About the Journal

Table of Contents

Focus and Scope

REGION is the journal of ERSA (European Regional Science Association). It publishes original scientific work in Regional Science, Regional Economics, Economic Geography, and related areas.

REGION is open access. It is freely available to readers and does not charge submission or publication fees from authors.

Peer Review, Editing, and Production

Peer Review Process

Submissions to REGION are subject to a double-blind peer review process. The peer review process is organized by the journal's editorial team. Every article submitted to REGION will be screened by the editors for plagiarism by use of software. Any issues arising there will be dealt with by the editorial team. Only contributions that are original beyond doubt can be published in REGION.

The entire peer review process is managed through Open Journals System (OJS) and is therefore transparent to the editorial team. OJS also records all communication and all decisions. When authors, editors and reviewers follow the respective guidelines (Ensuring Blind Review), the software ensures the double-blind character of the reviewing process.

When an article is submitted to REGION, the managing editor assigns it to one of the editors. The assigned editor selects at least two reviewers for the submission and invites them to review. When selecting reviewers, the editor is obliged to check for potential conflicts of interest and to avoid reviewers affiliated with the same institution as one of the authors. The managing editor as well as the editor may desk-reject submissions that do not match the journal’s standards.

Based on the feedback from the reviewers, the editor decides whether the submission is accepted or rejected, or whether major or minor revisions are requested. For a revised version of the submission, the editor decides whether it needs to be reviewed again by the same or different reviewers or not. The editor also makes the final decision about acceptance or rejection of a submission, based on reviewers’ feedback in all review rounds.

When a submission is accepted, it is typically sent to copy-editing. The copyeditor suggests improvements in language to the author for better readability of the article. After copy-editing, the article will go to layout editing for the final production.

Copyediting and Production

When a submission is accepted, it is typically sent to copyediting. The copyeditor suggests improvements in language to the (corresponding) author for better readability of the article. After copyediting, the article will go to layout editing for the final production. In case of questions, problems or issues, the production editor will consult the author and request or suggest corrections, clarifications, or improvements. The production editor will request the author to proofread the final article. This may lead to additional feedback rounds with the author. REGION only publishes articles that have the approval of the author.

Publication Frequency

REGION publishes 2 regular issues per year. Special issues will be published as additional issues. We publish all articles as they become ready for publication in order to ensure that new content is available to the scientific community as early as possible. In addition to immediate publication, the articles of a special issue are republished all at once in order to allow for the internal structure of the publication.

Publication Formats

The primary format of publications in REGION is PDF. Every article is made available in this format. This format has been approved by the corresponding author of the article. REGION tries to publish articles in additional formats like HTML, ePub, and computational notebook formats. All formats of an article are provided at the article’s landing page in OJS.

Open Access Policy

Publication in REGION is free of charge for authors. The journal does not charge Article Processing Charges (APCs) or any other fee. The journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports global exchange of knowledge. Articles published in the journal are provided under a Creative Commons (CC-BY) license requiring proper attribution. For more details see the license documentation and REGION's entry in Sherpa Romeo.

Reproducibility and Open Science Policy

REGION endorses the principles of open science. The journal encourages authors to publish data and code with their article as much as possible to permit others (readers, reviewers) to replicate the work (see Authors’ responsibilities, below). In support of open science, REGION offers the option to publish articles in computational notebook versions.

Long Term Archiving

REGION uses the PKP Preservation Network for long-term archiving of all published articles.

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

For all parties involved in the act of publishing it is necessary to agree upon fundamental aims and principles and upon standards of expected ethical behavior. The ethics statements for REGION are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the COPE Code of Conduct (www.publicationethics.org). For details see the sections “Responsibilities”, and “Complaints, appeals, corrections, and retractions” below.

Aim & Principles

REGION aims to make available to the public the results of high-quality scientific research in Regional Science, Regional and Urban Economics, Planning, Economic Geography, Environment, and related areas. REGION does not follow any commercial interests and its operation is guided by the following principles:

  • Scientific Quality
  • Freedom of Expression
  • Non-Discrimination
  • Wide accessibility and ease of access
  • Free sharing and use of new knowledge


Editors' Responsibilities

Publication Decision

The editor of the journal is responsible for deciding which of the submitted articles are published. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board and constrained by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making the decision.

Fair Play

Submitted manuscripts are evaluated for their intellectual content without regard to age, race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.


The editor and anyone else who has access to a submitted manuscript (editorial staff) must not disclose any information about the manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, and other editorial advisors, as appropriate. The editor has to take every effort to ensure the integrity of the blind peer review process (see Ensuring Blind Review).

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in the own research of an editor or a member of the editorial staff without the explicit written consent of the author(s). Editors will recuse themselves (i.e. ask a co-editor or a member of the editorial board to review or consider instead) from considering 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 paper.

Reviewers' Responsibilities

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and helps maintain scientific quality.


Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor in due time and excuse him/herself from the reviewing process.


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 editor. The reviewer has to take every effort to ensure the integrity of the blind peer review process (see Ensuring Blind Review).

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the Editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published material of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflicts 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.

Authors' Responsibilities

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. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. The authors have to take every effort to ensure the integrity of the blind peer review process (see Ensuring Blind Review).

Originality and Plagiarism

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.


Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported 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 named in an Acknowledgement section.

The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. The corresponding author will have to proofread the final draft of the paper and have to approve its publication.

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.

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor and cooperate with the editor to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.

Complaints, Appeals, Corrections, and Retractions

Policy on Complaints and Appeals

REGION believes in promoting a transparent and fair academic publishing environment. To safeguard the rights and trust of our readers, authors, reviewers, and editorial staff, we have outlined our policy on managing complaints and appeals. This policy is in alignment with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) recommendations. We consider complaints and appeals as opportunities to improve our processes and strengthen the trust of our stakeholders. Our policies are periodically reviewed to ensure their alignment with evolving best practices.

Complaints can relate to any aspect of the journal’s operations, ranging from editorial decisions to perceived misconduct.


  • Complaints can be submitted in writing via our designated contact channel (see "Contact").
  • Acknowledgment of receipt will be sent within 5 working days.
  • The editorial team conducts an initial review of the complaint.
  • If the grievance is valid, a detailed investigation is initiated, involving an external review panel if necessary.

Authors have the right to appeal if they believe their manuscript was wrongly rejected by the editorial team.


  • The author submits a written appeal, clearly stating their concerns and thoroughly documenting their reasons for challenging the decision.
  • The appeal is assessed by a senior editor or an editor not previously involved in the manuscript’s assessment.
  • If deemed necessary, the manuscript and appeal are reviewed by a panel of external experts.
  • A final decision is made, which may uphold or overturn the original editorial decision.

Policy on Changes to Published Articles

REGION is committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity in scientific publishing. Recognizing the significance of maintaining the reliability and accuracy of published records, we have established a policy to address changes to articles post-publication. Our policy aligns with the recommendations provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).


Corrections concern parts of the publication record that have minor errors which do not significantly impact the understanding or reliability of the work.


  • The author or reader identifies an error and notifies the editorial team.
  • The editorial team assesses the validity of the reported error.

If the error is confirmed and deemed minor:

  • A correction notice will be published in the subsequent issue of the journal.
  • The original article remains unchanged, but will be linked to the correction notice.

Errors introduced by the journal during the production process will also be corrected in this manner.


Retraction is considered when the main conclusions of a published paper are proven to be unreliable, either due to honest error or misconduct (e.g., data fabrication or plagiarism).


  • Suspected issues are reported to the editorial team.
  • The editorial team conducts a preliminary investigation.
  • If a deeper investigation is warranted, an expert panel is convened to review the evidence.

If the panel deems a retraction necessary, the following steps will be taken:

  • A retraction notice is published, detailing the reasons and nature of the errors or misconduct.
  • The original article is marked as "retracted," but remains accessible, ensuring the historical record is preserved.
  • The article's DOI will point to the retraction notice to alert readers to the retracted status.


In rare circumstances, legal or ethical considerations may necessitate the removal of an article from the public domain.


  • An internal or external party alerts the editorial team about a potential concern.
  • The editorial team, in consultation with the journal's legal counsel, evaluates the validity and severity of the concern.

If removal is deemed necessary:

  • The article is removed from the online platform.
  • A removal notice is published, explaining why the content was removed.
  • Access to the original content is restricted, but an internal record is kept for future reference.

Expression of Concern

If there are serious suspicions about the reliability or integrity of a work, but a clear conclusion cannot or has not yet been reached, an expression of concern can be issued.


  • The editorial team is made aware of potential issues, either from internal or external sources.
  • A preliminary investigation is conducted by the editorial team.

If the concerns are deemed valid but unresolved (e.g., inconclusive evidence of misconduct, investigation is underway but will likely take considerable time):

  • An expression of concern is published, highlighting the areas of uncertainty.
  • The original article remains unchanged, but will be linked to the expression of concern.
  • Once the investigation is complete, the expression of concern can be replaced by a correction, retraction, or another suitable notice, as deemed appropriate.


REGION's expenses are covered by ERSA (European Regional Science Association).

WU (Vienna University of Economics and Business) operates an installation of OJS and provides hosting support to REGION.

Sources of Support

REGION received seed funding from FWF - Austrian Science Fund

Journal History

REGION is a joint initiative of ERSA (European Regional Science Association - http://www.ersa.org) and WU (Vienna University of Economics and Business - http://www.wu.ac.at). The journal was founded in 2014 with financial support provided by FWF (Austrian Science Foundation - http://www.fwf.ac.at):