T he PSR
Portuguese Studies Review

ISSN 1057-1515
Appearing since 1991
Formerly published by the ICGP (International Conference Group on Portugal)
The PSR is an international academic forum for the study of countries, regions, communities, and institutions sharing, exploring, transforming, or developing a Portuguese, Brazilian, or other Luso-related heritage  
Multi-lingual peer-reviewed research journal. Articles, review essays, and book reviews in English, Portuguese, French, and Spanish    

Submission of Materials

PSR Manuscript Submission Streamlined Checklist
If you can answer YES to all of the following, your manuscript is ready to be e-mailed to the Review, as attachment(s). Short, simple, no complications.

1. Submission is in .odt (OpenOffice), .doc., or .docx file format YES or NO
2. Submission includes separate cover page file with author's name, institutional affiliation, phone and/or fax numbers, and e-mail. The body of the work does not contain any personal identification elements, to speed up double-blind peer review YES or NO
3. Submission includes c. 150-word abstract, in the language of the paper YES or NO
4. Submission in Portuguese, Spanish, or French includes an English abstract YES or NO
5. Footnote format complies with PSR style (for details, see here ) YES or NO
6. Submission is accompanied by signed copy of author copyright release (available for printing or download here ). Attach a signed image to your e-mail (your can save "as image" from almost any "office" suite, of whatever make and flavour) YES or NO
7. All accompanying graphs are mounted into the file WITH full embedded underlying data for all series or datapoints, not as simple JPGs or other image formats*  
8. All accompanying art-work (maps, drawings, diagrams, etc.) is to PSR specifications (for instructions see here ) YES or NO
9. My abstract and article are NOT a machine-translation into another language (for details see here ) YES or NO

Please be aware that if your text does not meet the requirements of PSR format (footnotes, note format), you may have to be billed for the actual work-time cost of note format adjustment and other changes. Most journals, whether print or on-line, request that their preferred note format be respected. So does the PSR. There is really no difference between hard copy print or online (streamed text), when it comes to notes -- required format remains required format. Recoding for digital streaming does not change that in any way or fashion. Also, the more your text is "ready-to-go" the faster it will get published.

The requirement at Point 7 reflects the fact that the PSR has been repeatedly receiving quantitative graph files embedded in the text of submissions as low quality images (generally low density JPGs). Such images may work just fine in your conference or lecture-hall PowerPoint, but they typically are not ready for print, or may become illegible when reduced to actual page size. We need to be able to reformat your graphs completely, if necessary, and that means having the embedded quantitative data accessible together with your graph. Please, when submitting quantitative graphs, submit the graph with the spreadsheet that contains the data from which your graph has been generated. It will save time, all around. Otherwise we have to contact you, and ask for the spreadsheet with the embedded graph anyway.

Please avoid sending larger files (over 1 Mb in size) to our general e-mailbox. At the very least ZIP-compress your large files. It is easy. It also protects your file integrity to some extent, during e-mail transit. Or post the files on any of the numerous cloud servers or for-free file storages, anywhere on Planet Earth, from where we can pull them (e-mail us the URL, have the service notify us that you posted the files, whatever). Or post the files on a university server where you have allocated space, and send us a public URL to the specific files. Whatever happens to work. You can also FTP files to us (old-style procedure, last century). For FTP access instructions, contact the Editors.

PSR Retractions and Corrections
In accordance with current trends in academic publishing, the PSR has instituted a formal procedure for retractions as well as for amendments and corrections after publication. All such measures have serious implications. They procedure is designed so that it could not (a) be used frivolously, or (b) activated to resolve entirely trivial situations such as "oh, I still wanted to add this and change that ... ."

A full or partial retraction or a targeted post-publication correction is thus not something to be used on a whim or because one no longer happens to like what one wrote several years earlier. It is likewise a procedure that cannot be initiated by an academic publisher without due process. A retraction remains a very serious matter, a solution of last resort, only when other ways of setting the record straight will no longer work.

Our retractions and corrections procedure is shaped by the following context. The PSR disagrees with recent proposals to coin semantic novelty terms to replace "retraction," terms which would presumably make it somehow easier for researchers, universities, and journals to signal errors. This amounts to sheer obfuscation. We dissent from suggestions such as “You have to change the language” (a suggestion made e.g. Nicholas Steneck, Head of Research Ethics and Integrity Program, Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research, Ann Arbor). Too much language is already being changed to no good purpose, all around, just so that someone, somewhere, for some reason, would not feel too bad or could save face or could assuage volatile emotions or could exploit a situation for deliberately litigious purposes.

There is absolutely no need to proliferate novelty terms and "change the language" just to find yet another face-saving way around things that are perfectly normal. The PSR adheres in this respect to standard dictionary meanings. They work. "Retraction" (full or partial) or a post-publication "correction" do not automatically connote fraud or anything unethical, at all. If certain academic bureaucracies think the contrary, they are merely cutting conceptual corners and weaponizing words for use in Personnel Committee turf wars. This is their collective conceptual and political problem. It is not and never will be an issue of impartial reality. Inadvertent and trivial mistakes happen. Learning from mistakes is inherent in the process of becoming a better scholar. The process is lifelong. Everyonr benefits from a benign error having been spotted, properly signalled, and explained.

There are many reasons for an eventual retraction, in those cases where resolution clearly cannot be achieved by publishing a follow-up, an update, or a work that candidly addresses previous shortcomings. Forced retraction (initiated by an academic publisher or by whistleblowers, for instance) is only the most extreme eventuality. At the other end of the spectrum can be one's own profound realization that one has made serious mistakes and that fundamentally one no longer supports or can defend the data and/or the conclusions. Such a retraction, requested by the author(s), can be entirely voluntary. Yes, a full-scale retraction is rarely good. It rarely passes without repercussions, unlike a simple correction. The entire scholarly community would be better served, however, by candid retractions of ultimately unsustainable arguments. At least we would signal to each other that we are able to rise above our own limitations.






PSR Background | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | ©2013-2017 | Portuguese Studies Review and Baywolf Press / Éditions Baywolf | Updated 08 December 2017