Submissions

Author Guidelines

Preprints

Since 2021, in line with open science communication practices, the journal accepts preprints. If the manuscript is available in a preprint repository, the authors must inform the editor-in-chief in the PRESENTATION LETTER addressed to Ensaio at the time of manuscript submission, providing the document's DOI. The manuscript evaluation criteria are the same as those used for other works and undergo anonymous (not double-blind) peer review.

Ensaio Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências suggests the repository of Preprints Scielo

Peer review process

The journal adopts peer review policies that can occur in the following modalities: i) double-blind, ii) anonymous, or iii) open at the end of the process.

The manuscript evaluation begins with a pre-analysis process that involves: i) analysis using plagiarism detection software and generative AI; ii) analysis of the text's adequacy in relation to the journal's format and scope guidelines. If problems are identified in the pre-analysis, the manuscript is rejected.

If no problems are found in the pre-analysis, the manuscript is forwarded to a member of the adjunct editorial team who selects at least two reviewers for evaluation. After the evaluation, the editorial team sends the authors a final report with the decision. If two reviews disagree, a third person may be invited to evaluate the manuscript. This entire process occurs through double-blind peer review.

Furthermore, since 2021, in line with open science communication practices, the journal has adopted editorial policies involving the acceptance of preprints and the possibility of revealing the identity and opinions of the evaluation process.

Manuscripts made available in preprint repositories undergo anonymous (not double-blind) peer review. The evaluation criteria are the same.

The possibility of revealing the identity of the authors and reviewers, in turn, only exists at the end of the arbitration process (breaking double anonymity). This results in the publication of an opinion piece authored by the reviewer(s) considering the arbitration process. For more details on this process, we suggest reading the journal's 2023 editorial on the subject: Editorial Ensaio 2023.

Empirical articles should present data that, when examined in light of a theoretical framework, can result in new knowledge or in the development of its application in different contexts. Theoretical articles should introduce new ideas to the field of knowledge they examine and provide conclusions and implications for research and educational practice in the field of science education.

 

Evaluation Criteria Adopted

Empirical Studies

1. Content/Theme addressed. (Does the article title adequately reflect the content/theme addressed? Is the content/theme addressed relevant to research in the field and well-justified? Are the research questions clearly formulated? Is the theoretical framework relevant to the content/theme addressed and the research questions?)
2. Design/Methods. (Are the methodology, procedures, and organization appropriate? Are the figures, tables, and graphs relevant to the arguments presented? Is the methodology presented consistent with the theoretical framework and the research questions? Were ethical considerations addressed?)
3. Results and data analysis. (Is the analysis based on the theoretical framework presented? Does the analysis present sufficient evidence to support the results?)
4. Conclusions and implications. (Are the conclusions well-supported by the results presented? Do they adequately answer the questions posed? Do they include recommendations for the area? Are the conclusions compared with those of other works in the same domain available in the literature?)
5. Formatting. (Does the abstract present clear and concise information? Does the article use appropriate language? Are the figures, tables, and graphs of satisfactory quality for publication? Is the bibliography relevant? Can the article be significantly reduced without loss of clarity?)

Theoretical Publications

1. Content/theme addressed. (Is the title appropriate to the article? Is the article's area of interest clearly described and supported by relevant literature?)
2. Theoretical framework. (Is the theoretical problem addressed relevant to research in Science Education and is it clearly formulated? Is the theoretical foundation adequate to address the problem?)
3. Discussion and argumentation. (Is the theoretical argument developed clear and consistent?)
4. Conclusions and implications. (Are the conclusions well-grounded in the discussion presented? Do the conclusions include recommendations for the field? Are the conclusions compared with those of other publications in the same domain available in the literature?)
5. Formatting. (Does the abstract present clear and concise information? Does the article use appropriate language? Are the figures, tables, and graphs of satisfactory quality for publication? Is the bibliography relevant? Can the article be significantly reduced without loss of clarity?)

Literature Review Papers (State of the Art)

1. Content/addressed theme. (Is the researched theme relevant to the field of education of science?)
2. Scope. (Does the study have a scope that allows for the identification of research trends in the investigated topic? Does the scope of the review include diverse journals and different modalities of scientific communication, such as articles, books, book chapters, theses and dissertations, and conference papers? Does it include dialogue with national and international production?)
3. Analytical Framework. (The study is guided by the author's critical and analytical perspective, supported by theoretical frameworks relevant to the topic under investigation.)
4. Results. (Does the study allow for the identification of different theoretical and methodological approaches in research on the topic? Does it discuss the research agenda in the investigated field? Does it highlight the results, implications, and limitations of the different approaches to the topic? Does it include a comparison and/or contrast of perspectives?)
5. Conclusions and implications. (Are the conclusions well-grounded in the discussion presented? Do the conclusions include recommendations for the field?)
6. Formatting. (Does the abstract present clear and concise information? Does the article use appropriate language? Are the figures, tables, and graphs of satisfactory quality for publication? Is the bibliography relevant? Can the article be significantly reduced without loss of clarity?)

Open data

Making data, code, and other materials available in an open format contributes to reproducibility, transparency, collaboration, efficiency, and data economy, among other important aspects for scientific practices and knowledge production.

Once a manuscript is approved, the data, code, and other materials must be submitted to the Ensaio repository on Scielo Dataverse EPEC and will be reviewed by the journal's Data Editors, who are also responsible for assisting authors in making any necessary adjustments.

Since 2024, the Ensaio Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências has included information on data availability at the end of articles approved for publication, in accordance with the Guia Scielo (2018).

More information is detailed in Editorial 2024.

 

Charging fees

The Ensaio Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências does not charge fees for article submission and publication.

 

Ethics and misconduct policy, errata and retraction

The Ensaio Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências follows recommendations for ethical standards, transparency, and accountability in scientific communication, adhering to the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (Committee on Publication Ethics - COPE) and the Guia de boas práticas para o fortalecimento da ética na publicação científica.

1. The editor-in-chief oversees the entire editorial process, paying particular attention to the following aspects: i) The relationships between the journal and different agents involved in scientific communication (persons responsible for authorship, issuing opinions, target audience, indexers, funding agencies, the scientific community, and the general public). ii) Ensuring the quality of peer review of a manuscript, considering the following parameters: impartiality, transparency, deadlines, effectiveness, and civility. iii) Guiding the journal's practices based on guidelines and documents from the journal's Publishers, without compromising editorial independence.

2. The manuscript submission process requires authors to provide the following information in the PRESENTATION LETTER sent to Ensaio: i) information on adherence to the open science policies adopted by the journal; ii) a statement that they demonstrably accept responsibility for the content of the manuscript; iii) recording the contribution of each person involved in the production of the manuscript, according to the criteria of the CRediT (The Contributor Roles Taxonomy). Details about the journal's position on this topic can be found in the Editorial 2022; iv) a statement on the ethical principles and procedures adopted in the research; (v) information on the use of generative AI tools in the production of manuscript content.

 

3. The editorial team is guided by impartiality, integrity, and confidentiality in conducting the processing, evaluation, and decision-making processes, prioritizing constructive criticism and meeting the deadlines established by the journal. i) The editor-in-chief oversees all questions and concerns from authors regarding ethical aspects through contact with the corresponding editorial staff. ii) Authors may contest editorial decisions by means of a reply letter in which they explain why the manuscript should undergo a new evaluation. iii) In these cases, the editor-in-chief analyzes the arguments and assesses whether the decision was clearly and well-justified, in order to verify that the opinions were not issued based on erroneous or questionable information. iv) The editor-in-chief may reconsider rejected manuscripts when they identify valid reasons and problems in the manuscript evaluation. v) Decisions regarding manuscripts include due diligence related to scientific misconduct. Misconduct includes practices of fabrication, falsification, or piracy/plagiarism when proposing, conducting, reviewing, or disseminating research results, as defined by the COPE Report. vi) Reports of suspected research misconduct may be made via the journal's official email address. vii) Suspicions of research misconduct reported in a manuscript are investigated by the editor-in-chief, who contacts the individuals involved in the case in order to make a decision. viii) In the case of misconduct identified in a previously published article, the text is retained and remains indexed in the journal's databases as a retracted article. ix) A retraction may be partial if the misconduct applies to a specific part of the article, provided that the overall published research is not compromised. x) The publication of retractions follows the Guia para o registro, marcação e publicação de retratação. xi) Errors, regardless of their nature or origin, that do not constitute misconduct, are corrected by means of an erratum, based on the Guia para Publicação de Errata. xii) The journal publishes the errata or retractions as quickly as possible.

 

Policy on conflict of interest

Conflicts of interest are understood as conditions in which a person involved in the editorial process of a manuscript holds conflicting or competing interests that could influence editorial decisions. Personal, political, financial, academic, or religious considerations can affect objectivity in the evaluation of manuscripts (The COPE Report, 1999).

In the journal Ensaio Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências::

i) Those responsible for editing should avoid making decisions about manuscripts that conflict with their own interests, such as those submitted by people in their department or who collaborate with their research.

ii) Considering the possibility of conflicts of interest, the journal does not publish articles authored by members of its editorial board.

(iii) If a conflict of interest is identified, those responsible for the editorial department should delegate decision-making to colleagues on the editorial team.

iv) Reviewers should consider any type of conflict of interest before evaluating the manuscript. Employment relationships should be considered (e.g., participating or having participated in a research project; maintaining or having maintained scientific collaboration with the research group; having a mentoring relationship; having a financial interest in the project involved in the manuscript).

 

Adoption of similarity verification software

The journal uses the software Plagius Profissional to identify plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and republication of articles, as well as data falsification.

This occurs during the manuscript pre-analysis process, which, among other aspects, verifies: i) evidence of plagiarism and ii) evidence of citation manipulation.

(i) Plagiarism identification, in two stages. First, using anti-plagiarism software, followed by a qualitative analysis of the manuscript related to the form and content of the text. The maximum similarity accepted by the journal is 15%.

(ii) In case of doubt or questioning regarding plagiarism, the editor-in-chief contacts the person responsible for the manuscript and for contacts with the editorial team and, if necessary, all persons involved in the production of the manuscript. If plagiarism is proven, the authors' affiliated institutions or funding agencies involved in the development of the research are notified.

(iii) Still during the pre-analysis, and during the processing, the editorial team observes evidence of citation manipulation, that is, practices aimed at increasing the number of certain citations in the manuscript. If excessive self-citation is identified, the editorial team contacts the people responsible for the text for clarification to support the decision-making process.

(iv) The journal repudiates practices such as the exchange of citations between colleagues in research groups and suggestions from reviewers that their articles be cited in the evaluated text (coercion).

Adoption of software using Artificial Intelligence resources

The Ensaio Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências critically opposes the use of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) for the production of articles and peer reviews. The critique is based on the observation that this technology, under current production configurations, entails risks such as illegitimacy, illegality, implausibility, and lack of criticality, in addition to reinforcing asymmetrical processes of appropriation and distribution of knowledge. By denouncing the depoliticization and dehumanization of academic processes promoted by the indiscriminate use of GAI, we reaffirm the centrality of human authorship as an ethical, creative, and politically situated act, especially in the face of the precariousness of intellectual work. Due to ethical, political, and scientific concerns for the new generation of researchers and the future of science, the practices of authorship, evaluation, and editing must remain the responsibility of individuals.

The editorial team uses the software Plagius to detect the use of generative AI tools in the production of content in manuscripts.

Details regarding the magazine's editorial position on the topic are published in Editorial 2025.

 

Gender issues

The editorial team of Ensaio Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências, as well as the authors who publish in the journal, must observe the guidelines on Sex and Gender Equity in Research (Sex and Gender Equity in Research – SAGER). The SAGER guidelines comprise a set of guidelines that guide the reporting of sex and gender information in study design, data analysis, and the interpretation of findings. Furthermore, Ensaio Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências observes the gender equity policy in the formation of its editorial board.

 

Ethics Committee

Authors should attach, as a supplementary document, when necessary, a statement of approval from the ethics committee of the institution responsible for approving the research.

 

Copyright

Authors of articles published by Ensaio Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências retain copyright to their publication, licensing it under the Creative Commons Attribution BY 4.0, which allows articles to be reused and distributed without restriction, provided the original work is properly cited. Authors grant the journal the right of first publication under the same license.

 

Intellectual property and terms of use

All content, as well as articles published by Ensaio Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências, except where otherwise specified, are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution CC-BY license.

Authors of articles published by Ensaio Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências retain the copyright to their work, licensing it under the Creative Commons Attribution license, which allows the articles to be reused and distributed without restriction, provided the original work is properly cited.

The Ensaio Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências encourages authors to self-archive their accepted manuscripts, publishing them on personal blogs, institutional repositories, and academic social media, as well as posting them on their personal social media, provided that the full citation to the journal's website version is included.

 

Sponsors and funding agencies

• CAPES - National Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel, Ministério da Educação (MEC), Brasil.
• CNPq - Program of the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (MCTIC), Brasil.
• Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG), Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil.
• Centro de Ensino de Ciências e Matemática – CECIMIG from the Faculty of Education of the Federal University of Minas (Faculdade de Educação da Universidade Federal de Minas), Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil.
• Programa de Pós-Graduação da Faculdade de Educação from Federal University of Minas Gerais (Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais) (PPGFAE/UFMG), Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil.