About us

Complete title of the journal

Ex aequo - Journal of the Portuguese Women’s Studies Association

Ex æquo is a scientific, interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary double blind 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.

Portuguese Women’s Studies Association - APEM
ERC registry number: 123506

Afrontamento Publisher

Objectives of the journal
To promote the development, visibility and legitimacy of knowledge produced in the framework of Women’s Studies/Gender Studies/Feminist Studies
To facilitate contacts among all those pursuing research in the framework of these studies, both in the academia as well as at government level and in civic or cultural organisations
To contribute to the on-going debate on the situation of women and on gender equality in Portuguese society

Areas of interest of the journal
An interdisciplinary journal in the area of Women’s Studies, Gender Studies and Feminist Studies

History of the journal
The journal ex aequo was created by the Portuguese Association on Women’s Studies in 1999. It was a thematic journal until 2007, dealing with themes within areas such as Philosophy, Social Psychology, Sociology, History, Anthropology, Theology, Communication Sciences, Law, Sports, Theatre, Plastic Arts, Educational Sciences, Political Science, Health and Economics. 
After 2007 ex aequo changed its thematic character. Each number now includes a Thematic Dossier, a section of Studies and Essays and a section of Bibliographical reviews. 
The journal has mainly dealt with social problems and social dimensions such as citizenship practices, sports, literary production, social representations, scientific research, democracy and political participation, media, associative activities and work and employment. 
The journal was published by Celta Publishers from 1999 until 2003 and started to be published by Afrontamento Publishers in 2004, thus making possible to keep it present in commercial circles.

Abbreviated title
Ex æquo

Other information
The site of APEM contains information on all the numbers that have been published, including the respective covers, tables of contents, full text of Editorials and abstracts of articles
Information Services

Included in

SciELO Citation Index da Thomson Reuters

Latindex – Sistema Regional de Información en Línea para Revistas Científicas de América Latina, el Caribe, España y Portugal (Regional information system on line for scientific journals in Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal):

Listed in:

Virtual Library of Women's History ( )
Richard C. Ramer Old & Rare Books (


FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (

Ethics and Good Practices Commitment

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:

Editor Responsibilities

Editors' decisions to accept or reject an article for publication are based on the guidelines of the journal (available at: ) 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:;

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.

Reporting standards

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.

Publisher Responsibilities

Editorial autonomy.

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.

Scientific misconduct.

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.