PUBLICATION ETHICS AND MALPRACTICE STATEMENT

This Statement of Publication Ethics addresses, in detail, the structure, editorial principles and workflow of Revista Brasileira de História da Educação [Brazilian History of Education Journal].  Our goal is to be transparent about all the steps involving the management and publishing of the journal’s articles. Here you will find a guide with instructions on publication and evaluation ethics, valid especially for authors and reviewers. As a reader, you will learn about the rigors involved in the exercise of scientific publishing, which are widely valued and respected by our publication. In case of doubts about any of the addressed matters, reach out to us at rbhe.sbhe@gmail.com.

1 EDITORIAL BOARD

Revista Brasileira de História da Educação has an Editorial Board composed of highly qualified members, all renowned in their area of ​​expertise. The journal’s editorial structure consists mainly of the role of the Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors, assisted by the Editorial Board, which is made up of both national and foreign members. The latter are referred to by their full names and information on their institutional affiliation.

We seek to constitute a diverse editorial board, geographically and institutionally. RBHE has a page dedicated to presenting all editorial boards participating since the beginning of the publication.

The journal currently has four associate editors. This staff is renewed every two years.

2 AUTHORS AND THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES

Absence of APCs (Article processing charges)

Revista Brasileira de História da Educação does not charge authors any type of submission or publication fee. The absence of APC does not influence editorial decision-making.

For the authors’ safety, if they are charged by any means (e-mail, telephone, messaging applications, etc.), RBHE recommends that the message be ignored and, preferably, that a notification be sent to the official e-mail of the publication: rbhe.sbhe@gmail.com This way, the journal will be able to investigate the attempted fraud.

Minimum Title

As a reference publication in the field, the journal requires a PhD as minimum degree for authors interested in submitting articles. In the case of collective authorship, at least one of the authors must have such a title. The publication modality is the continuous one.

Ideological Responsibility

Published articles express the authors’ point of view and not the official stance of Revista Brasileira de História da Educação.

Scientific Writing

The writing of submitted texts must be objective and scientific. The authors must conform to the standard variety of the language in which the text is written, bearing in mind the clarity, cohesion and coherence of the submitted content.

Use of Data and Citations

Articles containing data acquisition, or analysis and interpretation of data from other publications must reference them explicitly.

When writing articles that contain a critical review of the intellectual content of other authors, the latter must be duly cited.

The texts in all sections must present citations and, therefore, a complete list of bibliographic references. Thus, the absence of citations results in the rejection of the submission in the Primary evaluation of the submitted text.

Self-citations

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

Participation and Contribution to the Research

All authors must describe, in a document of their own, to be signed and attached to the submission platform, the detailed participation of each of the authors who undersign the article, considering the following research stages: study design; data collection, analysis and interpretation; writing of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publishing.

According to the recommendations of the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors), not every work in research constitutes authorship of the study to be published. Thus, certain types of participation in research can be referred to in the acknowledgments section of the article: general supervision of a research group or administrative support; assistance in the writing and textual revision of the article; scientific consulting, and others. Authors are recommended to read this page at the ICMJE’s own website for clarification on the subject.

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

• Ghost authorship: the true author of the content is hidden from the list of authors, not being credited for any reason;
• Invited author without actual participation: the inclusion of researchers for convenience, in the form of exchange of academic favors, or for any other reason.

Novelty Nature of the Publication

Every submission sent to RBHE for review must be original and unpublished. Thus, the texts cannot have been submitted for simultaneous review by another journal; otherwise, one must justify it in “Notes to the editor” so that the journal individually analyzes the issue.

Articles from Previous Publications

Regarding original articles, the journal requires that its content be unpublished, that is, it must not have been published in any means of scientific dissemination, except for preprint repositories and institutional repositories. Thus, texts already published in journals and event annals will be rejected and not peer reviewed.

If the submitted article is related to a research whose content has been disclosed by said means, its content must be an evident and significant expansion of the initial version, guaranteeing the novelty nature.

The repetition of most of the content is considered self-plagiarism, which results in the submission being rejected. It is the editorial committee that evaluates this aspect and decides on the appropriate action.

Adopted Style

Because it is international, Revista Brasileira de História da Educação adopts the style guide of the American Psychological Association (APA) (6^th ed.) as a standard for article presentation. Thus, all submitted articles must comply with the APA. Go to the bottom of this page and carefully observe the required standards.

Redundant Publication

Texts with more than two thirds of its content previously published are considered redundant publications. These are cases of overlapping textual content, which allows a redundant text to be considered self-plagiarism, resulting in its rejection by RBHE’s editorial staff.

Salami Publication

This practice consists of publishing an article whose research brings a repetition of methods, hypotheses and results. By presenting data that have been developed in an already published research, the authors slice the results in order to obtain volume of publication, artificially increasing their statistics.

A partial presentation of results that could be analyzed and compared in a single article requires an unnecessary crossing of references and hinders the development of the subject within the scientific community, taking the time of readers and editors unnecessarily.  Thus, RBHE recommends that very similar topics, derived from a single research, be approached through the writing of one single article.

Corrections and Retractions

In the case of accidental mistakes, if the authors feel the need to correct data available in the published version of their articles, RBHE accepts requests for content correction. The latter will be analyzed by the editors; if deemed valid, the adjustment will be made, and the updated version will be published. A notification will be written and linked to the original text, which will remain available on the journal’s page.

In case of plagiarism, unethical research, duplicate publication and unreliable data, RBHE will thoroughly 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 either of the cases – maintenance or exclusion –, there will be a retraction note, which will present the reasons that support the respective editorial decision.

Note on Research Funding

In the case of research funded by projects, institutions or other specific sources of financial aid, the authors must provide a note with information on the source of the funding.

Conflict of Interests

A conflict of interest can be of a personal, commercial, political, academic or financial nature. Conflicts of interest may occur when authors, reviewers or editors have interests that may influence the preparation or evaluation of manuscripts. When submitting their manuscripts, the authors are responsible for recognizing and revealing financial or other types of conflicts that may have influenced their work. If there is, even if potentially, a conflict of interest, the author(s) must refer to it in a document of their own, which must be signed and attached to the submission platform.

The authors must identify in the manuscript any financial support obtained for the execution of their work, as well as other personal connections regarding its conduction. The reviewer must inform the editors of any conflicts of interest that might influence the analysis of the manuscript, and must declare themselves not qualified to review it.

General Recommendations on Ethics

In addition to complying with the abovementioned provisions, specific to RBHE, it is recommended that authors access the official page of the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). On it, it is possible to learn about specific principles and flowcharts, which will answer questions and enrich the ethical aspects of the editorial processes carried out during the evaluation and publishing of scientific research.

Ethical supervision policy

Editors and writers will take steps to identify and prevent publication of articles where research misconduct has occurred, including, but not limited to, plagiarism, manipulation of citations, and falsification/fabrication of data.

Editors will neither encourage such misconduct nor knowingly allow it.

Should an RBHE editor become aware of any allegation of research misconduct relating to an article published in their journal, the Editorial Board will strictly follow COPE's guidelines for dealing with the allegations.

3 EVALUATION AND PEER REVIEW

Primary Evaluation

The first analysis performed on submitted articles is called Primary evaluation. At this stage, an editorial assistant checks the adequacy of the submission as to the fundamental norms adopted by the journal: text presentation and references as to citation rules; presence of mandatory metadata, and text structure (abstract, keywords, presentation of the authors and institutional affiliation, etc.). It is also when compliance with the minimum-title criterion is verified: at least one of the authors must be a PhD.

If there is inadequacy as to the fundamental items, the journal may reject the submission or request that thetext be revised. In this case, a punch list will be sent to the authors, who must make the necessary adjustments within 30 days. Revised versions, corrected manuscripts and respective documents must be posted through a click on the same title, that is, on the same submission, on the Active Submissions page in the OJS system.

Plagiarism Check

If the submission is adequate, compliant with all requirements of the Primary evaluation, the editors will evaluate the manuscripts using the iThenticate CrossCheck system. This stage assesses the textual content of the scientific articles, seeking to identify plagiarism, duplicate submissions, manuscripts already published and possible frauds in research.

Plagiarism is considered, in the academic field, as the undue appropriation of technical and scientific knowledge production. This practice is vehemently repudiated by RBHE and not tolerated under any circumstances. The following conducts constitute the main forms of plagiarism:

• Direct plagiarism: use of large excerpts belonging to other authors without proper attribution, presented as though they belonged to the author of the article;
• Faithful copy of short, uncited excerpts;
• Mosaic: use of adapted phrases, usually through synonyms and maintenance of sense and structure, from an external source, without due citation;
• Use of tables, charts, figures and other elements, without references to the consulted sources;
• Self-plagiarism: use of one’s own previously published work, without references to 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 guidelines of the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) concerning the identification of plagiarism.  

Associate-Editor Review and Peer Review

Once the received submission is adequate, compliant with the criteria observed in the Primary evaluation and in the Plagiarism verification, the editorial team sends the text forward to the Peerreview process. At this point, an editorial assistant sends the submission to the associate editors so that one of them, in accordance with their area of expertise and availability, takes over the editing of the article.

If the associate editor finds incompatibility between the text and the focus and scope of the journal, the submission may be rejected, configuring the decision of Rejection by the editor, without peer review. If there is adequacy as to the focus and scope of the journal, the associate editor in charge assigns the article evaluation task to at least two ad hoc referees. The latter are duly qualified and have experience and practice in the field of the text to be evaluated.

Reviewer Ethics and Conduct

The Peerreview process is a decisive instrument for the assessment of science: it allows verifying and determining the degree of scientific rigor of a study. Only through serious evaluation a journal can ensure the integrity and quality of the content it publishes. Invited reviewers therefore need, in addition to outstanding academic knowledge, to act under ethical principles in order to avoid any distortion in the sense of the objective analysis of the content. Considering this work, some situations require special attention from the reviewer in the face of the journal’s request:

• Insufficient mastery of the subject: if the researcher considers that they have no sufficient knowledge on the subject, the journal recommends that this issue be notified. In addition to preventing a potentially insufficient evaluation, this notification helps editors search for other people with more suitable profiles. In this case, the invited reviewer can suggest other names for participation in the process;
• Conflict of interests: it is up to the reviewer to observe and notify the editor if the text received constitutes a conflict-of-interests situation. Common cases, which must be reported, occur when: the reviewer has had conflicts with the author before; the reviewer is the author’s friend, family member and/or co-author in recent articles or in works in progress; the reviewer was the author’s advisor in master’s or doctoral research; the evaluated study essentially contradicts the reviewer’s research;
• Secrecy on textual content: because they have access to unpublished studies, the author must not disclose any version used for evaluation. Therefore, they must be attentive and careful with the use of files in their devices;
• Objectivity in evaluation: the form provided by RBHE assists in the objectivity of the evaluation process. Referees must comply with the criteria pointed out, refraining themselves from talking about aspects not requested by the journal. When discussing concepts, it is recommended that they mention references that justify the evaluation. A polite writing, free from non-scientific judgments and pejorative terms, is also related to objectivity. If this type of content is present, the journal may remove the inappropriate excerpts when sending the evaluation report to the authors.

Double-Blind Method and Reviewer Recommendation

RBHE adopts the double-blind method for peer review, by means of which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the process. The reviewer will only know the authorship after the text is published, in case of approval. The author, in their turn, will never know the identity of the reviewers of their work.

Referees receive a form with open-ended and objective questions about the article. It addresses the following aspects: originality, relevance and contribution to the History of Education field; structure, organization, clarity and coherence of the text; title and abstract suitability; achievement of objectives; analysis of sources in conjunction with the adopted theoretical framework; bibliography pertinence and updating; revision as to spelling, grammar and APA standards.

After evaluating the aspects mentioned, the reviewer provides general comments on the text, along with their recommendation, which may be:

• Unfavorable to publishing: the article, as such, has several issues and does not meet the minimum criteria for publishing;
• Favorable to publishing with minor adjustments: if the latter are properly made, which will be checked by the reviewer, publishing will be recommended;
• Favorable to publishing with considerable adjustments: if the latter are properly made, which will be checked by the reviewer, publishing will be recommended;
• Favorable to publishing: the reviewer recommends publishing, with no adjustments needed.

Final Decision and Claims

For a submission to be considered for publishing, there must be at least two favorable opinions. If there is a negative and a positive opinion, a third referee must evaluate the text. Considering the pair of favorable opinions, it is up to the associate editor to check the notes left during the Peer review and, finally, to decide on the publishing or rejection of the text. In these cases, RBHE will follow the procedures established in this Publication ethics and malpractice statement, always based on the principles of impartiality and editorial and scientific responsibility. The final decision, therefore, is always up to the associate editor in charge or of the editor-in-chief, if their intervention is necessary in the submission.

Declaration of Absence of Conflict of Interests

Upon taking on the task of evaluating a submission, a referee must declare the absence of a conflict of interests. To do so, they need to include the following text in the “General comment”" field of the Evaluation form, available in the OJS itself: “I declare that there is no circumstance characterizing a situation of potential conflict of interests, or that can be perceived as a hindrance to an unbiased opinion. I undertake to keep all information contained in this process confidential, in particular, my status as advisor and the content of this opinion”.

POLICY ON VERSIONS IN OTHER LANGUAGES

Starting from October 5, 2024, in order to provide greater international visibility to articles originally written in Portuguese, Spanish, or French, authors will be required to submit an English translation of the text version approved through the evaluation process. Therefore, the translation should be done only after the completion of the revision in Portuguese and the technical formatting of the already approved article. The RBHE will indicate the appropriate time for authors to request professional translation. In this case, the responsibility for the translation—along with its cost—must be assumed by the article’s authors. The RBHE will publish both versions of the text (in the original language and in English).

For the English version, authors must provide a translation accompanied by a Declaration of Translation by a qualified professional, according to this template. After completion, the document must be scanned and submitted to the OJS system as a supplementary document.

PUBLISHING OF TRANSLATIONS

RBHE publishes translated versions of relevant texts, already published, for research in the History of Education field. Submissions for this modality must include an authorization from the author of the original work or from the publisher through which the text has been published. If the work is in the public domain, this procedure is not necessary, with the author of the translation being responsible for this information.

Because it is a published text, previously reviewed by peers, and editing its content in the case of a translation is not possible, it is up to the Editor-in-Chief and the associate editors to analyze and decide on its publishing feasibility. The analyzed criteria are the same as those that make up the script for Peer review.

COPYRIGHT, REPOSITORY POLICIES AND LICENSING

Originality: when submitting articles, authors must declare that the submitted work is original and that all authors have been duly credited.

Copyright: copyrights belong exclusively to the authors. RBHE requires authorization, signed individually by all authors, for publishing and distributing any content.

Repository policy: RBHE has its preprint deposit policy registered in the SHERPA/ROMEO platform. Aligned with the criteria of the Open Science movement, the journal allows authors who submit to the journal to deposit preprints at all publishing stages: pre-evaluation version, version accepted for publishing and final version, available in the journal’s own summary. In case of deposit of the final version, the authors must always indicate the DOI for the official publishing by the journal.

Because it is indexed in SciELO, RBHE recommends that authors use the SciELO Preprints server. There, they can deposit the unreviewed version and the approved version for publishing, which will be accompanied by the final version if the article is accepted for publishing. Find out more here.

Licensing: the journal uses the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license (CC BY 4.0). By submitting their text, the author agrees with the aforementioned licensing policy. This allows sharing (copying and distribution of material in any medium or format) and adaptation (remix, transformation and creation of material from the content thus licensed for any purposes, including commercial ones, provided that the conditions imposed by the license are met).

One of the conditions for use and reuse is to always reference the licensed content, mentioning its authors and adding a hyperlink to the published material. Other conditions, equally important, are set out in the Legal Code of the license.

ARCHIVING

Because it has its full catalog in the Open Journal Systems (OJS), managed by the Public Knowledge Project (PKP), RBHE chose to use the archiving system developed by the PKP itself, the PKP Preservation Network. This way, the journal guarantees the safe preservation of its content, meeting the standards on good practices in archiving. Learn more about how this service works.

Furthermore, as it is indexed in Scielo, the RBHE is part of the IBICT Cariniana Network, which ensures that all documents that are objects of research communication from the SciELO Network collections are natively digitally preserved in all their format and version instantiations. Check here the SciELO Program Digital Preservation Policy.

PROPERTY, MANAGEMENT AND FUNDING

RBHE is the official publication of the Brazilian Society for the History of Education [Sociedade Brasileira de História da Educação] (SBHE). Founded in September 1999, the SBHE is a civil association for non-economic purposes, a private-law legal entity. Its board of directors is elected by its members and has a two-year term. Said board is composed of researchers located in all Brazilian regions. The entity also has an Audit Committee responsible for monitoring its financial management.

The management of the journal, in its turn, goes through the aforementioned bodies of the Editorial Board and its team of editorial assistants. The latter are responsible for the editorial flow – from submission to final publishing and distribution. In addition to the journal’s own team, outsourced professionals perform some activities involving, for example, layout, bibliographic review and production of XML versions.

The journal is financed by the Brazilian Society for the History of Education and occasionally counts on resources from development institutions. In 2023, the RBHE has the support of the Editorial Program (Chamada Nº 12/2022) of the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq).

ISSN

Revista Brasileira de História da Educação is also known by the initials RBHE or by its official abbreviated name, Rev. Bras. Hist. Educ. Its e-ISSN is 2238-0094. The p-ISSN 1519-5902 identifies the printed version of the journal, discontinued as of 2017, when the publication became exclusively online.

FREQUENCY

RBHE is published continuously and annually. The flow for article submission is continuous as well, that is, the journal is always open to receive manuscripts.