Submissions

The Center for Science and Mathematics Education - CECIMIG (www.fae.ufmg/cecimig), a center for science education research and outreach at the College of Education at UFMG, is responsible for the publication of Ensaio Research in Science Education (e-ISSN 1983-2117). The journal relies on the support of the Post-Graduate Education Program at UFMG and inter-institutional partnerships in the composition of our editorial board: Brazilian (UFOP, UFJF, UFES, CEFET-RJ, UNESP, UFSC, UFABC, USP, UFGD) and international institutions (King's College of London, Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, University of Groningen).

The Journal publishes original research articles (empirical research reports, theoretical papers or reviews), and articles of literature review or of state of the art addressing themes of interest for the field of science education research. The journal aims to attend to criteria of academic excellence and social and educational relevance.

Policy & Standards

Manuscripts submitted to publication should be original and cannot be under consideration by another publication vehicle (book or journal). Papers presented in conferences can be submitted if rewritten and expanded, thus avoiding publication of papers already published in conference proceedings or of papers with great similarity. The same is valid for papers available on pre-print servers, and whose DOI must be informed at the time of submission to the journal.

Ensaio publishes articles in Portuguese; Spanish or English, and manuscripts can be published in two or three of these languages too.

Authors are responsible for the originality and veracity of the content presented in their manuscript. Linguistic review must be completed prior to submission of the manuscript.

The journal provides open access to the content of publications. All content of the journal is licensed under a Creative Commons attribution-type BY. This information is presented in all the papers published by the journal.

Currently, the journal adopts the double-blind peer review policy. Reviewers are unaware of the authors 'identity and authors are unaware of the reviewers' identity.  Therefore, it is given the option of opening the identities of the people involved in the review process for some cases (for more details, see "Open science practices", in this page). The referees are researchers have a doctorate degree and experience in publishing in indexed journals.

From 2021, in line with open science communication practices, when submitting an article, authors must inform: (i) if the manuscript is a preprint and, if so, its location; (ii) whether data, software codes and other materials underlying the manuscript text are properly cited and referenced; and, (iii)and if the open peer review options are accepted. In this way, the journal maximizes the transparency of knowledge production processes, as well as to provide the sharing and reuse of data and other research content underlying the articles. Details on this process can be found on this page, in the section "Open science practices”.

The evaluation of a manuscript goes through a pre-analysis process that involves: i) analysis in software that identifies plagiarism; ii) analysis of the adequacy of the text as to the journal's form and content norms.

If the corresponding editor identifies problems in the pre-analysis process, the manuscript is sent to the editor-in-chief who makes a decision on the rejection or processing of the work. In cases where an article is rejected, but the editors notice potential for future publication, authors are encouraged to resubmit the manuscript. The editor-in-chief explains the elements necessary for the manuscript to become eligible for a new evaluation process.

If problems are identified in the pre-analysis, the manuscript is rejected.

If there are no problems found in the pre-analysis, the manuscript is sent to an assistant editor who selects two referees for the evaluation. After the evaluation, the editorial board sends the authors a final opinion with the decision.

* If the opinions are inconsistent, a third reviewer may be invited to evaluate the manuscript.

Electronic backup and retention of access to the content of the journal

Like all journals indexed in the SciELO database, Ensaio uses the LOCKSS preservation methodology. SciELO is a member of the Rede Cariniana do IBICTand guarantees that all documents object of research communication from the SciELO collections that are natively digital are preserved in all their format and version instantiations. In case the journal stops publishing, SciELO will guarantee that the custody chain of any records maintained in its custody will be maintained by capturing and preserving appropriate descriptive metadata.

The digital preservation policy of SciELO Program aims to develop research communication infrastructures and capacities equipped with preservation systems so that journal communication contents are available for future generations according to legislation and good practices nationally and internationally adopted.

https://scielo.org/en/about-scielo/digital-preservation/

Target audience

Ensaio Research in Science Education publishes original research articles (empirical research reports or theoretical trials) of interest to the field of science education, serving the needs of researchers and post-graduate students in the areas of Science Education, Natural Sciences Education (Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Geosciences and Astronomy), and Health and Environmental Education. Its audience also includes undergraduate students and graduate students in the area of Natural Sciences, and related fields, as well as prospective teachers and teachers, and other education professionals who are involved with science education.

Policy of obedience and promotion of ethics in the journal's scientific communication

Ensaio Research in Science Education follows recommendations for standards of ethics, transparency and responsibility in scientific communication shared by Brazilian and international institutions (e.g. Brazilian Association of Scientific Editors, Center for Open Science, Committee on Publication Ethics, Council of Science Editors, Equator Network, Scientific Electronic Library Online).
The policy adopted by the journal aims to promote responsibility and integrity in the publication of scientific articles considering all agents involved in the process.
We indicate the actions implemented by the journal, considering the ethical principles that guide scientific research.

1. Compliance with all formal aspects related to the submission, designation and processing of manuscripts.
2. The editor-in-chief follows this entire editorial process, with special attention to the following aspects:
   a) The relationship between the journal and the agents involved in scientific communication (authors, reviewers, readers, publishers, funding agencies, the scientific community and the general public).
   b) Guarantee of the quality of the peer review process, considering the parameters: impartiality, transparency, deadline, effectiveness and civility.
   c) Orientation of the journal's practices based on guidelines and documents of the Publishers, without prejudice to editorial independence.
3. The editors are guided by impartiality, integrity and confidentiality in conducting evaluation and decision processes. The priorities are: a constructive criticism and compliance with deadlines.
   a) The editor-in-chief supervises all doubts and questions from the authors regarding ethical aspects through contact with the corresponding editor and/or with the referees.
   b) Authors can contest editorial decisions, by means of a replica letter in which they explain why the manuscript should undergo a new evaluation.
   c) In such cases, the editor-in-chief analyzes the author's arguments and assesses whether the decision was made clear to the author in a well-justified manner, in order to verify that the evaluations were not based on questionable information.
   d) The editor-in-chief can reconsider rejected manuscripts by identifying good reasons provided by the author and problems in evaluation process.
   e) In cases where an article is rejected, without objection from the authors, but the editor notice potentiality for future publication, the authors are encouraged to resubmit the manuscript. The editor-in-chief explains the elements necessary for the manuscript to become eligible for a new evaluation process.
   f) Decisions about manuscripts include due diligence related to scientific misconduct. The journal understands misconduct as “intention to cause others to regard as true that which is not true” (The COPE Report, 1999, p. 46)*.
   “Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results.
   (i) Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
   (ii) Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
   (iii) Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
   (iv) Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion”**.
   * https://publicationethics.org/files/u7141/1999pdf13.pdf
   ** Office of Research Integrity (ORI)
   https://ori.hhs.gov/definition-misconduct
4. Monitoring research misconduct includes the following practices:
   a) The process of submitting manuscripts demands from the authors: i) a statement that they accept responsibility for the content of the manuscript; ii) the registration of the contribution of each author in the production of the manuscript, including if there are conflicts of interest*; iii) evidence that the research was approved by the corresponding Research Ethics Committee and iv) information on adherence to the journal's open science policies.

* “Conflicts of interest comprise those which may not be fully apparent and which may influence the judgment of author, reviewers, and editors. They have been described as those which, when revealed later, would make a reasonable reader feel misled or deceived. They may be personal, commercial, political, academic or financial” (The COPE Report, 1999, p. 44).
* https://publicationethics.org/files/u7141/1999pdf13.pdf

b) Regarding the statement of author’s contribution, the journal indicates as criteria for authorship:

(i) Participation in the design or analysis/interpretation of data, or both;

(ii) Writing of the manuscript or its revision, when it includes important intellectual criticism of its content;

(iii) Final approval of the version to be published.

(iv) The three elements mentioned above

(v) Participation in data collection does not justify authorship.

(vi) Each author must have participated sufficiently in the research so that he can publicly assume responsibility for the content of the article.

(vii) In a group work, the authorship must specify: key persons responsible for the article; contributors must be recognized separately.

(viii) Anyone can contact the journal claiming authorship of a submitted manuscript. In this case, the editor-in-chief consults the corresponding author regarding the claim. The journal can forward the claim to the institution (s) where the work was carried out in order to obtain information to make a judgment on the allegation.

(ix) CRediT (The Contributor Roles Taxonomy) considers 14 different roles of authorship or contribution: Project administration, Formal Analysis, Conceptualization, Data Curation, Writing – original draft, Writing - review and editing, Investigation, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation and Visualization. The corresponding author may use these roles in the statement to define the contributions of each author. Details on each of these roles can be found at: 

c) Regarding conflicts of interest:
(i) They must be communicated not only by the authors, but by all those involved in the editorial process of a manuscript.
(ii) Editors should avoid making decisions about manuscripts that conflict with their own interests, such as those submitted by authors in their institutions or research collaborators.
(iii) Considering the possibility of conflicts of interest, Ensaio does not publish articles authored by their editors.
(iv) If assistant editors have a conflict of interest, they must delegate decision-making to other editors.
(v) Referees must consider conflicts of interest before evaluating the manuscript. Working relationships with the author should be considered (e.g. participating or having participated in a research project; scientific collaboration with research groups; advisor relationship with the author; having financial interest with the project involved in the manuscript).

d) Regarding the journal's open science policies, authors must provide data on:
(i) if the manuscript is a preprint and, if so, its location;
(ii) whether data, software codes and other materials underlying the manuscript text are properly cited and referenced; and,
(iii) whether opening options are accepted in the peer review process.

e) The journal adopts a pre-analysis process, which, among other aspects, verifies: i) evidence of plagiarism and ii) evidence inappropriate manipulation of references.
(i) Identification of plagiarism occurs in two stages: first, using anti-plagiarism software, followed by a qualitative analysis of the manuscript regarding the form and content of the text. In case of doubt or questioning about plagiarism, the editor-in-chief contacts the corresponding author and, if necessary, all authors. Once plagiarism is proven, the authors' institutions or funding agencies involved in the development of the research are communicated.
(ii) The editors also observe evidence of manipulation of references. Authors may misuse references to increase the number of some citations in the manuscript. If excessive self-citation by authors and/or the journal is identified, the editors contact the corresponding author and, when necessary, all authors for clarifications to support decision making.
(iii) Ensaio rejects practices such as exchange of citations between colleagues in research groups and suggestions from reviewers for authors to cite their articles (coercion).
(iv) In case of doubt regarding the inclusion references, the editor-in-chief should contact the corresponding author and, if necessary, all authors.

5. For the proceedings related to allegations of research misconduct, complaints and appeals, the journal is guided by the following practices:

a) Editors report possible legal or ethical issues identified throughout the processing of a manuscript.
b) Reports of suspected research misconduct can be made via the journal's official email by different actors (editors, reviewers, authors, co-authors, funding agency, readers or others).
c) Suspects of misconduct reported in a manuscript are followed by the editor-in-chief, who reports the actors involved in the case, in order to make a decision.
d) In cases of manuscripts under evaluation, the editor-in-chief suspends the evaluation process and notifies participants of the suspension. The accusations are reviewed internally by the editorial board to decide whether the allegation should proceed.
e) If the claim is not considered valid, the editor-in-chief notifies the author (s), as well as other participants involved (e.g., corresponding editors, referees) and retake the evaluation process.
f) If the claim is considered valid, the editor-in-chief notifies the author (s) and requests clarification.
g) This process is careful, and the editor-in-chief uses non-accusatory language, but clearly, considering the consequences in an author's career.
h) The clarifications from the authors can occur through the presentation of supporting data on methodology/results or relevant documentation (e.g., for fabrication/falsification), or an argumentative text in response to the accusation (e.g., for plagiarism). Other types of clarification may exist, depending on the nature of the accusation.
i) If the clarifications from the author (s) are not satisfactory, the editor-in-chief notifies the author (s) and decides on the manuscript evaluation process.
j) The editor-in-chief consults the editorial board to make a decision on the rejection of the manuscript and the notification of the author (s) affiliation institution and funding agencies. This process is careful, considering possible impacts on the author’s career.
k) In cases of contestation of the journal's decision related to misconduct, both by the accused and by the whistleblower, a committee of editorial board members and external members to the journal is constituted for analysis.
l) In the case of misconduct identified in a published article, the text is kept on the journal website and indexed in the journal bases under the condition of retracted.
m) A retraction indicates the reason for the retraction, based on a communication from the authors or editor or another authorized agent. This communication is published by the journal.
n) The retraction can be partial in case of the misconduct applied to a specific part of the article.
o) Errors, regardless of nature or origin, which do not constitute misconduct, are corrected through errata.
p) The journal publishes errata or retractions as quickly as possible.

Peer review process

1. Receipt of submission
a) Assistant editors verify the formal aspects of the text (summary and abstract; sections; quotes and references; tables, graphs and images, etc.). In the case of double-blind peer review, they also verify if the text does not include any data and/or metadata that make it possible to identify authors like: name or institution; names of projects; references or citations from authors, acknowledgments, information about financial support etc. They also verify if the text has significant similarity with other publications. In addition to checking these textual aspects, the editors also check the following documents: i) approval of the corresponding Research Ethics Committee; ii) statement about the contribution of each author in the production of the manuscript, including whether there are conflicts of interest; and iii) statements related to open science editorial policies: if the manuscript is a preprint and, if so, its location; if data, software codes and other materials underlying the manuscript text are properly cited and referenced; and if the open peer review options are accepted.

If any errors or problems are identified, the authors are contacted and a new version of the text is submitted.
b) the manuscripts go through a preliminary format analysis and texts with the following characteristics are rejected:
i) texts that do not have been revised in relation to language use and orthography, presenting writing errors;
ii) texts that were not written in a clear, well-structures and coherent manner;
iii) texts that do not present the structure of a scientific article in the field of Human Sciences;
iv) texts that do not follow standards of style and of bibliography described in the section “Manuscript Format”;
v) one of the authors have published an article in the journal in a period of less than a year;

c) The manuscripts go through a preliminary analyses of content and texts with the following characteristics are rejected:
i) have been published before/ that are not original;
ii) do not address a theme that is central to the area of science education (or areas in the scope of the journal);
iii) are predominantly descriptive, and do not include a theoretical discussion of the issue(s) that is(are) addressed;
iv) do not have relevant contributions to the study of the issue that is addressed;
v) empirical elements or arguments do not support conclusions appropriately;
vi) theoretical-methodological aspects or methodological aspect are not detailed and/or are not developed in depth
vii) are reports of teaching experiences/interventions;
viii) are merely a bibliographic review;
ix) is part of another text (e.g., dissertation or thesis), that was taken without contextualization, and do not have the format of an academic article;
x) are part of a research project or research report, without a clear research question.

d) Moreover, the article is submitted to a plagiarism analysis. Plagiarism analysis is developed in two stages. In the first stage, editors used a software verify the level of similarity with other publications. In the second stage, a qualitative analysis is developed. The software report is interpreted by the corresponding editor. The editor looks for possible textual elements or data from previous publications by the author (s) or other authors. In cases of suspicion, a new search is carried out to identify previous publications by the author (s) or authors of other articles that may have been used inappropriately in the manuscript. The editors also observe evidence of inappropriate manipulation of references. This process aims to identify excessive self-citation by authors and/or the journal, or excessive citations by the same research group. In cases of suspected plagiarism and/or manipulation of references, corresponding editor forwards the manuscript to the editor-in-chief. The editors-in-chief analyze the case and make a decision, notifying those involved.

e) After these preliminary analyses, one of the chief editors will designate one of the adjunct editors that will be responsible for the double-blinded process of evaluation of the manuscript. Two researchers that have expertise in the field will evaluate the manuscript, without knowing the identity of the authors. In case the editorial team cannot reach a decision based on these two reviews, a third reviewer might be consulted. The authors will receive a message informing the editorial decision, including a copy of the two reviewers’ comments.

The editors are committed to monitoring the process to guarantee that editorial decisions are supported by high quality review reports, provided in a timely manner. If a manuscript publication is conditioned to modifications on the text, the author(s) will have 21 days make revisions; otherwise the manuscript will be archived. The average time between submission and approval has been six months.The final version of the text goes through a process of lay out and revision (language, spelling and technical standards). Finally, the document is submitted to the author(s) for final verification prior to eletronic publication on the journal´s site.

2. Selection of reviewers
a) The adjunct editor chooses two reviewers for each submitted text according to the following criteria: 1. Researchers who have recognized expertise in the area of the study; 2. Researchers who do not have any institutional affiliation or closer relationships with the author, or research groups/ projects of the authors.

3. Evaluation Monitoring
a) If the reviewers do not respond regarding their availability to evaluate the manuscript in 10 days, or if they are unavailable, another reviewer will be invited to work on the submission.
b) At the end of the assigned deadline (4 weeks), the editor will send a reminder to the reviewer(s) about their commitment. If the reviewer does not send the review report until the deadline, the reviewer is contacted. If there is no commitment to meet the deadline for the completion of the report, the request is cancelled and another reviewer is immediately invited to participate in the submission process.
c) In the new evaluation round, the same procedures are followed

4. Editorial decision
a) If the reports received are convergent, the editor sends a letter to the lead author of the submission, communicating the editorial decision - accepted, rejected, corrections required, resubmit or send to another journal.
b) If the reports received are divergent, the problem will be taken to the editorial team, which can make a decision as intermediary, or whenever possible, will send to a third reviewer. In this case, the selection of the third reviewer is made by the Editorial Team.
c) The editors should take care that any rejections be justified. If the reports indicate rejection of a work without providing justified reasons for such a decision, the editor should request justification from the reviewer or solicit a new revision.
d) Works accepted with necessary corrections should be evaluated by the editor. They should be sent to the editors with a letter that indicates the points revisited and justifying the recommendations of the reviewers that had not been addressed. Based on the analysis of these documents, the editor will prepare the final report for the submission.

5. Editing and publication
a) Accepted and approved works are entered into a spreadsheet. The Editorial Team will choose the articles to be published in upcoming editions of the journal. The following criteria is considered: Submission and acceptance dates of the works (with priority given to older articles); Regional distribution for the authors of works to be published in each number of the Journal; 3. Distribution of works by foreign authors; 4. Possibility of a dossier with similar topics among published works.

6. Evaluation Criteria

6.1. Items to be considered for analysis of Empirical Works
1. Content/topic addressed
(Does the title of the article adequately represent the content/topic addressed? Is the content/topic addressed relevant in terms of research in the area and is it well justified? Are the research questions clearly formulated? Is the theoretical framework pertinent to the content/topic addressed and to 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 presented methodology coherent with the theoretical framework and with the research questions?)
3. Results and data analysis
(Is the analysis based on the theoretical framework presented? In the analysis, is there sufficient evidence to support the results?)
4. Conclusions and implications
(Are the conclusions based solidly on the results presented? Do they adequately address the questions raised? Do they include recommendations for the area? Are the conclusions similar to those in other works of the same field and which are available in literature?)
5. Formatting
(Does the summary present clear, concise information? Does the article use adequate language? Are the figures, tables and graphs presented in a satisfactory manner for publication? Is the bibliography relevant? Can the article be significantly reduced in size, without losing clarity?)

6.2 Items to be considered for analysis of Theoretical Works
1. Content/topic addressed
(Is the title of the work appropriate? Is article's area of focus clearly defined and based on relevant works in literature?)
2. Theoretical benchmarks
(Is the theoretical problem in question relevant for science education research, and is it clearly formulated? Is the theoretical framework appropriate to address the problem?)
3. Discussion and argumentation
(Is the theoretical argument both clear and consistent?)
4. Conclusions and implications
(Are the conclusions solidly rooted in the discussion presented? Do the conclusions include recommendations for the area? Are the conclusions compared with those of other works in the same area, as available in literature?)
5. Formatting
(Does the summary present information clearly and concisely? Does the article use appropriate language? Are the figures, tables and graphs of quality format, as required by the publication? Is the bibliography pertinent? Can the article be significantly reduced in size without losing clarity?)

6.3 Items to be considered for analysis of Works of Literature Review (State of the Art)
1. Content/topic addressed
(Is the topic being investigated relevant to the field of science education?)
2. Scope
(Does the scope of the study allow for the identification of research trends in the area under investigation? Does the scope of the review include journals of diverse and different modalities of scientific communication, such as articles, books, book chapters, theses and dissertations, conference materials? Does it include dialog with the field at both national and international levels?)
3. Analysis benchmarks
(Is the study oriented by a critical and analytical perspective held by the author, supported by theoretical benchmarks that are relevant to the topic under investigation?)
4. Results
(Does the study allow for the identification of different theoretical-methodological approaches to the topic of research? Does it discuss the research agenda of the field under investigation? Does it highlight the results, implications and limitations of the different approaches to the topic? Does it include conflicting and/or contrasting perspectives?)
5. Conclusions and implications
(Are the conclusions solidly rooted in the discussion presented? Do the conclusions include recommendations for the area?)
6. Formatting
(Does the summary present information clearly and concisely? Does the article use appropriate language? Are the figures, tables and graphs of quality format, as required by the publication? Is the bibliography pertinent? Can the article be significantly reduced in size without losing clarity?)

7. Open science editorial practices

7. Open science editorial practices

7.1. Preprint

If the manuscript is available on a preprint server, the authors must inform the editor-in-chief in a letter addressed to Ensaio at the time of submission of the manuscript. The stages and criteria for the evaluation of a preprinted manuscript are the same used in the other works.

7.2. Open peer review

Valid only for articles approved for publication and when there is approval by the authors in the letter addressed to Ensaio (at the time of submission of the manuscript). Opening identity of the authors and reviewers occurs at the end of the arbitration process.

There will be, then, the publication of an article-opinion (in the perspective section of the newspaper) produced by the reviewers of the original article considering the arbitration process. The article-opinion must be based on the review, on the authors' answer letter and on the original article accepted for publication. In this text, it is important to retake the main points highlighted in the analysis of the manuscript (reviews and answer letter) in order to provide elements of the evaluation process, giving it greater transparency. Reviewers, specialists in the themes dealt with in the original article evaluated, must also deepen the discussion of the relationship between the original article and the field of knowledge, in order to make an original contribution of a theoretical and/or methodological nature to the field of Science Education and/or teaching.

For more details on the open peer review process, see text and flowchart in Editorial of Ensaio 2023, available at https://www.scielo.br/j/epec/a/WrWGvFvpQGh6HQqtDbrhxLx/?lang=en

7.3. Availability of data, codes and other materials related to research

Valid only for approved papers, when there is agreement by the authors in the letter addressed to Ensaio (at the time of submission of the manuscript) and whenever there are no ethical and legal impediments to making data, codes or other materials available.

Opening availability of data, codes and other materials contributes to reproducibility, transparency, collaboration, efficiency and economy of data, among other important aspects for scientific practices and knowledge production.

Thus, by adopting open science practices, authors are contributing in multiple ways to the scientific community they are a part, in addition to increasing the potential for visibility and dissemination of their work, as the data receive a specific identifying document (DOI).

If the manuscript is approved, the data, codes and other materials must be submitted in Scielo's Dataverse and will be curated by the Ensaio’s Editor of Data, which is also responsible for helping the authors to implement any adjustments. After approval, the data, codes and other materials are made available on Ensaio page on the Scielo Dataverse (https://data.scielo.org/dataverse/brepec), mentioning the paper to which they refer. Information for preparing and depositing data is available at the following links.

Guide for data preparation: https://wp.scielo.org/wp-content/uploads/Guia_preparacao_pt.pdf

Guide for research data deposit: https://wp.scielo.org/wp-content/uploads/Guia_deposito_pt.pdf

Note that authors may choose to make data available in the Dataverse only upon request. In this case, it means that the data will be deposited in the Dataverse, but it will not be open to all internet users. Those interested in accessing the data will be able to read its description on the Dataverse page and then request them from the authors, who will then be able to make them available via the Dataverse, if they so wish.

If the authors still choose not to provide the data, we ask that a justification be presented for not doing so in the letter addressed to Ensaio (at the time of submission of the manuscript). This is because, from the year 2023, at the end of each articles approved for publication, Ensaio includes information on data availability, as per https://wp.scielo.org/wp-content/uploads/Guia_TOP_pt.pdf) (SciELO, 2018):

1. Data are not available: The set of data that supports the results of this study is not publicly available.

2. Data are available:

2.1. The entire set of data that supports the results of this study was published in its own article.

2.2. The entire set of data that supports the results of this study was made available in a repository and can be accessed at [URL or DOI].

2.3 The entire set of anonymized data that supports the results of this study was made available in a repository and can be accessed at [URL or DOI].

3. Data available upon request:

3.1. The entire set of data that supports the results of this study is available upon request to the corresponding author.

3.2. The data set is not publicly available due to... [detail the reason for the restriction; for example, contain information that compromises the privacy of research participants].

3.3. The entire set of data that supports the results of this study is available upon request to... [name of organization].

The availability of data, codes and other materials in an open way contributed to the reproducibility, transparency, collaboration, efficiency and economy of data, among other important points for scientific practices and knowledge production.

Likewise, by adopting open science practices, the authors are contributing in multiple ways to the scientific community of which they are a part, in addition to increasing the potential for visibility and dissemination of their own work, given that the data receives a specific identification document (DOI).

Ensaio indicates Scielo Dataverse as data repository. A data editor from Ensaio are responsible for helping the authors to implement eventual adjustments to deposit data. After approval, the data, codes and other materials are available on the page of Ensaio in Science Dataverse (https://data.scielo.org/dataverse/brepec), with mention of the article to which the data refer. The information for preparation and deposit of data is available in the following links.

https://wp.scielo.org/wp-content/uploads/Guia_preparacao_pt.pdf

https://wp.scielo.org/wp-content/uploads/Guia_deposito_pt.pdf

More information is explicit in Editorial of Ensaio (2023), available at https://www.scielo.br/j/epec/a/WrWGvFvpQGh6HQqtDbrhxLx/?lang=en

The article should be submitted via the journal portal at the following address: https://periodicos.ufmg.br/index.php/ensaio/, after completing registration and creating a login and password, and agreeing with the terms of the electronic submission form.

There are no fees for submission and evaluation of articles.