Editorial policy

Preprints

História da Historiografia is an annual publication (single volume), with a continuous flow of academic articles (original or review). It also accepts the publication of articles deposited on preprint servers, and all submitted texts are peer-reviewed before publication. In the case of preprints, the evaluation will be simple-blind or open, according to the choice of the author and the referees, expressed through the Open Science Compliance Form.

Prior publication policy

Given the need for a transparent communication process between authors and readers, HH explains its prior publication policy:

All material previously published, in full or in part, in a journal, book or website by the authors is considered prior publication and therefore cannot be submitted for evaluation at HH;
All content previously available in a non-scientific journal, event proceedings, thesis, dissertation, monograph and work presented as a requirement for completing a course by the authors is not considered prior publication. However, authors must declare the origin of the article at the time of submission in Research Context;
HH accepts articles previously deposited on the SciELO Preprints, SocArXic and Zenodo preprint servers. Other servers will be analyzed on a case-by-case basis by the Editor-in-Chief. The text previously published as a preprint must be correctly cited at the time of submission.

We recommend that authors check that they actually own the copyright to the text in the cases described above.

Peer Review Process

Submissions must be made by registering in the system and then accessing it using a login and password.

The evaluation process begins after three items have been sent:

a version of the article without identification;
a version of the article according to the submission template, containing authorship data;
the Declaration of Conformity with Open Science duly completed and signed.

Once received, the article undergoes an initial screening to check that it complies with the scope of the journal. If so, the text is sent for evaluation to an executive editor, who is responsible for choosing and inviting possible evaluators, as well as mediating between them.

The journal História da Historiografia uses three types of peer review:

Double-blind peer review: in this modality, authors and reviewers do not know each other's identity;
Single-blind peer review: in this modality, authors reveal their identity, but referees remain anonymous;
Open peer review: in this modality, authors and reviewers know each other's identity.

The standard form of evaluation adopted by the journal is double-blind. However, in the case of preprints, it is not possible to guarantee the anonymity of the authors and, for this reason, the evaluation can be single-blind or open.

The possibility of dialog between reviewers and authors can be open or blind, depending on the choice made in the Open Science Compliance Statement. This dialog can also be mediated by the executive editor. Opinions may be published, with or without authorship, as long as the author and the referee agree to this procedure, which must be stated in the declaration.

All articles submitted to the journal are analyzed by similarity software, in accordance with the anti-plagiarism policy. This can happen at any time: before, during or after the evaluation process.

The evaluation process takes an average of 3 to 4 months.

The names of the editors responsible for monitoring the evaluation process are disclosed as metadata when the article is published. From 2025, the total number of referees involved in evaluating each article will appear as metadata in the publication.

See Guidelines for the submission of originals and Declaration of Compliance with Open Science in Guidelines for authors.

Conflict of interest guidelines

When submitting the manuscript, the author must inform whether there are any potential conflicts of interest associated with the research and/or preparation of the article submitted. Conflicts of interest can be of a financial, institutional, personal, commercial, political or academic nature, among other motivations.

Examples

divergent interpretations in relation to other scholars on a given theme or object indicate that there is an academic conflict of interest, which may affect the evaluation of the manuscript if it is sent to a referee who shares a different interpretation;
political, ideological or theoretical disagreement regarding the approach to the subject of the article;
personal disagreement between authors and referees, if they can be identified indirectly (through the approach to the topic and/or type of interpretation, as well as the style of writing, considering the article and the referee);
personal, political, ideological or academic disagreement between the author and the managing editor and/or editor-in-chief.
Reviewers should also disclose to the editors any conflicts of interest that could influence their opinions on the manuscript, and should declare themselves unqualified to review specific originals if they believe this procedure is appropriate. As in the case of authors, if there is silence on the part of reviewers about potential conflicts, this may mean that such conflicts exist and have not been disclosed or that the conflicts do not exist. Therefore, reviewers are also asked to provide declarations of competing interests, which are used to assess the value of peer reports.
If there are no conflicts of interest, simply transcribe and add the following note: There were no conflicts of interest in carrying out the present study. Information on the authors' conflicts of interest will be inserted at the end of the published article.
The editor with a potential conflict of interest in relation to an author should inform the editor-in-chief, who will appoint another executive editor to forward the evaluation.
If authors and referees are unsure of what may constitute a potential conflict of interest, they should contact the editor-in-chief or managing editor responsible for forwarding the review.
Authors must acknowledge in the manuscript all financial support for the work and other financial or personal connections in relation to the research. The contributions of people who are mentioned in the acknowledgments for their assistance in the research should be described, and their consent for publication should be documented.

Open Data

History of Historiography publishes original and review articles focusing on theories and/or philosophies of history, the history of historiography and related topics (see Focus and Scope).

Given the type of research and reflection carried out, the production of data, methods and other shareable materials is limited. Despite this, the journal advises authors to follow the Guide to citing research data, informs them about repositories for depositing data and the possibilities for openness, transparency and reproducibility of research, in accordance with the SciELO guidelines.

Fees

História da Historiografia: International Journal of Theory and History of Historiography (HH) does not charge submission, article processing (APC) or publication fees.

Ethics and Misconduct, Correction and Retraction Policy

História da Historiografia (HH) follows the standards of ethics and responsibility in scientific communication established by national and international institutions such as SciELO and COPE. This means that HH's editorial practices seek to promote the integrity of the manuscript evaluation process, combating:

the unreferenced use of data, texts and images;
duplicate publication of the same text;
excessive self-citation by authors and/or journals.

These and other problems that can damage not only the reputation of HH, but also of research production and promotion institutions, as well as negatively affecting the relationship between scientists and society, must be tackled through editorial practices that make it possible to disseminate the best possible results of research, studies and reflections.

All authors must take responsibility for the content of the texts submitted and published. Confirmation must be made digitally, including a response on potential or actual conflicts of interest, to be recorded in the publication. Texts based on research involving living beings must be approved by the corresponding ethics board and authors who use artificial intelligence in the development of their research and/or in the preparation of the text must inform this.

The work submitted may be revised at any time during the evaluation process. Once the article has been published, any gaps or errors that do not indicate misconduct may be corrected by means of an erratum or addendum. Errata correct errors. The addendum adds information that is missing from the article.

In detail: the addendum does not contradict the original publication and is not used to correct errors, but to include important information for the dissemination of the article, provided that this information does not need to be in the original document. The added information will not actually be inserted into the published article. It will be linked to the article via a link to the addendum page, with the appropriate information and/or references. In addition, the addendum may be peer-reviewed, depending on the case.

Errata can be of three types: correction of information, inclusion of information and exclusion of information. The errata can be published separately or be a direct correction to the published article.

Types of errata:

Correction or inclusion of information necessary for the understanding of the published article, in the case where a piece of information has been incorrectly inserted or excluded in an honest way and should appear in the published article, which includes the correction of tables, figures, charts and parts of the text;
Inclusion of a funding institution with a contract or process number;
Inclusion of author;
Inclusion of the author's institutional affiliation at the time of publication of the article;
Correction of translations that compromise the understanding of the translated text.

Publication of errata:

The procedure for publishing errata follows the guidelines of international databases and aims to preserve the original record of the published article by informing about corrections.

In the case of excluding parts of the published article that can be considered honest mistakes and do not affect the scientific or argumentative structure of the text, an errata can be published justifying the exclusion.

Actual corrections to published articles:

The actual correction in the published document may only occur in the following data:

DOI of the article;
Author's name;
Corresponding author data;
Authorship contribution information;
Document section;
Article title;
Author affiliation at the time of publication of the article;
Abstract (complete);
Keywords;
Funding institution and contract or process number;
Funding institution;
Citation;
Reference;
Bibliographic legend (journal title, volume, special issue or number, volume supplement, periodicity, year, pagination, elocation-id);
Article history dates.

Any other data that is corrected will not actually be corrected in the original document, but readers will have access to the errata informing them of the corrections.

Cases in which an erratum is not necessary:

A layout error that has not deleted data;
An error in the formatting of the article (e.g. words that should be in italics, etc.);
Proofreading or spelling errors that do not compromise the meaning of the text;
ORCID error;
A change in the author's institution after publication.

The request for an erratum or addendum must be made using the appropriate form available in the change form.

In the event of misconduct:

The published article in which the misconduct was identified will remain as such in the retracted condition. The article cannot be “unpublished”.
The retraction must state the reason, duly referenced, by means of a communication from the author or editor.

The published article will be labeled with a retraction notice.

In the event of doubts or questions about authorship or other relevant issues, the editor-in-chief should be contacted so that he or she can take the appropriate measures, which include:

Requesting clarification from the author(s) of the article;
Informing the affiliation institutions of the author(s) and the funding institutions involved in the development of the research, if applicable;
Set up a committee made up of members of the editorial board and those from outside the journal to assess the case, if necessary;
Disclosure of the retraction.

Important note:

Authors are requested to provide their first and last names correctly when submitting and in the identified article, considering the usual citation method. Errors or variations in the author's name in publications affect the indexers' metadata, making it difficult to correctly identify the author. The author's last name must be written in ALL CAPS.

Policy on Conflict of Interest

In order for the editorial board to better decide on a submitted text, it is necessary to know about any competing interests that the authors may have. The aim is not to eliminate these interests; they are almost inevitable. Manuscripts will not be rejected, nor will referees be excluded simply because there is a conflict of interest, but there needs to be a declaration of whether or not there is a conflict of interest.

Public trust in the peer review process and the credibility of published articles depend, in part, on how conflicts of interest are managed during writing, peer review and decision-making by editors. Conflicts of interest can arise when authors, reviewers or editors have interests that, whether apparent or not, can influence the preparation or evaluation of manuscripts. Conflicts of interest can be of a personal, commercial, political, academic or financial nature. When authors submit a manuscript, they are responsible for recognizing and disclosing financial or other conflicts that may have influenced their work.

Authors must:

Acknowledge in the manuscript all financial support for the work and other financial or personal connections in relation to the research.
Report the contributions of people who are mentioned in the acknowledgments for their assistance to the research, describing the type of contribution and attesting to their consent.
Declare whether or not there is a conflict of interest when submitting the article, in Step 3: Submission metadata, Conflicts of interest field.

As in the case of authors, if there is silence on the part of the reviewers about potential conflicts of interest, this may mean that such conflicts do not exist or have not been disclosed.

The reviewer must:

Disclose to the editors any competing conflicts of interest or substantive interpretative disagreements that may influence or compromise the evaluation, which will be taken into account a posteriori when evaluating the opinions issued.
Declare themselves unqualified to review specific originals, if they believe that the evaluation is compromised due to a conflict of interest or identification of the article's authorship, with the exception of the cases foreseen in which the evaluation is opened up.

The editor must:

In the case of the editor-in-chief, inform the editorial board, made up of the executive editors, who may suggest the best name to accompany the evaluation of the manuscript;
In the case of the executive editor, who is responsible for forwarding the evaluation and deciding whether or not to publish the manuscript, inform the editor-in-chief, who may forward the article to another executive editor, if necessary.

If there are no conflicts of interest, simply add the following note in the specific field included in the opinion form: There were no conflicts of interest in carrying out this study. Information on the existence or not of conflicts of interest of the authors will be inserted at the end of the published article, as metadata.

If the authors are unsure about what might constitute a potential conflict of interest, they should contact the journal's editors.

Adoption of similarity software

The journal uses the similarity checking software Turnitin. All articles can be checked at any time: before, during and after the review process.

Adoption of software using Artificial Intelligence resources

History of Historiography understands that the use of artificial intelligence tools and resources, which can assist authors in the preparation of their research and texts, in addition to helping editors organize and streamline editorial processes, is possible, as long as it is guided by ethical principles that guarantee the integrity of the research and the valorization of human authorship. Only humans can be authors.

Examples of cases in which the use of artificial intelligence is possible:

Preparation, formatting, review and translation of articles and abstracts;
Selection of keywords;
Reception, editing tasks, review, translation, preparation of content summaries, assignment of metadata, selection of reviewers.
Preparation of reviews.

Any use of artificial intelligence must be informed in accordance with ethical principles and good practices of scientific communication. It is understood that concealing the use of content generated by artificial intelligence is an ethical failure that violates the principles of research integrity and devalues human authorship, which may lead to the retraction of the article. It is up to human authorship to assume public responsibility for their work and ensure the proper use of technological resources.

Authors must inform:

The sources and studies used in the research and mentioned in the article.
Any and all use of content generated by artificial intelligence. The information must be included in the abstract, in the methods section or equivalent (if applicable) and/or in a reference note.

Reviewers must inform:

The use of artificial intelligence tools in the preparation of their opinions.

Reviewers are recommended to use plagiarism detection software and academic search engines, among other tools, to identify plagiarism.

Examples of search engines that help locate previous publications and plagiarism: Google, Bing, Yahoo, Ask, DuckDuckGo.

Content generated by artificial intelligence tools must be cited as a non-retrievable source and/or similar to a personal communication, following the following format:

Company name. Date of access in __/__/__ format. Product name. URL. Version or model.

The History of Historiography journal uses the free and open access software Open Journal Systems (OJS), which assists in the processes of receiving and evaluating submitted articles.
The work of layout, review, translation and XML markup is decentralized and the companies (which may vary over time) responsible may use their own tools, which must be informed to the journal through a form provided by the journal.
Articles are evaluated by ad hoc reviewers, who are recognized by the journal as the authors of their respective reviews, even if they remain anonymous. When performing the task of evaluating a manuscript, reviewers may or may not use artificial intelligence, which must be informed in the review form.
The analysis of the relevance of the text to the scope of the journal is done without the use of artificial intelligence, but the evaluation of abstracts and keywords by editors may use them, which should be reported from 2025 onwards.
The verification of the originality of articles (plagiarism prevention) uses Turnitin software as a complement to the analysis by experts.
Communication between editors, reviewers and authors does not use chatbots.

See Guide to Using AI Tools and Resources.

Gender and Sex Issues

The editorial team of the journal História da Historiografia (HH), in addition to the authors who publish in the journal, must always follow the guidelines on Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER). The SAGER guidelines comprise a set of tools that guide the reporting of information on sex and gender in the design of the study, in the analysis of data and in the results and interpretation of findings. In addition, HH observes the gender equity policy in the formation of its editorial board.

It is understood that any editorial guideline must recognize the specificities of the different areas of knowledge, as well as the scope of each academic journal. Considering HH, problems related to sex and gender can and have been addressed by studies that address concepts and theories on the subject, individual trajectories, networks of intellectual sociability, institutions, construction of canons, practices for evaluating scientific and historiographical production, means of circulation and reception of knowledge, etc.

It is understood that whenever the topic allows for differentiation of sex and gender, editors and reviewers can value the approach and suggest highlights in titles, abstracts and keywords. In this sense, the Guidelines on Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) provide some important recommendations and some of them have been incorporated into the forms for submitting articles and reviews.

The editorial board, in its diversity, shares the defense of human rights and adopts an ethical stance in relation to the treatment of submitted texts, respecting freedom of thought and expression, but remaining attentive to the published content, in order to avoid the dissemination of ideas capable of reinforcing prejudices or promoting forms of discrimination or gender violence.

Ethics Committee

Authors must attach a statement of approval from the ethics committee of the institution responsible for approving the research, when applicable, considering the scope of the journal História da Historiografia, the specificities of the area of History and the research carried out.

Copyright

The authors of articles published in História da Historiografia are the copyright holders of their work, authorizing its publication under the Creative Commons Attribution BY 4.0 license, which allows articles to be reused and distributed without restriction, as long as the original work is correctly cited.

Intellectual Property and Terms of Use

This publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The data, concepts, and opinions presented in the works, as well as the accuracy of the documentary and bibliographical references, are the sole responsibility of the authors.

Authors of articles published by História da Historiografia 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, as long as the original work is correctly cited.

Historia da Historiografia encourages authors to self-archive their accepted originals, publishing them on personal blogs, institutional repositories, and academic social media, as well as posting them on their personal social media, as long as the full citation to the version on the journal's website is included.

Open Science Compliance

Open science practices concern the relationship between scientists and society, between knowledge and power. These practices include different types of initiatives, from open access to publication, through free and open publishing, to the direct participation of non-scientists in scientific production. In short, open science means that knowledge should be free for people to use, reuse and distribute without legal, technological or social restrictions, considering the role of knowledge in defending the “common good”, citizenship and democracy.

This journal follows the Diamond Open Access model. When filling in the Open Science Compliance Form, authors must inform:

Whether the manuscript is a preprint (accepted servers: SciELO Preprints, SocArXic, Zenodo and Arvix/SocArXiv), if so, its location;
Whether data, program codes and other materials underlying the text of the manuscript are properly cited and referenced (examples: SciELO Data);
Whether or not they accept the openness options in the peer review process.

In order to encourage open science, HH encourages authors to make their published articles available on institutional repositories, academic social networks and other open access platforms (examples: ResearchGate, Academia.edu), provided they are properly referenced.

Ethics in Publication

História da Historiografia supports the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and adopts an editorial policy committed to ethical publication criteria. This is why it uses tools and adopts procedures aimed at identifying and combating bad practices, fraud and possible copyright violations.

In short, authors must:

Explicitly reference citations, hypotheses and data acquired, analyzed or interpreted from other publications.
Indicate as authors only those who participated actively and substantially in all phases of the research and writing of the article.
Attach a statement of approval from the ethics committee of the institution responsible for approving the research, if applicable.

The reviewer must:

Inform about possible conflicts of interest that could affect (negatively or positively) the evaluation of the article;
Refuse to assess the article if they identify the author, in order to preserve the blind assessment.
Write the opinion in a cordial tone, avoiding comments that do not contribute to improving the text.

Editors should:

Inform about potential conflicts of interest that could affect (positively or negatively) the article evaluation process;
Maintain a blind review when forwarding the article to the reviewers;
Conduct the evaluation process by selecting the most appropriate referees to evaluate the article, seeking its best version for publication;
Establishing a cordial dialog with reviewers and authors in order to make the work viable.

After acceptance and before publication, all articles are submitted to the Turnitin similarity checking system. At this point, the textual content of the manuscript is analyzed, seeking to identify similarities with other previously published articles.

Digital Preservation

This journal follows the standards defined in the Digital Preservation Policy of the SciELO Program.

Authors are allowed and encouraged to deposit published works (post-print version only) in institutional repositories, academic social networks (ResearchGate, Academia.edu) and similar sites, always offering a detailed indexing of the item.