Processing and Publication Fees

RESR charges submission/processing and publication fees to fund the journal’s editorial and publishing process. For more information, visit our processing charges page.

Preprints and Other Previous Publications

RESR accepts the following forms of prior publication of the article or part of its content, recognizing the need for rapid communication and dissemination of scientific knowledge in the field, which fosters the debate of relevant topics among members of the scientific community.

Preprints

RESR accepts the submission of articles previously available on preprint servers, recognizing the growing importance of this practice in the scientific community to ensure authorship and priority registration, as well as to rapidly disseminate research, in line with the principles of Open Science.

When submitting an article previously published on a preprint server, authors must:

• Declare all details, including the name of the preprint server and the assigned DOI.
• If the work is accepted and published, authors must update the preprint server record to include a full reference, including the DOI for the published article.

Below is a list of suggested preprint repositories:

• SciELO preprints: Multidisciplinary.
• SocArXiv: Social sciences.
• Preprints.org: Multidisciplinary.
• Research Square: Multidisciplinary.
• OSF Preprints: Multidisciplinary.
• Zenodo: Multidisciplinary.

Theses and Dissertations

Submissions derived from undergraduate theses, master’s theses, and doctoral dissertations will be considered for publication provided they are adapted to the scientific article format and meet the journal’s standards of rigor and originality.

The submitted article must present an original contribution to the field of rural economics, administration, and sociology and, preferably, offer new perspectives, insights, or developments not present in the original work.

When submitting, authors must include a statement/letter indicating that the work was part of an undergraduate, master’s, or doctoral project.

Scientific Events

RESR recognizes the importance of scientific events as valuable forums for the initial presentation and discussion of research. Submissions derived from papers previously presented at events will be accepted, provided the following criteria are met:

• Approval at the event must have been peer-reviewed, and authors must have incorporated the feedback and suggestions from reviewers into the submission to the RESR.
• The text must include substantial additions to differentiate the versions and add value to the submission to the RESR.
• If the publication in the event proceedings was only in the abstract form, authors may submit the full article, provided it meets the RESR’s originality and quality standards.

When submitting the manuscript, authors must provide complete information about the event where the paper was presented and in what format (abstract or full text) it was disclosed. Additionally, authors should indicate how the suggestions from the event’s reviewers were incorporated into the submitted version.

Peer Review Process

RESR’s review process consists of four stages:

(1) Initial Check (desk review)

At this stage, the journal’s editorial assistant checks the article to ensure compliance with the journal’s submission guidelines, including formatting, normalization, word limits, and other editorial requirements. Submissions not adhering to the guidelines will be returned for resolution. Failure to resolve the issues after two returns results in automatic rejection.

(2) Initial Editorial Review

At this stage, the Editor-in-Chief reviews the similarity report generated by the iThenticate tool and assesses whether the work aligns with the journal’s thematic focus and editorial line according to criteria such as relevance, originality, and scientific contribution to rural economics and sociology. If applicable, the submission is forwarded to an Associate Editor, who manages the peer review process. In exceptional cases, the Editor-in-Chief may suggest minor adjustments to ensure the work aligns with the RESR’s editorial line. Otherwise, submissions not meeting these criteria will be rejected, and the authors will be informed of the reasons.

(3) Peer Review (double-blind)¹

The Associate Editor appointed by the Editor-in-Chief sends the submission to at least two external reviewers for evaluation under the double-blind system (reviewers and authors are anonymous to each other). Reviewers are requested to evaluate the submissions based on writing quality, scientific structure, adequacy of the theoretical and methodological framework, contextualization of the research problem, data presentation, results analysis, and quality of the conclusions. The review process also considers the manuscript’s contribution to the research field, treatment of theoretical and empirical implications, and suggested research agendas. In case of conflicting opinions between reviewers, the Associate Editor may, depending on the case, appoint a third reviewer. The Associate Editor then analyzes the reviews and issues their decision, which may be one of the following: substantial revisions required, minor revisions required, approval, or rejection.

¹ While the journal’s standard review process is double-blind, for submissions previously published on preprint servers, reviewers will have access to the authors’ identities through the work available on the preprint repository.

(4) Editorial Decision²

Authors will be notified of the decision via e-mail and receive a summary of the reviewers’ assessments. Articles requiring revisions must be resubmitted with the changes highlighted in the text, along with a brief letter explaining which suggestions were addressed and justifying any that were not. The Associate Editor reviews the revised version and the authors’ letter to determine whether additional review rounds are necessary. The Associate Editor consults with the Editor-in-Chief throughout the editorial process before making a final decision.

² The name(s) of the Editors responsible for handling and making the final decision will be listed with the published work.

Internal Submissions

Submissions by editors or members of the editorial board will undergo the same double-blind review process. For these cases, editors without conflicts of interest with the authors will supervise the editorial process.

Editor-in-Chief (Responsibilities and Selection)

Responsibilities:

• Responsible for the initial editorial evaluation of new submissions regarding merit and scope, designating an Associate Editor.
• Make or collaborate on the final decision for special cases.
• Ensure the application of the RESR’s Editorial Policy with the assistance of the Editorial Board.
• Propose changes to the Editorial Board, requesting approval by the majority of the board members.

Selection Process:

The Editor-in-Chief is appointed by the members of the RESR’s Editorial Board and must be ratified by the SOBER’s Board of Directors at its annual ordinary meeting. The candidate must demonstrate institutional commitment, continuing the proposals to improve the journal and the selection process for articles. The candidate must:

1. Be a researcher recognized by the community;
2. Have experience as a reviewer and author of articles in the RESR and other journals;
3. Have participated in the SOBER’s activities.

Term Duration: The Editor-in-Chief’s term is two years, and it can be extended for another two years.

Associate Editors (Responsibilities and Selection)

Associate Editors are close collaborators of the Editor-in-Chief, with significant involvement in the editorial process.

Responsibilities:

• Conduct preliminary evaluations of newly submitted articles regarding eligibility for peer review, also analyzing similarity reports.
• When managing a submission, they are responsible for the final decision and may be called upon by the Editor-in-Chief to collaborate on a decision.
• In exceptional cases, the Editor-in-Chief may ask a member to act as an external reviewer, providing reviews in special cases, such as when texts are difficult to evaluate because of reviewer refusal or delays in response.

Selection Process:

The choice of members for the Associate Editors’ body is made by the Editor-in-Chief. The names of the members are ratified by the Editorial Board and the SOBER’s Board of Directors at their annual ordinary meetings. Members must:

1. Be researchers recognized by the community;
2. Have experience as reviewers and authors of articles in the RESR and other journals;
3. Have participated in the SOBER’s activities.

Term Duration: Associate Editors’ terms are three years and may be extended after that period. The term will be renewed annually for at least four vacancies, ensuring member rotation and a learning period, but preserving continuity in actions and discussions.

Associate Editors are divided into three areas: Rural Economics, Rural Administration and Development, and Rural Sociology.

Editorial Board (Responsibilities and Selection)

The Editorial Board addresses issues of journal policy and does not directly engage with the published content or the review process of submissions.

Responsibilities:

• Make collective decisions and, when necessary, vote on matters related to adopting or changing editorial policies.
• Assist in drafting and revising general guidelines, institutional guides, and instructions.
• Assist the Editor-in-Chief in cases not covered by editorial policy, suggesting updates and adoption of new rules and best practices.
• Act in cases of suspected misconduct, following the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the RESR’s policies, to assist the Editor-in-Chief when necessary.
• In exceptional cases, the Editor-in-Chief may ask a member to act as an external reviewer, providing reviews in special cases in their field or acting as mediators in cases of conflicting reviews and scientific debates with the authors.

Selection Process:

The selection of members of the Editorial Board is the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief, the Editorial Board, and the Associate Editors. The names of the members are ratified by the SOBER’s Board of Directors at its annual ordinary meeting. International members must be recognized researchers with a history of acting as reviewers for international journals and have research interests related to the RESR’s themes. Members must:

1. Be researchers recognized by the community;
2. Have experience as reviewers and authors of articles in the RESR and other journals;
3. Have participated in the SOBER’s activities.

Term Duration: Editorial Board members serve for a three-years term that may be extended after that period. The Editorial Board will be renewed annually by a third of its members, ensuring rotation, a learning period, but maintaining continuity in actions and ongoing discussions.

Research and Publication Ethics Declaration and Policies

RESR endorses and follows the strictest ethical principles and recommendations from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Council of Science Editors (CSE). Below are the policies and responsibilities for editors, authors, and reviewers to ensure that research, publication, and correction processes are conducted ethically, professionally, and responsibly.

Reporting Suspicions and Issues

Everyone is encouraged to use the Contact information to report any problems or suspicions of misconduct found in published works or during the review process. When submitting your message, include a detailed report describing dates and events so that the journal team can act quickly and accurately. This policy aims to maintain a transparent and accurate record of scientific knowledge, ensuring that errors, inaccuracies, or research misconduct are corrected responsibly and ethically. The RESR will use COPE guidelines to base actions and decisions regarding corrections and withdrawals.

Corrections

Errors after publication may be identified by different actors (authors, readers, editors, etc.) and should be reported to the journal’s editorial team to take action. Corrections may apply to typos, factual inaccuracies, data errors, or authorship errors that do not affect the study’s conclusions. The correction will be published as an erratum, explaining the reason for it and detailing the changes made, linked to the original article.

Withdrawals

A total or partial withdrawal of an article may be necessary when there are problems that invalidate the results or conclusions. Additionally, in cases where there is evidence of scientific misconduct, such as plagiarism, data falsification, duplicate publication, and others, the article will also be withdrawn. The identification of such issues or other violations may come from the authors, the editorial team, or external reports. The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief of the RESR, based on investigations and consultation with experts when necessary. If a withdrawal is necessary, it will be published in the form of a note, explaining its reasons, linked to the original article, which will be marked as “retracted” both in the PDF and on the article page.

Editor Responsibilities

During Research and Before Submission:

• Stay informed about recommended best practices for research and publication and seek to incorporate them into the editorial process gradually and systematically.
• Keep the peer review process guidelines up-to-date and accessible, always clearly informing authors and reviewers about the procedures and expectations of the editorial process.
• Constantly strive to raise the scientific level of the journal, contributing to improving the quality of published articles and advancing research in the field.

During Review:

• Ensure compliance with deadlines for issuing opinions and publishing articles, always seeking agility and efficiency in the editorial process.
• Provide useful and constructive feedback to authors, regardless of the publication decision.
• Ensure that the final decision on publishing a manuscript is based strictly on academic and scientific quality criteria.
• Develop and implement efficient systems to manage conflicts of interest between authors, reviewers, and editors.
• Maintain confidentiality of all details of the manuscript, authors, and reviewers throughout the review process.
• Treat all submissions fairly and impartially, without discrimination based on gender, institutional affiliation, nationality, or any other factor.
• Act promptly in cases of suspected misconduct, fraudulent or incorrect content.

During and After Publication:

• Encourage and provide opportunities for publishing replies and rejoinders, promoting healthy and diverse scientific debate.
• Ensure that individual or institutional interests do not affect the impartiality and quality of published content.
• Ensure that the material accepted for publication complies with internationally accepted ethical standards.
• Provide a mechanism for receiving and addressing complaints from authors and the population.
• Adapt the journal’s management structure seeking to implement innovations and recommendations for best practices systematically.

Author Responsibilities

During Research and Before Submission:

• Ensure that the manuscript and submission comply with the editorial policies and author guidelines available on the journal’s website.
• Ensure that the submitted manuscript is original and has not been published previously, except in permitted cases (see Preprint and Prior Publication Policies).
• Ensure that the submitted manuscript is not under review or being considered for publication elsewhere.
• Obtain written permissions (from individuals, institutions, other authors, and/or publishers) for copyright and credit (source) to use images, tables, figures, methods, or other elements used in the manuscript.
• Ensure that all individuals listed as authors contributed significantly to the research and manuscript preparation and clearly and accurately describe each author’s contributions.
• Ensure that the research was conducted ethically, appropriately handling any human or animal subjects involved in the research process.
• Obtain approval from an institutional Ethics Committee, confirming that appropriate ethical standards were met and that all procedures were conducted according to ethical standards set by national and international research bodies where necessary.
• Declare any conflicts of interest, funding sources, and other relevant information that may influence the review process and interpretation of the research results.

During Review:

• Take responsibility for all data, opinions, and concepts expressed in the articles, as well as for the accuracy and citation of all bibliographic references.
• Ensure that the manuscript does not include fraudulent data, fabricated results, or content originating from any form of misconduct or plagiarism/similarity with other published works.
• Respond promptly and professionally to any questions or requests from editors or reviewers, providing additional information or necessary clarifications.

During and After Publication:

• Respond promptly and professionally to any questions or requests during proofs and until final publication.
• Notify the editor of any significant errors identified in the study, whether before or after publication, and cooperate in correcting such errors by publishing corrections, withdrawals, or addenda when necessary.

Reviewer Responsibilities

During Research and Before Submission:

• Be open to new ideas, approaches, and diversity of thought, evaluating them fairly and equitably, recognizing that science is constantly evolving and that new perspectives contribute to advancing knowledge in the fields of rural economics, administration, and sociology.

During Review:

• Provide clear, constructive, and detailed feedback on articles that effectively help authors improve the quality of the manuscript and/or research.
• Commit to completing the review within the stipulated deadline, ensuring the efficiency of the peer review process, and promptly inform the editor of any inability to meet this deadline.
• Ensure that the evaluation is impartial and free of personal, institutional, or geographic biases, judging the work strictly on its academic merit.
• Preserve the confidentiality of the manuscript and the review process, not using the information obtained for personal benefit or disclosing it without prior authorization.
• Immediately disclose any conflict of interest that may compromise the impartiality of your review and abstain from evaluating submissions in which you may have any personal or professional interest.
• Notify editors of any ethical concerns observed during or after the review, such as violations of ethical treatment of human or animal subjects or suspected significant similarities with previously published works.

During and After Publication:

• Respond promptly and professionally to any questions or requests from editors about processes you were involved in.
• Notify the editor of any significant errors identified in published works.

Conflicts of Interest

All authors, reviewers, and editors are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest regarding the article. This includes, but is not limited to, financial, personal, political, intellectual, or religious interests that may influence the preparation or review of the study.

Authors must indicate the existence or absence of conflicts of interest during the submission process, and this information will be published in the article to ensure transparency for readers.

Reviewers and editors should decline to review or process articles with which they believe they have a conflict of interest, to allow substitution by another reviewer or editor.

For investigating suspicions of undisclosed conflicts of interest identified after submission, the editorial team will conduct a preliminary investigation based on COPE guidelines.

• COPE Council. COPE Flowcharts and infographics — Undisclosed conflict of interest in a submitted manuscript — English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.6^© 2021 Committee on Publication Ethics (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

If a potential conflict of interest is detected, authors will be contacted to provide clarification. The entire investigation and resolution process will be documented to ensure transparency and integrity.

Financial Support

Authors must provide information about funding agencies, along with the identification numbers of the grants, for any financial support directly relevant to the development of the study or the payment of associated publication fees. Authors should follow the guidelines set by funding sources on how to properly disclose received funding.

Plagiarism and Duplicate Publication

Cases of excessive similarity without proper attribution, constituting plagiarism, as well as the submission of previously published works in full or with substantial overlap, constituting duplicate publication, will not be tolerated. The guidelines and flowcharts of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) will be used to analyze and decide how to proceed in each case.

Plagiarism

RESR maintains a strict policy on plagiarism, which occurs when an author presents someone else’s work (words, ideas, data, evidence, arguments, style, or any combination thereof) as their own, without proper attribution or permission. Self-plagiarism (appropriation of ideas or parts of previous studies by the same author) and duplicate publication are also considered forms of plagiarism.

During the initial review stage, all submitted articles undergo a similarity check using iThenticate^© software, which identifies similarities in the text with other previously published works. Based on the report generated by the software, the RESR’s editorial team will evaluate the result, and if plagiarism is detected in parts of the text, the authors will be contacted for clarification. If the authors fail to provide a convincing explanation, the submission will be archived.

During the peer review process, reviewers may also detect suspected plagiarism. In such cases, reviewers should inform the editorial team so that necessary measures can be taken.

For investigating cases of suspected plagiarism, the RESR will use the COPE’s flowcharts and infographics to guide decisions and actions to be taken.

• COPE Council. COPE Flowcharts and infographics — Plagiarism in a submitted manuscript — English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.1^© 2021 Committee on Publication Ethics (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

Duplicate Publication

Duplicate, or redundant, publication occurs when two or more articles share the same main content (texts, data, tables, figures) without appropriate reference or justification. This includes, for example, the publication of the same article in different languages in different journals. If the RESR discovers duplicate content during the initial analysis, peer review, or even after the manuscript’s publication, the editorial team will contact the authors to gather more information and clarifications to support the journal’s actions. In cases of identification after publication, actions may involve corrections or even the withdrawal of the article.

For investigating cases of suspected duplicate publication, the RESR will use the COPE’s flowcharts and infographics to guide decisions and actions to be taken.

• COPE Council. COPE Flowcharts and infographics — Redundant (duplicate) publication in a published article — English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.13^© 2021 Committee on Publication Ethics (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
• COPE Council. COPE Flowcharts and infographics — Redundant (duplicate) publication in a submitted manuscript — English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.12^© 2021 Committee on Publication Ethics (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

Research Involving Humans and Animals

All research involving humans must comply with national and international regulations on the subject. Nationally, the National Health Council (CNS)’s resolutions No. 466 of 12 December 2012, which addresses guidelines and regulatory standards for research involving humans, and No. 510 of 7 April 2016, which covers regulations applicable to research in Human and Social Sciences, should be highlighted. Internationally, the Declaration of Helsinki addresses such ethical principles and should be observed.

Any study involving humans must ensure that participants provide their informed consent. This consent should clearly inform participants of the research objectives, methods, risks, benefits, and provide the right to withdraw at any time. This document must be signed (digitally or manually) by the participants, and researchers may be required to show them at any time during the article review process.

Ethics Committee

Additionally, research requiring ethics committee approval, as per CNS resolutions No. 466 of 12 December 2012 and No. 510 of 7 April 2016, must present the document proving approval by the institutional ethics committee at the time of submission to the RESR. This document must include the name of the ethics committee and the reference number related to the approval process. In cases where no ethics committee approval is required by law, authors should submit a brief justification citing the legal points supporting the argument.

Research with Animals

Research involving animals must ensure proper treatment to minimize discomfort, suffering, pain, and stress to the animals involved. The research must adhere to the guidelines on the care and use of animals outlined in the Arouca Law (Law 11.794 of 8 October 2008), which establishes procedures for the scientific use of animals.

Open Data Availability Policy

RESR is committed to promoting transparency, reproducibility, and integrity in research, and encourages authors to make the data used in their research publicly available whenever possible. This allows other researchers to reproduce and verify the results obtained, thereby strengthening the credibility and reliability of the research. The journal’s data availability policies are detailed below.

Data Sharing

RESR strongly encourages all authors to share the data that support the results presented in their articles. The data should be shared in a way that allows validation, reanalysis, and replication of the results.

Anonymization and Privacy

For data that include personal or sensitive information, authors must ensure that these are properly anonymized to protect individuals’ privacy.

Data Availability Statement

All submitted articles must include a “Data Availability Statement,” which will be published along with the article, if accepted. This statement should detail:

1. How and where the data supporting the study’s findings can be accessed, including a link to access (preferably DOI);
2. Access conditions, if any; and
3. If the data are not available, the reasons should be stated.

Repositories

It is recommended that the data be deposited in recognized and publicly accessible repositories. The repositories should follow international data archiving standards to ensure their accessibility, preservation, and quality.

Authors can use the platforms re3data.org and fairsharing.org to search for repositories or consult a list of multidisciplinary and specific area repositories at https://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Data_repositories.

Data Citation

Articles using or providing data must cite the data properly. Data citations should include, at a minimum: the data author/creator, year, dataset title, version (if applicable), and a persistent digital identifier (such as a DOI). Data citations should be included in the article’s bibliography.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools

RESR is committed to maintaining the highest standards of integrity and transparency regarding the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in our publication process. As we continue to study the subject, we will develop a more comprehensive set of policies addressing the implications of using AI tools at all stages of the evaluation and publication process.

At this time, we require everyone to adhere to the following fundamental principles, based on recommendations from the ICMJE and COPE.

Transparency and Disclosure

• Authors must disclose all uses of AI tools in their submissions. This includes, but is not limited to, data collection, analysis, interpretation, writing or editing of the manuscript, and generation or editing of images.
• Currently, we require authors to disclose all uses of AI tools in the Methods section or in a designated section at the end of the manuscript:
  1. For uses involving data processing and analysis, authors should describe the application of AI tools in the Methods section of the manuscript.
  2. For other uses, such as manuscript writing, text editing, or image generation or editing, the dedicated section at the end of the article should be used. Authors must provide a detailed statement about the AI tools used, describing their purpose and extent of use.

Authorship and Responsibility

• AI tools cannot be listed as authors. The final responsibility for the article’s content lies solely with its authors. Contributions made by AI tools must be explicitly mentioned where appropriate, but never as authors.

Continuous Policy Development

• The journal is actively studying and developing more detailed policies that consider the various implications of using AI tools by authors, reviewers, and editors throughout the evaluation and publication process.

By requiring these disclosures and adhering to these principles, we aim to ensure the ethical use of AI, supporting the transparency and credibility of scientific research published in our journal.

Reporting Research Results (Reporting Guidelines)

RESR encourages authors to adopt templates and checklists to create more comprehensive texts, aiming to promote greater transparency and reproducibility. Authors should review the checklists and templates below to assess which may be most appropriate for reporting their results, depending on the specifics of each type of research.

• SAGER Guidelines (Sex and Gender Equity in Research)
  • Research reporting on sex and gender.
  • Applicable to all research areas.
  • Objective: Promote gender and sex equity in scientific research, ensuring that these variables are adequately considered.
• PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses)
  • Systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
  • Multidisciplinary.
  • Objective: Increase transparency and reproducibility of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
• COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research)
  • Qualitative research.
  • Social sciences, health, education, and humanities.
  • Objective: Improve transparency in publishing qualitative research.
• SRQR (Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research)
  • Qualitative research.
  • Social sciences, education, psychology, and humanities.
  • Objective: Improve the quality and transparency in reporting qualitative research.
• RATS (Relevance, Appropriateness, Transparency, Soundness)
  • Qualitative research.
  • Social sciences, health, and humanities.
  • Objective: Provide guidelines to ensure relevance, appropriateness, transparency, and soundness in qualitative research.
• CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards)
  • Health economic evaluations.
  • Health economics.
  • Objective: Provide a guide to reporting economic evaluations of health interventions clearly and transparently.
• ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments)
  • Animal research.
  • Biological and biomedical sciences.
  • Objective: Improve the quality and transparency of publications on animal research.
• CARE (Case Reports)
  • Case reports.
  • Health field.
  • Objective: Standardize and improve the quality of clinical case reports.

Other checklists, templates, and guidelines can be found on the EQUATOR Network and the Research Reporting Guidelines and Initiatives on MEDLINE®/PubMed®.