Review Process
Peer Review Process
A rigorous, fair, and transparent process for evaluating scholarly research in tourism and hospitality.
The International Journal for Research in Tourism and Hospitality (IJRTH) follows a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process in accordance with the principles and best practice guidelines recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The journal is committed to maintaining academic integrity, impartial evaluation, and high standards of scholarly publishing.
Initial Editorial Assessment
Upon submission, all manuscripts undergo an initial screening conducted by the editorial office and the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned handling editor. This preliminary assessment determines whether the manuscript:
- Falls within the journal’s aims and scope
- Meets basic academic quality and formatting standards
- Demonstrates sufficient scholarly merit
- Complies with the journal’s ethical and submission requirements
Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected at this stage without being sent for external peer review.
Plagiarism and Ethical Screening
All submitted manuscripts are subject to similarity checking and ethical screening prior to the peer review process.
The journal does not tolerate:
- Plagiarism
- Data fabrication or falsification
- Duplicate submission or redundant publication
- Unethical research practices
If any ethical concerns arise during screening or review, the journal follows established COPE procedures to investigate and address the issue.
Peer Review Model
The International Journal for Research in Tourism and Hospitality operates under a double-blind peer review system, where the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process.
Each eligible manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent experts in the relevant subject area. Reviewers evaluate submissions based on scholarly merit, originality, methodological rigor, clarity of presentation, and relevance to the journal’s scope.
The journal maintains a selective peer-review process, reflecting its commitment to publishing high-quality research in tourism and hospitality studies.
Reviewer Evaluation
Reviewers assess manuscripts based on several important criteria, including:
Originality and contribution to tourism and hospitality research
Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope
Methodological rigor and research design
Clarity of research objectives and presentation
Validity and reliability of results
Ethical compliance and transparency
Overall contribution to the academic field
Reviewers provide detailed comments and recommend one of the following editorial decisions:
Editorial decisions are made based on reviewer reports, editorial judgment, and the journal’s established quality standards.
Revision Process
If revisions are required, authors must submit a revised manuscript along with a detailed response to reviewers’ comments explaining how the feedback has been addressed.
In cases of major revisions, the revised manuscript may be sent back to the original reviewers for further evaluation before a final decision is made.
Final Decision
The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of a manuscript rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the designated handling editor.
Editorial decisions are made independently and are not influenced by commercial interests or external pressures.
Transparency and Fairness
The journal is committed to maintaining transparency and fairness throughout the peer review process. The editorial office ensures that:
Manuscripts are evaluated solely on scholarly merit
No discrimination occurs based on race, gender, nationality, institutional affiliation, or political beliefs
Conflicts of interest are properly disclosed and managed
Confidentiality is maintained during the entire review process
Appeals and Complaints
Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision may submit a reasoned appeal to the editorial office.
Appeals will be reviewed objectively, and additional independent evaluation may be sought where appropriate. Ethical complaints and disputes are handled in accordance with COPE guidelines and best practices.
