EVALUATION AND PEER REVIEW

Minimum Qualification
As a leading journal in the field, the publication requires ad hoc reviewers to hold at least a doctoral degree (Ph.D.).

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

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. 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”.

USE OF GENERATIVE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN JOURNAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
RBHE recognizes the potential of generative AI to enhance efficiency, provided that scientific integrity, confidentiality, and human accountability are preserved. Accordingly:

• Authors may use AI to improve linguistic clarity or analyze data, but must declare the tool, version, and purpose in the Methods section or Acknowledgments. AI-generated content without critical human validation will not be accepted, and AI systems cannot be credited as authors.
• Reviewers and editors must not upload full manuscripts or peer-review reports to public AI systems that could compromise the confidentiality of submitted content.
• The Editorial Team may use in-house 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 the responsibility of human editors.
  This guidance follows SciELO’s 2024–2028 Priority Lines and international guidelines for the responsible use of AI.