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.