing decisions, the editor takes guidance from the journal's Scientific Committee. If a submitted manuscript raises potential ethical concerns or involves practices that could be ethically problematic, the editor may seek additional review from the journal's ethics coordinator. Collaboration with members of the Scientific Committee is encouraged during publication decisions. The editor upholds the integrity of the academic record, ensures that intellectual and ethical standards are not compromised by business needs, and is committed to publishing necessary corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies.

MAINTAINING CONFIDENTIALITY
The editor and the editorial staff are obligated to maintain strict confidentiality regarding submitted manuscripts. They shall refrain from discussing the contents of a submitted manuscript with anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, and, when necessary, members of the journal's Scientific Committee and the publisher. This confidentiality extends to protecting the identity and personal information of the author and reviewers from each other, as part of ensuring the integrity of the double-blind review process employed by the journal.

DISCLOSURE, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, AND ADDITIONAL MATTERS
The editor do adhere to the guidelines provided by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) when evaluating the need for retracting articles, expressing concerns, and issuing corrections relating to published articles. Confidential information or ideas obtained through the peer review process shall be treated as privileged and shall not be exploited for personal gain.

ENSURING EDITORIAL INDEPENDENCE
The editor is dedicated to upholding the integrity of editorial decisions by ensuring that advertising, reprinting, or any other commercial revenue sources do not exert influence. The editor strives to maintain a fair and appropriate peer review process. In situations where conflicts of interest arise due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with authors, companies, or institutions associated with the submitted manuscripts, editors will recuse themselves from the evaluation process and refer the manuscript to a member of the Scientific Committee for review. Editors also require all contributors to disclose any relevant competing interests, and corrections shall be published if competing interests are revealed after publication. If necessary, appropriate actions, such as retractions or expressions of concern, will be taken.

ENGAGEMENT AND COLLABORATION IN INVESTIGATIONS
Editors have a responsibility to uphold the integrity of the published record by promptly addressing and rectifying any necessary corrections or retractions. They are committed to investigating suspected or alleged instances of research and publication misconduct. Editors actively pursue cases of reviewer and editorial misconduct as well. Furthermore, editors take appropriate and responsive actions when ethical complaints are raised regarding a submitted manuscript or a published paper.


RESPONSIBILITIES OF REVIEWERS

CONTRIBUTION TO EDITORIAL DECISIONS
Peer review plays a crucial role in assisting the editor with editorial decisions and should also aim to help authors improve their manuscripts through editorial communication.

TIMELINESS
If an invited referee feels inadequate to review a manuscript for any reason or anticipates being unable to review it within the given timeframe, they should promptly notify the editor. This allows for the engagement of alternative reviewers.

CONFIDENTIALITY
All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers are prohibited from showing or discussing manuscripts with others unless authorized by the editor. In such cases, all communication regarding the manuscript must go through the editor.

STANDARDS OF OBJECTIVITY
Reviews should be conducted objectively, and personal criticisms of the author are unacceptable. Reviewers should express their opinions clearly, supported by appropriate arguments. To ensure an objective and comprehensive review process, a manuscript may be reviewed by multiple reviewers simultaneously.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SOURCES
Reviewers should identify relevant published works that have not been cited by the authors. Any statement referring to a previously reported observation, derivation, or argument should be accompanied by the appropriate citation. Reviewers should also bring to the editor's attention any substantial similarities or overlaps between the manuscript under review and other published data within their personal knowledge.

ETHICAL CONCERNS
If a submitted manuscript contains information that could raise ethical concerns or if the reviewer deems the underlying work to involve potential ethical issues, they should inform the editor. The editor may subsequently refer the submission to the journal's ethics coordinator for further review.

DISCLOSURE AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of privileged information or ideas acquired through the peer review process and refrain from using them for personal gain. Reviewers should recuse themselves from evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest, such as competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the submission.

 

 

RESPONSIBILITIES OF AUTHORS

REPORTING STANDARDS
Authors of original research must provide an accurate account of the research process and present an objective discussion of its significance. The manuscript should accurately represent the underlying data, and it should include sufficient detail and references to allow others to critically assess the findings and replicate the research. Any fraudulent or deliberately inaccurate statements or misrepresentations of research results are considered unethical and may result in disciplinary measures, potentially including exclusion from publishing.

ORIGINALITY AND PLAGIARISM
Authors are responsible for producing and submitting entirely original works. If authors have used the work of others, they must appropriately acknowledge and cite those sources in the submitted manuscript.

MULTIPLE, REDUNDANT, OR CONCURRENT PUBLICATION
Authors should generally not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals or publication outlets without the agreement of all involved editors is considered unethical publishing behavior and may result in disciplinary measures, potentially including exclusion from publishing.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SOURCES
Authors must always provide full and correct citations for any sources used in the research and manuscript. Additionally, authors should acknowledge any significant indirect influences relevant to the submitted manuscript.

AUTHORSHIP OF A MANUSCRIPT
Authorship should be limited to those who have made substantial contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the manuscript. All significant contributors should be listed as co-authors. If others have participated in specific substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged in the manuscript's Acknowledgement section. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all appropriate co-authors (as per the above definition) are included in the author list, and that all co-authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication.

HAZARDS AND HUMAN OR ANIMAL SUBJECTS
If the submitted article is based on work that involves hazardous chemicals, procedures, equipment, or experiments with human or animal subjects, the author must clearly indicate this when submitting the manuscript. The author must also provide any necessary proof of approval from an independent ethics committee. Even if the work has been reviewed by a local ethics committee, the journal editor may refer the submission to the journal's ethics coordinator for further review.

DISCLOSURE AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
All authors must explicitly disclose any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that could potentially influence the results or interpretation of the data in their manuscript. Any sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed.

FUNDAMENTAL ERRORS IN PUBLISHED WORKS
If an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work, they are obligated to promptly inform the journal's editor(s) and cooperate in either retracting the paper or publishing an appropriate erratum.

PUBLISHER'S CONFIRMATION
In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism, the publisher, in collaboration with the editor(s), will take appropriate measures to investigate and address the situation. This may include promptly publishing an erratum or, in severe cases, retracting the affected work entirely.