Submissions

Author Guidelines

EDITORIAL POLICY

Minimum Degree Requirement

As a reference publication in the field, the journal requires that authors submitting manuscripts hold at least a doctoral degree. In the case of collective authorship, at least one of the authors must hold this degree. The publication model is continuous.

Preprints

RBHE has its preprint deposit policy registered on the SHERPA/ROMEO platform. Aligned with the criteria of the Open Science movement, the journal allows authors submitting to the journal to deposit preprints at all stages of the editorial process: pre-review version, accepted version for publication, and final version, which may be available in the journal’s own table of contents. In the case of depositing the final version, authors must always indicate the DOI corresponding to the journal’s official publication. Because it is indexed in SciELO, RBHE recommends that authors use the SciELO Preprints server. There, authors may deposit the unrevised version and the approved version for publication, which will be accompanied by the final version if the article is accepted for publication. Learn more here. The following repositories are also accepted: SocArXiv, SSRN (Social Science Research Network), Humanities Commons CORE, OSF Preprints, Advance (SAGE), Hprints, PhilArchive, PhilSci-Archive, Zenodo, HAL/HAL-SHS, and Preprints.org.. The acceptance of preprints from other servers will be evaluated by the journal’s editors.

Policy on Versions in Other Languages

As of October 5, 2024, in order to provide greater international visibility to articles originally written in Portuguese, Spanish, or French, authors must submit the English translation of the version of the text approved through the evaluation process.

Thus, the translation must be carried out only after the completion of the review of the Portuguese-language text and of the technical norms, that is, after the article has already been approved. Accordingly, RBHE will indicate the appropriate moment for authors to request professional translation.

In this case, responsibility for the translation — including its cost — must be assumed by the authors of the article. RBHE will publish both versions of the text (the original language and the English version). For the English version, authors must provide a translation accompanied by a Declaration of Translation issued by the qualified professional responsible, according to this model. After it is completed, the document must be submitted to the OJS system as a supplementary file.

Publication of Translations

RBHE publishes translated versions of relevant texts, already published, for research in the field of History of Education. Submissions in this category must be accompanied by authorization from the author of the original work or from the publisher in which the text was published. If the work is in the public domain, this procedure is not necessary, and the translator is responsible for providing this information.

As this is a previously published and peer-reviewed text, and since content editing is not possible in the case of a translation, the editor-in-chief and the associate editors are responsible for analyzing and deciding on the feasibility of publication. The criteria evaluated are the same as those that compose the peer review guidelines.

Publication of Dossiers

Nature and Purpose

The Thematic Dossiers section of the Revista Brasileira de História da Educação is intended for the publication of articulated sets of scientific articles focused on a theme of relevance to the field of the History of Education. The dossiers bring together original contributions that promote academic debate and update the historiographical production of the area, integrating researchers from different institutions and regions.

Proposal and Approval of Dossiers

The dossiers may be proposed spontaneously by researchers from higher education or research institutions, in Brazil or abroad, at any time. The proposals will be evaluated by the RBHE Editorial Committee, which will decide on their thematic relevance, scientific consistency, and editorial feasibility.

Each proposal must include:

provisional title and justification of the relevance of the theme;

name, institutional affiliation, academic degree, and ORCID of the organizers;

scope and suggested thematic axes;

proposed schedule (launch, submission period, and expected publication date).

The approval of the dossier implies the organizers’ commitment to thematic curation, the preliminary reading of the submitted manuscripts, and communication with an associate editor designated by the Editorial Committee, responsible for monitoring the editorial process.

Submission

Articles submitted to the dossiers must follow the same general guidelines applicable to RBHE article submissions, available in the Instructions for Authors. Authors must select the “Dossier” section at the time of submission and indicate the title of the thematic dossier to which the text refers.

Editorial Process and Evaluation

The evaluation process for articles submitted to the dossiers comprises two main stages.

Preliminary Analysis (thematic curation)

Conducted by the organizers and accompanied by the associate editor responsible, with the purpose of verifying the adequacy of the manuscript to RBHE’s scope and to the dossier theme, as well as compliance with editorial guidelines. Texts will be rejected that:

present a merely descriptive character or a literature review without critical analysis;
constitute excerpts from a dissertation or thesis without proper reworking;
present structural, writing, or formatting deficiencies;
do not fit the genre of a scientific article or the proposed theme.

External peer review and editorial decision

Manuscripts approved in the preliminary stage are forwarded to two ad hoc reviewers in the field. The reviewers may recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection of the text. The final decision rests with the RBHE Editorial Committee, based on the reviews and on the technical opinion of the associate editor who accompanied the process.

Composition and diversity criteria

The number of articles that will compose each dossier will be defined by the RBHE Editorial Committee, considering the balance among themes, authors, and the journal’s periodicity. Each dossier must include diversity of authors, institutions, and regions, from Brazil and abroad. Approved surplus texts may be redirected to the continuous flow, if the author is interested and the Editorial Committee agrees.

Internationalization policy

In accordance with RBHE’s internationalization policy:

at least 25% of the articles (or the equivalent of one article, when applicable) must be authored by researchers affiliated with foreign institutions;
approved articles must be translated into English, with translation costs borne by the authors;
the translation must be carried out only after the completion of all review stages and upon notification from RBHE;
the English version must be accompanied by a declaration issued by the translator responsible.

Periodicity and dissemination

The number of dossiers per volume will be defined by the RBHE Editorial Committee and may range from none to as many as two dossiers per annual volume. Calls for submissions are widely disseminated through the journal’s media channels and the networks of the Sociedade Brasileira de História da Educação (SBHE), containing the submission deadlines and the specific guidelines for each theme.

Editorial responsibility

The organizers are responsible for thematic curation and for the initial analysis of form and content. An associate editor designated by the Editorial Committee will accompany the process on its behalf, ensuring compliance with the journal’s norms and editorial policy. The final decision regarding publication rests exclusively with the RBHE Editorial Committee.

Peer review process

Minimum degree requirement

As a reference publication in the field, the journal requires that ad hoc reviewers hold at least a doctoral degree.

Primary evaluation

The first analysis conducted on a submitted article is called the Primary Evaluation. In this stage, the editorial assistant verifies the adequacy of the submission in relation to the fundamental norms adopted by the journal: presentation of the text and references in accordance with citation guidelines; presence of required metadata; and structure of the text (abstract, keywords, abstract in English, presentation of the authors and institutional affiliation, among other elements). At this moment, compliance with the degree requirement is also checked: at least one of the authors must hold a doctoral degree.

If inadequacies are found in relation to the fundamental items, the journal may reject the submission or request that the text be revised. In this case, a list of pending issues will be sent to the authors, who must make the necessary adjustments within 30 days. The upload of the revised version, including the corrected manuscripts and the corresponding documents, must be done by clicking on the same title — that is, in the same submission — on the Active Submissions page in the OJS system.

Plagiarism check

If the submission is adequate and meets all the requirements of the Primary Evaluation, the editors will evaluate the manuscripts using the iThenticate CrossCheck system. This stage assesses the textual content of scientific articles in order to identify plagiarism, duplicate submissions, manuscripts that have already been published, and possible research fraud.

In the academic context, plagiarism is understood as the improper appropriation of technical and scientific knowledge production. This practice is vehemently rejected by RBHE and is not tolerated under any circumstance. The following behaviors constitute the main forms of plagiarism:

direct plagiarism: use of large sections of another author’s text without proper attribution, presented as if they were written by the author of the article;
verbatim copying of short excerpts without citation;
mosaic plagiarism: use of adapted sentences, generally by replacing words with synonyms while maintaining the original meaning and structure, from an external source without proper citation;
use of tables, charts, figures, and other elements without referencing the sources consulted;
self-plagiarism: reuse of one’s own previously published work without citing it.

If RBHE identifies, in received submissions, the occurrence of any of the cases described above, the Editorial Board will take the applicable measures in accordance with the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Guidelines regarding the identification of plagiarism.

Analysis by the associate editor and external peer review

Once the received submission is deemed adequate, meeting the criteria established in the primary evaluation and the plagiarism check, the editorial team forwards the text to the peer review process. At this stage, the editorial assistant sends the submission to the associate editors so that one of them, according to their area of expertise and availability, may assume responsibility for the editorial management of the article.

If the associate editor identifies incompatibility between the text and the scope of the journal, the submission may be rejected, constituting an Editor Rejection, without evaluation by external reviewers. If the text is deemed appropriate in relation to the journal’s scope, the responsible associate editor assigns the review task to at least two ad hoc reviewers. These reviewers are duly qualified, with experience and expertise in the field addressed by the manuscript

Ethics and conduct of reviewers

The external peer review process is a decisive instrument for the assessment of science: through it, it is possible to verify and indicate the degree of scientific rigor of a study. Only with serious evaluation can a journal ensure the integrity and quality of the content it publishes. Invited reviewers must therefore, in addition to possessing notable academic expertise, act under ethical principles in order to avoid any distortion that may compromise the objective analysis of the content. Considering this responsibility, certain situations require special attention from the reviewer when responding to the journal’s request:

insufficient command of the topic: if the reviewer believes they do not possess sufficient knowledge of the subject, the journal recommends that this be communicated. In addition to avoiding a potentially inadequate evaluation, such notification helps the editors identify other reviewers with more appropriate profiles. In this case, the invited reviewer may suggest other names to participate in the process;
conflict of interest: it is the reviewer’s responsibility to observe and notify the editor if the received text constitutes a situation of conflict of interest. Common cases that must be reported occur when: the reviewer has had prior conflicts with the author; the reviewer is a friend, family member, and/or coauthor with the author in recent articles or ongoing work; the reviewer supervised the author in master’s or doctoral research; the study under evaluation fundamentally contradicts the reviewer’s own research;
confidentiality regarding the content of the text: because they have access to unpublished research, the reviewer may not disclose any version used for evaluation. They must therefore be attentive and exercise care when handling the files on their devices;
objectivity of the evaluation: the form provided by RBHE assists in ensuring objectivity in the evaluation process.

The reviewer must follow the criteria indicated, avoiding discussion of aspects not requested by the journal. When addressing controversial issues in historiography, the reviewer must justify their positions.

Objectivity also includes polite writing, free of non-scientific judgments and pejorative terms. If such content is present, the journal may remove the inappropriate passages before sending the evaluation report to the authors.

Double-blind review, possibility of identification of reviewers and authors, publication of reports, and reviewer recommendations

RBHE adopts, as a general rule, the double-blind modality for peer review, through which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the entire process. However, the reviewer may choose to reveal their identity to the authors after the completion of the evaluation, and to readers if the article is approved. To do so, the reviewer must authorize the disclosure of their identity through the OJS system when submitting the review. In this case, the reviewer agrees to publish the evaluation report, which will be made available simultaneously with the article in a dedicated peer review platform. If the reviewer chooses not to identify themselves, they will remain anonymous to the authors.

Authors may also reveal their identity; to do so, they must indicate this intention at the time of submission through the supplementary document containing general authorship information.

Reviewers receive a form with open and objective questions regarding the article. The following aspects are addressed in the form: originality, relevance, and contribution to the field of History of Education; structure, organization, clarity, and coherence of the text; adequacy of the title and abstract; fulfillment of the objectives; analysis of sources in articulation with the theoretical framework adopted; relevance and up-to-date nature of the bibliography; orthographic, grammatical, and APA style revision.

Após avaliar os aspectos citados, o avaliador oferece comentários gerais sobre o texto, seguidos por sua recomendação, que pode ser:

unfavorable for publication: the article, as presented, contains several problems and does not meet the criteria for publication;
mandatory corrections: favorable for publication with minor or substantial adjustments which, if properly addressed and verified by the reviewer, lead to a recommendation for publication;
resubmit for evaluation: major revision is required; if the author makes the necessary adjustments, the text may be resubmitted—if the author considers it appropriate—for a new round of peer review. In such cases, it is the author’s responsibility to resubmit the manuscript, which will receive a new record in the platform and will be considered a new submission;
accept: the reviewer recommends publication, and no adjustments are required.

Final decision

For a submission to be considered for publication, there must be at least two favorable reviews. If there is one negative and one positive review, a third reviewer must evaluate the text. Once there is a pair of favorable reviews, it is the responsibility of the associate editor to verify the points raised during Peer Review and, finally, to decide on the publication or rejection of the text. The final decision, therefore, always rests with the associate editor responsible, or with the editor-in-chief if their intervention in the submission is necessary.

Statement on the absence of conflict of interest

When accepting the task of evaluating a submission, the reviewer must declare the absence of any conflict of interest. To do so, the following text must be included in the "General Comments" field of the Review Form, available in OJS:“I declare that there is no circumstance constituting a potential conflict of interest, or that may be perceived as compromising the impartiality of this review. I undertake to keep all information contained in this process confidential, in particular my condition as reviewer and the content of this assessment.”

Presentation of the responsible editor or editors

The final version of the approved article will be published with the name of the editor or editors responsible for the manuscript’s evaluation process. In cases where the ad hoc reviewer authorizes the disclosure of their identity through the OJS system at the time of submitting the review, the name of that reviewer, as well as the name of the editor or editors responsible for the article’s evaluation, will be published alongside the article. The review reports will also be made available in an appropriate repository.

Open data

Manuscripts must be accompanied by a statement on the availability of the data used and generated in the research underlying the texts. Research data are understood as the contents (numerical data, texts, computer programs, images, audio, videos, etc.) used or generated in the research and underlying the article texts, organized in files. The data files underlying an article are organized in a description called a “dataset.”

Articles that include data acquisition or the analysis and interpretation of data from other publications must explicitly reference those sources.

In the writing of articles that contain a critical review of the intellectual content of other authors, those authors must be properly cited.

Texts in all sections must include citations and, therefore, a complete list of bibliographic references. Thus, the absence of citations results in the rejection of the submission during the Primary Evaluation of the submitted text.

Publication fees

The Revista Brasileira de História da Educação does not charge authors any type of submission or publication fee. For the authors’ safety, if they receive any request for payment by any means (email, telephone, messaging applications, or others), RBHE recommends that the message be ignored and, preferably, that a notification be sent to the journal’s official email address: rbhe.sbhe@gmail.com. This will enable the journal to investigate the attempted fraud.

Ethics and Research Misconduct, Errata, and Retraction Policy

This Publication Ethics Statement addresses in detail the structure, editorial principles, and workflow of the Revista Brasileira de História da Educação. Our goal is to be transparent about all the stages involved in the management and publication of the journal’s articles. Here you will find a guide with instructions on ethics in publication and evaluation, especially applicable to authors and reviewers. As a reader, you become aware of the rigor involved in the practice of scholarly publishing, which is highly valued and respected by our journal. If you have any questions regarding any of the issues addressed here, please send a message to our team at rbhe.sbhe@gmail.com.

Use of data and citations

Manuscripts must be accompanied by a statement on the availability of the data used and generated in the research underlying the texts. Research data are understood as the contents (numerical data, texts, computer programs, images, audio, videos, etc.) used or generated in the research and underlying the article texts, organized in files. The data files underlying an article are organized in a description called a “dataset.”

Articles that include data acquisition or the analysis and interpretation of data from other publications must explicitly reference those sources.

In the writing of articles that contain a critical review of the intellectual content of other authors, those authors must be properly cited.

Texts in all sections must include citations and, consequently, a complete list of bibliographic references. Thus, the absence of citations results in the rejection of the submission during the Primary Evaluation of the submitted text.

Self-citations

The journal accepts a maximum rate of 5% self-citations.

Participation and contribution to the research

All authors must describe, in a dedicated document, signed and uploaded to the submission platform, the detailed participation of each of the authors who sign the article, considering the following stages of the research: the design of the study; the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; the writing of the manuscript; the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

According to the recommendations of the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors), not all forms of participation in the research constitute authorship of the study to be published. Thus, certain types of contribution may be acknowledged in the article’s acknowledgments section: general supervision of a research group or administrative support; assistance with writing and textual revision of the article; scientific advising, among others. It is recommended that authors consult this page, on the ICMJE website itself, if they seek clarification on the topic

Misconduct in authorship

Other authorship-related practices directly violate publication ethics, are rejected by RBHE, and must, without exception, be avoided:

ghost authorship: the true author of the content is concealed from the list of authors and is not credited for any reason;

guest authorship without actual contribution: the inclusion of researchers for convenience, as academic favor exchanges, or for any other reason.

Original and unpublished nature of the publication

All submissions sent for evaluation by RBHE must be original and unpublished. Thus, texts may not be under simultaneous review by another journal; otherwise, this must be justified in the “Comments to the editor,” so that the journal may analyze the issue individually.

In the case of original articles, the journal requires that their content be unpublished, meaning it must not have been previously published in any medium of scientific dissemination, except preprint repositories.

If the submitted article is related to research whose content has already been disseminated in the manners referenced above, its content must constitute a clear and considerable expansion of the initial version, thereby ensuring its unpublished character. The repetition of most of the content is considered self-plagiarism, which results in the rejection of the submission. The editorial committee evaluates this aspect and decides on the appropriate course of action.

Redundant publication and self-plagiarism

Texts with more than two-thirds of their content previously published are considered redundant publications. These cases involve overlap of textual content, which means that a redundant text may be considered self-plagiarism, leading to its rejection by the RBHE editorial team.

“Salami” publication

This practice consists of publishing an article whose research presents repetition of methods, hypotheses, and results. By presenting data that were developed in research already published, authors fragment the results in order to generate publication volume, artificially increasing their statistics. The partial presentation of results that could be analyzed and compared in a single article requires unnecessary cross-referencing and hinders the development of the topic within the scientific community, occupying readers and editors unnecessarily. Thus, RBHE recommends that issues that are very closely related and derived from a single research project be addressed through the writing of a single article.

Corrections and retractions

In the case of accidental errors, if the authors feel the need to correct data available in the published version of their articles, RBHE accepts requests for content correction. Such requests will be evaluated by the editors and, if deemed appropriate, the correction will be carried out, and an updated version will be published. A notification will be issued and linked to the original text, which will remain available on the journal’s website.

In cases of plagiarism, unethical research, duplicate publication, or unreliable data, RBHE will carefully analyze the suspicion. If the violation of the journal’s ethical and editorial principles is confirmed, the article may remain available, identified as a “retracted version.” If necessary, the journal will remove the published version. In both situations — maintenance or removal — a retraction notice will be issued, presenting the justifications that support the corresponding editorial decision.

Note on research funding

In the case of research funded by projects, institutions, or other specific sources of financial support, authors must provide an informational note regarding the origin of the funding.

General recommendations on ethics

In addition to observing the provisions presented above, specific to RBHE, authors are encouraged to access the official COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) website. There, it is possible to consult principles and specific flowcharts, resolving doubts and enriching the ethical aspects of the editorial processes carried out throughout the evaluation and publication of scientific research.

Conflict of Interest Policy

Conflicts of interest may be personal, commercial, political, academic, or financial in nature. Conflicts of interest can occur when authors, reviewers, or editors have interests that may influence the preparation or evaluation of manuscripts. When submitting a manuscript, authors are responsible for recognizing and disclosing financial or other types of conflicts that may have influenced the work. If there is, even potentially, a conflict of interest, the author(s) must report it in a dedicated document, signed and uploaded to the submission platform. For additional information, access: Disclosure of Financial and Non-Financial Relationships and Activities, and Conflicts of Interest.

Adoption of similarity-checking software

If the submission is adequate and meets all the requirements of the Initial Evaluation, the editors will assess the manuscripts using the iThenticate CrossCheck system. This stage examines the textual content of scientific articles, seeking to identify plagiarism, duplicate submissions, manuscripts already published, and possible research fraud.

In the academic context, plagiarism is understood as the improper appropriation of technical and scientific knowledge production. This practice is vehemently rejected by RBHE and is not tolerated under any circumstance. The following behaviors constitute the main forms of plagiarism:

direct plagiarism: use of large sections of other authors’ work without proper attribution, presented as if they were written by the author of the article;
verbatim copying of short excerpts without citation;
mosaic plagiarism: use of adapted sentences, generally through synonyms while maintaining the meaning and structure of an external source, without proper citation;
use of tables, charts, figures, and other elements without referencing the sources consulted;
self-plagiarism: using one’s own previously published work without referencing it.

If RBHE observes, in received submissions, the occurrence of any of the cases described above, the Editorial Board will take the applicable measures in accordance with the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Guidelines regarding the identification of plagiarism.

RBHE conducts a new similarity check after receiving the revised version of the manuscript, following a revision request made by the reviewers..

Adoption of software and use of Artificial Intelligence tools

RBHE recognizes the potential of generative AI to increase efficiency, provided that scientific integrity, confidentiality, and human accountability are preserved. Thus:

authors may use AI to improve linguistic clarity or to analyze data, but must declare the tool, version, and purpose in the “Methods” or “Acknowledgments” section. Content generated by AI without critical human validation will not be accepted, and AI cannot be listed as an author;
reviewers and editors must not upload full manuscripts or review reports to public AI systems that compromise the confidentiality of the submitted content. Therefore, review reports generated by AI will not be accepted;
the Editorial Team may use internal or licensed solutions (e.g., plagiarism detection, reference screening) that follow principles of responsible AI and do not expose data to third parties;
all editorial decisions remain under the responsibility of human editors.

This guidance follows the SciELO “Priority Lines 2024–2028” and international guidelines for the responsible use of AI.

Sex and Gender Issues

The editorial team of the Revista Brasileira de História da Educação, as well as the authors who publish in the journal, must always observe the guidelines on Sex and Gender Equity in Research – SAGER. The SAGER guidelines comprise a set of recommendations that guide the reporting of information on sex and gender in study design, data analysis, and the results and interpretation of findings. In addition, the Revista Brasileira de História da Educação observes a gender equity policy in the composition of its editorial board.

PROMOTION OF DIVERSITY, EQUITY, INCLUSION, AND ACCESSIBILITY (DEIA)

RBHE adopts the IDEIA principle — Impact, Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility — as recommended by the SciELO Program. We commit to:

maintaining, monitoring, and publishing diversity indicators regarding gender, ethnicity, geographic region, and career stage of authors, reviewers, and the editorial team;
forming editorial boards with plural and balanced representation, reviewing their composition every two years;
applying blind evaluations that respect diverse identities and combating review bias, except in cases provided for in RBHE’s guidelines in which authors and reviewers choose to waive anonymity;
ensuring digital accessibility in accordance with WCAG 2.2 (e.g., alternative text, contrast, accessible PDFs) and accepting supplementary files in open formats.

These measures reinforce transparency, amplify underrepresented voices, and remove barriers to participation, in line with the open science principles promoted by SciELO.

Ethics Committee

When applicable, authors must attach a statement of approval from the ethics committee of the institution responsible for authorizing the research.

Copyright

Authors of articles published in the Revista Brasileira de História da Educação retain the copyright of their works, licensing them under the Creative Commons Attribution BY 4.0 license, which allows articles to be reused and distributed without restriction, provided that the original work is properly cited. Authors grant the journal the right of first publication under the CC BY 4.0 License

Intellectual Property and Terms of Use

Site responsibility:

All content of the journal and the articles published in the Revista Brasileira de História da Educação, except where otherwise specified, are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution CC BY license.

Author responsibility:

Authors of articles published in the Revista Brasileira de História da Educação retain the copyright of their works, licensing them under the Creative Commons Attribution license, which allows the articles to be reused and distributed without restriction, provided that the original work is properly cited.

This journal encourages authors to self-archive their accepted manuscripts by publishing them on personal blogs, institutional repositories, and academic social media platforms, as well as posting them on their personal social media profiles, provided that full citation to the version on the journal’s website is included.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS

Types of accepted documents

Submissions are accepted for the following sections:

ARTICLES – Analytical texts that present original results of investigative work and/or theoretical–methodological reflection.

TRANSLATIONS – Texts relevant to research in the field of History of Education. They must be accompanied by authorization from the author of the original work or from the publisher in which the text was published. If the work is in the public domain, this procedure is not required, and the translator is responsible for providing this information.

INTERVIEWS – Testimonies from researchers whose career and contributions are relevant to the field.

REVIEWS – These must not be mere summaries of the works, but rather critical studies of recently published texts or of works considered classics in the field. They must include, obligatorily, the complete bibliographic reference and contain comments and evaluations on the ideas expressed in the work, the methodology employed, the relevance of the theme and approach to the field, as well as the position of the author(s) within the academic debate.

General editorial guidelines for submissions

Authors must verify the conformity of their originals to the configurations adopted by the journal. Works that do not comply with the standard will be automatically rejected.

Original manuscripts submitted for publication must be unpublished, except for deposits in preprint repositories, and their simultaneous submission to another journal is not permitted.

Minimum interval and prohibition of simultaneous article submissions

Each author may have only one text in progress, from submission to publication, observing a minimum interval of two years between the publication of an article and a new submission by the same author.

Each author may have only one text of the same format in progress, from submission to publication. In the case of articles, the two-year interval between publication and a new submission by the same author must be observed, whether as the main author or as a coauthor. Thus, reviews, translations, and interviews may be submitted at any time, provided the limit of one submission of the same format in progress per author is respected.

DOI assignment

All published texts receive a DOI (Digital Object Identifier). The assignment of the DOI is carried out exclusively by the journal, after the approval and final editing of the manuscript. Authors do not need to include or request the DOI at the time of submission, since the generation, registration, and maintenance of this identifier are the responsibility and financial obligation of the journal, in accordance with international standards of identification and traceability for scientific publications.

Author contribution

All authors must describe, in a dedicated document, signed and uploaded to the submission platform, the detailed participation of each of the authors who sign the article, considering the following stages of the research: the design of the study; the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; the writing of the manuscript; and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. In this regard, the CREDiT taxonomy structure must be used.

According to the recommendations of the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors), not every involvement in the research constitutes authorship of the study to be published. Thus, certain types of participation may be acknowledged in the article’s acknowledgments section: general supervision of a research group or administrative support; assistance in the writing and textual revision of the article; scientific advising, among others. It is recommended that authors consult this page on the ICMJE website if they seek clarification on the matter.

Other authorship-related practices directly violate publication ethics, are rejected by RBHE, and must, without exception, be avoided:

ghost authorship: the true author of the content is concealed from the list of authors and is not credited for any reason;

guest authorship without actual participation: the inclusion of researchers for convenience, in the form of academic favor exchanges or for any other reason.

Manuscript Preparation

Languages

The Revista Brasileira de História da Educação accepts submissions in Portuguese, Spanish, and English.

Format

The text must be typed in .DOCX or .ODT format, using Times New Roman font, size 12; line spacing 1.5; A4 page size (297 × 210 mm), with 2.5 cm top and bottom margins and 2.5 cm right and left margins. For quotations, use a 4 cm indentation and font size 11; for figure titles, captions, and footnotes, use font size 10.

Choice of anonymity or disclosure of authors’ identity

All indications of authorship must be removed from the originals, including the username registered in the word processor. As a general rule, the manuscript may not contain any identification of authorship in any part of the text, whether in footnotes, bibliographic references, or document properties (all indications of authorship must be erased from the originals).

However, authors may also choose to reveal their identity; to do so, they must state this intention at the time of submission through the supplementary document containing the general authorship information. If the authors choose not to identify themselves, reviewers will only learn the authors’ identities—if the article is approved—after publication.

Metadata entry in OJS

At the time of submission, all authors of the manuscript must be registered in the system’s metadata, including full name (up to four authors), ORCID identifier (ID), institutional address, and email. The later inclusion of authors who were not registered in the system at the time of submission will not be permitted.

It is recommended that authors submit the text to orthographic, grammatical, and APA style revision before presenting it to the Revista Brasileira de História da Educação.

Length

The works must comply with the following length requirements:

articles, translations, and dossier articles: 40,000 to 60,000 characters including spaces (the abstract and its English and Spanish versions are excluded from the count; graphs, tables, figures, and images are included). The abstract and its versions must contain between 700 and 800 characters including spaces, each.

reviews: 8,000 to 15,000 characters including spaces.

interviews: 8,000 to 15,000 characters including spaces.

Title, abstract, keywords, sections

Articles must be accompanied by an abstract and keywords (up to four keywords, which must not appear in the title, separated by semicolons) in Portuguese, English, and Spanish. The full title, including subtitles, must also be presented in its English and Spanish versions.

The text must necessarily include the sections Introduction and Final Considerations.

Digital Assets

Tables, charts, figures, illustrations, maps, diagrams, and other digital assets must be presented clearly, legibly, and in a format compatible with the final layout of the Revista Brasileira de História da Educação (RBHE).

The assets may be inserted directly into the body of the text, in a position close to where they are mentioned in the article, and must contain complete titles and sources, in accordance with the citation and reference guidelines adopted by the journal. It is recommended that elements be numbered sequentially and consistently (Figure 1, Table 1, etc.).

Graphic files may be submitted in JPG, PNG, or TIFF format, with a preferred resolution of 150 to 300 dpi, and in a size compatible with the width of an A4 page (up to approximately 17 cm). Maps and diagrams should, whenever possible, present adequate legibility at reduced scale.

There is no strict requirement for standardization regarding resolution or format, but authors are asked to prioritize the clarity and legibility of the materials. If the quality of a digital asset makes its publication unfeasible, the editorial team may request replacement or minor adjustments prior to layout.

The inclusion of multimedia content (videos, audio files, or other interactive formats) may be accepted, provided it is hosted on a stable platform (such as YouTube or institutional repositories) and properly linked to the main text through an active hyperlink.

Citations and References

We use, for this aspect, the most recent edition of the American Psychological Association (APA) manual as our reference. To learn about this citation and reference style, consult the APA website directly, which provides updated examples for various publication formats. Important: it is not necessary to follow APA recommendations regarding the formatting of academic papers (spacing, font sizes, indentation, etc.).

General guidelines on writing and style

Scientific writing

The writing of submitted texts must be objective and scientific. Authors must observe the standard formal usage of the language in which the text is written, ensuring clarity, cohesion, and coherence in the content submitted.

Spacing after punctuation marks

Insert one space after:

commas, colons, and semicolons;

periods that separate parts of a cited reference;

periods following initials in personal names (for example, J. R. Zhang).

exception: do not insert a space after internal periods in abbreviations (e.g., a.m., i.e.).

Period

Use a period with:

initials of names (J. R. Smith);

Latin abbreviations (a.m., cf., i.e., vs.);

reference abbreviations (Vol. 1, 2nd ed., p. 6).

Do not use a period with:

abbreviations of state names (SP; MG; Maringá, PR) in the reference list;

abbreviations formed by capital letters or acronyms (APA, IBAMA, IBGE);

web addresses in the text or in the reference list (http://www.apa.org). In the text, place the link in parentheses when possible, or revise the sentence to avoid ending it with a URL and no punctuation;

metric and non-metric abbreviations (cd, cm, kg, lb, min, s).

Dash

Use the dash only to indicate a sudden break in the continuity of the sentence. Excessive use weakens the fluency of the content.

Quotation marks

Observe the following instructions for the use of double quotation marks in addition to the case of direct quotation from an external source.

Use double quotation marks:

to introduce a word or phrase as an ironic comment, slang, or neologism. Use quotation marks only the first time the word or phrase appears; thereafter, do not use them.

correct: considered a “normal” behavior; the “astonishing” variable … the astonishing variable (no quotation marks after the first use).

incorrect: considered a ‘normal’ behavior; the “astonishing” variable … the “astonishing” variable.

to indicate, within the body of the text, the title of an article or chapter in a journal or book.

Riger’s (1992) article, “Epistemological Debates, Feminist Voices: Science, Social Values, and the Study of Women.”

to reproduce items in a list or instructions to participants.

The first item to be completed was “it was expected that _______”.

if the instructions are long, separate them from the body of the text with indentation, without quotation marks.

Do not use double quotation marks:

to identify references in a scale. Use italics instead.

We ranked the items on a scale ranging from 1 (all the time) to 5 (never).

to cite a letter, word, phrase, or sentence as a linguistic example. Use italics instead.

He explained the distinction between mas and mais.

to introduce a technical term. Use italics instead.

The term lauda appears frequently in the discourse.

She compared it using a meta-analysis, which is described in the next section.

Double or single quotation marks

In the text, use double quotation marks to open and close quotations, and single quotation marks to replace double quotation marks inside a quotation—that is, when the quoted passage already contains double quotation marks.

correct: Miranda (2002) observed that the “ ‘expanded crystals’ phenomenon, observed in previous studies, shows amplified effects when tested at higher temperatures” (p. 299).

incorrect: Miranda (2002) observed that the “ ‘expanded crystals’ phenomenon, observed in previous studies, shows amplified effects when tested at higher temperatures” (p. 299).

In block quotations, do not use double quotation marks to open and close these quotations. Use them only if double quotation marks appear in the quoted passage itself.

Correct: The “expanded crystals” phenomenon, observed in previous studies, shows amplified effects when tested at higher temperatures. In the case initially analyzed, the application of the medications proved to be minimally effective, thus requiring the use of different temperatures in the experiment (p. 299).

Incorrect: “The ‘expanded crystals’ phenomenon, observed in previous studies, shows amplified effects when tested at higher temperatures. In the case initially analyzed, the application of the medications proved to be minimally effective, thus requiring the use of different temperatures in the experiment (p. 299)”.

Use of italics

For the specific use of italics in APA journals, see the guidelines below. In general, use italics sparingly.

Use italics for:

titles of books, journals, films, videos, television programs, and microfilm publications.

Exception: words in a book title that are already in italics must be written in roman type (reverse italics).

Examples: A Stereotaxic Atlas of the Monkey Brain (Macaca Mulatta); Dreaming by the Book: Freud’s The Interpretation of Dreams and the History of the Psychoanalytic Movement.

genus, species, and varieties (Macaca mulatta);

introduction of a new term or technical term;

a letter, word, or phrase cited as a linguistic example (words such as large and small; the letter a; the meaning of make believe; a row of Cs);

words that could be misinterpreted (the small group, meaning a designation, not the group’s size);

indication of the journal volume in reference lists (American Psychologist, 26, 46–67);

scale anchors (the health indices range from 1 poor to 5 excellent).

Table and figure numbering

Number all tables and figures with Arabic numerals in the order in which they are mentioned in the text, regardless of later discussion. Do not use letters as suffixes; label them as Table 5, Table 6, Table 7 or Figure 5, Figure 6, and Figure 7, and not 5, 5a, and 5b. If the manuscript includes appendices with tables and figures, identify these elements with capital letters and Arabic numerals (for example, Table A1 is the first table of Appendix A; Figure C2 is the second figure of Appendix C).

Table titles

Provide each table with a brief but explanatory title that allows the reader to infer its basic content.

abbreviations that appear in the headings or body of a table may be explained in the title itself (abbreviation in parentheses).

explain abbreviations that require further clarification or that are not directly related to the content of the title in a general note about the table.

do not use a specific note to clarify elements of the title.

tables may have two types of notes located below the body: general notes and explanatory notes.

the general note qualifies, explains, and provides information related to the table as a whole, and ends with the explanation of abbreviations, symbols, and similar elements.

information about the origin of the table is also included—that is, whether it comes from an external source.

general notes must be identified by the word Note (in italics).

Documentos Suplementares

Supplementary Documents

Cover sheet

A document in .DOCX, .ODT, or PDF format must be attached, containing the full title of the work and the complete information of all authors, as specified below:

• full name
• highest academic degree
• current position or role
• institutional affiliation (written in full and acronym)
• city and state (or country, in the case of foreign affiliation)
• email
• full mailing address
• funding statement indicating the source of research funding, if applicable
• Research Ethics Committee approval statement, when applicable
• authorship agreement form declaring the contribution and final approval of all authors regarding the submitted content, according to the CRediT taxonomy

Other supplementary documents

In addition to the cover sheet, authors must attach, when applicable:

• Open Science Compliance Form, duly completed and signed
• statement of professional translation, in the case of English versions, according to RBHE guidelines
• other complementary documents that may be requested during the editorial process (for example, authorization for the use of images, licenses, or copyright transfer terms)

All documents must be uploaded as supplementary files in the OJS system at the time of submission, ensuring transparency and compliance with the editorial and Open Science best practices adopted by the Revista Brasileira de História da Educação (RBHE).

Funding Statement

In the case of research funded by projects, institutions, or other specific sources of financial support, authors must provide an information note indicating the source of the funding.

Manuscript submission

Submissions are made exclusively through the OJS management system, directly on the RBHE website, available at this link. If you do not have a registered user account in the system, create your registration here. The text must follow the guidelines provided on this page.