Peer Review Process

The International Journal of Tourism Analytics (IJTA) employs a rigorous Double-Blind Peer Review process to ensure the publication of high-quality, original, and scientifically sound research. Neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other's identities throughout the review process. Editorial decisions are made solely on the basis of scholarly merit, methodological rigor, originality, and relevance to the journal's focus and scope. The journal is committed to a transparent, fair, objective, and timely review process in accordance with internationally recognized standards of scholarly publishing and the principles promoted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Editorial and Peer Review Workflow

Step 1. Online Submission
Authors submit manuscripts electronically through the Open Journal Systems (OJS).
Before submission, authors must ensure that:
1. The manuscript follows the IJTA Author Guidelines;
2. All metadata are complete;
3. The manuscript is anonymized for double-blind review;
4. Ethical statements are included where applicable;
5. References are formatted according to APA 7th Edition.

Step 2. Initial Editorial Screening (Desk Evaluation)
The Editor-in-Chief or a Handling Editor conducts an initial evaluation to determine whether the manuscript:
1. Fits the journal's focus and scope;
2. Demonstrates sufficient originality and novelty;
3. Presents a clear research objective;
4. Employs an appropriate and rigorous methodology;
5. Complies with ethical standards;
6. Follows the journal template and formatting requirements;
7. Uses appropriate academic English.

At this stage, manuscripts may be Desk Rejected without external review if they:
1. Fall outside the journal scope;
2. Lack novelty or scientific contribution;
3. Contain major methodological weaknesses;
4. Fail plagiarism screening;
5. Have poor academic writing quality;
6. Substantially violate the journal guidelines.

Desk evaluation is generally completed within 7 days after submission.

Step 3. Plagiarism Screening
All manuscripts undergo plagiarism detection using similarity-checking software.
General criteria include:

1. Similarity Index above 40%: Article Rejected (due to poor citation and/or poor paraphrasing; article outright rejected; NO RESUBMISSION accepted).
2. Similarity Index (20-35%): Send to the author for improvement (provide correct citations to all places of similarity and do a good paraphrasing even if the citation is provided).
3. Similarity index equal to or Less than 20%:  Accepted, or citation improvement may be required (proper citations must be provided to all outsourced texts).

Editorial judgment is applied to distinguish legitimate overlap (e.g., references, standard methods, properly quoted text) from unethical duplication.
Manuscripts failing plagiarism screening may be rejected before peer review.

Step 4. Assignment to Handling Editor
Eligible manuscripts are assigned to an editor with expertise relevant to the manuscript. The Handling Editor oversees the peer-review process, selects reviewers, evaluates reviewer reports, and makes recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief.

Step 5. Double-Blind Peer Review
Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers with recognized expertise in the relevant field. Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:
1. Originality and novelty;
2. Significance of the research problem;
3. Theoretical contribution;
4. Methodological rigor;
5. Validity of data analysis;
6. Interpretation of results;
7. Discussion supported by relevant international literature;
8. Practical and policy implications;
9. Clarity of presentation;
10. Quality of references.
When reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may invite a third reviewer before making a decision. The review period is normally 2–4 weeks.

Reviewer Recommendation Categories
Reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:
1. Accept (accepted without revision)
2. Minor Revision
3. Major Revision
4. Reject
Final editorial decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief after considering all reviewer comments.

Step 6. Author Revision
Authors receiving revision requests should:
1. Respond point-by-point to every reviewer comment;
2. Clearly indicate all revisions made;
3. Highlight revised sections in the manuscript (or use track changes if requested);
4. Resubmit within the specified deadline.

Typical revision periods are:
1. Minor Revision: 7–14 days
2. Major Revision: 14–30 days
Failure to submit revisions within the deadline without prior communication may result in withdrawal of the manuscript.

Step 7. Second Review (If Required)
For major revisions, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation. Additional revision rounds may be requested when necessary to ensure publication quality.

Step 8. Final Editorial Decision
Based on reviewer reports and the revised manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief makes one of the following final decisions:
1. Accept
2. Minor Revision
3. Major Revision
4. Reject
The Editor-in-Chief has the final authority over all editorial decisions.

Step 9. Copyediting
Accepted manuscripts undergo professional editorial processing, including:
1. Grammar correction;
2. Language editing;
3. Consistency checking;
4. Reference verification;
5. Doi verification;
6. Formatting according to the journal style.
Authors may be contacted during this stage to clarify editorial issues.

Step 10. Proofreading
1. Authors receive page proofs before publication.
2. Only minor corrections such as typographical errors, formatting issues, or production mistakes are permitted.
3. Substantive revisions are generally not allowed at this stage.

Step 11. Online Publication
After final approval, articles are assigned:
1. DOI;
2. volume;
3. issue;
4. page numbers (or article number, if applicable).
Articles are immediately published as Open Access on the IJTA website.

Peer Review Criteria
Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria.

Assessment Criteria	Main Considerations
Originality	Novelty and scientific contribution
Relevance	Alignment with the journal's focus and scope
Literature Review	Adequacy, currency, and synthesis of previous studies
Research Gap	Clearly identified and justified
Methodology	Appropriate, rigorous, and reproducible
Data Analysis	Valid, reliable, and correctly interpreted
Discussion	Comparison with previous studies and theoretical integration
Implications	Theoretical, managerial, and policy implications
Conclusion	Answers research objectives and highlights contributions
References	Current, relevant, international, and correctly formatted

Reviewer Ethics
Reviewers are expected to:
1. Maintain confidentiality;
2. Review objectively and constructively;
3. Declare conflicts of interest;
4. Avoid personal criticism;
5. Recommend relevant literature where appropriate;
6. Report suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, or unethical conduct.

Reviewers must not use unpublished information for personal advantage.

Editorial Independence
Editorial decisions are based exclusively on:
1. Scientific merit;
2. Originality;
3. Methodological quality;
4. Ethical compliance;
5. Relevance to the journal.

Editorial decisions are not influenced by:

1. Authors' nationality;
2. Institutional affiliation;
3. Gender;
4. Race;
5. Religion;
6. Political beliefs;
7. Funding source.

Review Timeline
IJTA strives to complete the editorial process within the following indicative timeline:

Stage	Estimated Time
Initial Editorial Screening	7 days
Plagiarism Screening	1–3 days
Reviewer Assignment	3–7 days
Peer Review	2–4 weeks
Author Revision	1–4 weeks
Final Editorial Decision	7 days
Copyediting and Proofreading	1–2 weeks
Online Publication	Within the scheduled issue or immediately after final production (if early online publication is adopted)

 Appeals
Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief.
Appeals should:
1. Provide scientific justification;
2. Address reviewer comments respectfully;
3. Include supporting evidence where appropriate.
The appeal will be evaluated independently, and the Editor-in-Chief's subsequent decision shall be final.

Commitment to Quality
The International Journal of Tourism Analytics (IJTA) is committed to maintaining a transparent, objective, timely, and ethical peer-review system that promotes rigorous scholarship and advances evidence-based research in tourism analytics. All manuscripts are evaluated solely on their academic quality and potential contribution to the field, ensuring fairness and integrity throughout the publication process.