Review Process Policy

1. General Principles

The Journal of Tourism Sustainability (JTOS), published by Politeknik Negeri Bandung, is committed to maintaining a rigorous, independent, fair, transparent, and ethical peer-review process.

JTOS implements a double-blind peer-review system to evaluate the scholarly quality, originality, methodological rigor, and relevance of manuscripts submitted for publication.

All manuscripts must comply with the journal's author guidelines, manuscript template, publication ethics, and focus and scope.

The peer-review process is designed to ensure that publication decisions are based on scholarly merit rather than authors' identities, institutional affiliations, personal relationships, or other non-academic considerations.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

JTOS applies a double-blind peer-review process in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another during manuscript evaluation.

To support this process:

Authors must prepare manuscripts without identifying information that could compromise anonymity.
Reviewers must not attempt to identify or contact authors during the review process.
Editors must protect the confidentiality of author and reviewer identities.
Manuscripts must be evaluated objectively according to scientific and editorial criteria.

The journal recognizes that complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly when information is publicly available in preprints, research repositories, or conference proceedings.

Nevertheless, all participants must preserve the confidentiality of the review process to the greatest extent possible.

3. Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts submitted to JTOS undergo an initial editorial screening before being assigned to reviewers.

The Managing Editor and appropriate editorial members evaluate whether the manuscript meets the journal's basic publication requirements.

The initial assessment includes consideration of:

Relevance to the JTOS focus and scope.
Compliance with the manuscript template and author guidelines.
Completeness of manuscript files and submission metadata.
Originality and scientific contribution.
Appropriateness of research design and methodology.
Compliance with publication ethics and research integrity requirements.
Results of similarity screening when applicable.
Clarity, organization, and academic presentation.

Manuscripts that do not satisfy the journal's minimum requirements may be returned to authors for correction or declined before external peer review.

Successful completion of initial screening does not guarantee manuscript acceptance.

4. Reviewer Selection and Assignment

Manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening are assigned to two reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject matter.

Reviewer selection considers:

Academic qualifications and subject expertise.
Research and publication experience.
Previous experience in scholarly peer review.
Relevance of specialization to the manuscript.
Availability to complete the review responsibly.
Independence and absence of relevant conflicts of interest.

Reviewers may be selected from qualified researchers within or outside the journal's editorial network.

Editors must avoid assigning reviewers whose personal, professional, financial, or institutional relationships could compromise independent evaluation.

5. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

JTOS uses a structured review form to support consistent evaluation of manuscripts by reviewers.

Reviewers are expected to assess the following aspects where relevant to the type of manuscript:

Originality and Contribution: The novelty, significance, and contribution of the research to tourism studies and tourism sustainability.
Relevance: The alignment of the manuscript with the journal's focus and scope.
Research Problem and Objectives: The clarity, importance, and scientific justification of the research problem.
Literature and Theoretical Foundation: The adequacy, relevance, and critical integration of scholarly literature.
Methodological Rigor: The appropriateness, transparency, and reliability of the research design, data collection, and analytical procedures.
Results and Findings: The clarity, validity, and consistency of reported findings.
Discussion and Interpretation: The depth of analysis, relationship to previous research, and contribution to scholarly understanding.
Conclusions and Implications: The extent to which conclusions are supported by evidence and provide relevant theoretical or practical implications.
Academic Presentation: The organization, clarity, language, tables, figures, citations, and references.
Research and Publication Ethics: Compliance with ethical standards, appropriate attribution, and research integrity requirements.

Reviewers should provide constructive, specific, evidence-based comments that help authors improve the scientific quality of their manuscripts.

6. Peer-Review Recommendations

JTOS recognizes four categories of reviewer recommendations and editorial decisions:

6.1 Accepted, as it is

The manuscript meets the journal's scholarly and editorial requirements and does not require substantive revision before publication.

6.2 Accepted by Minor Revisions

The manuscript is considered scientifically suitable but requires limited improvements, such as clarification, language correction, presentation adjustment, or minor analytical revision.

Authors must address the requested revisions within the period specified by the editorial team.

6.3 Accepted by Major Revisions

The manuscript demonstrates potential scholarly value but requires substantial improvement before it can be considered suitable for publication.

Major revisions may involve research design clarification, additional analysis, theoretical development, restructuring, or substantial improvement of the discussion.

Revised manuscripts may undergo further review when necessary.

6.4 Rejected

The manuscript is not suitable for publication in JTOS.

Reasons may include:

Significant inconsistency with the journal's focus and scope.
Insufficient originality or scholarly contribution.
Fundamental methodological limitations.
Major problems in scientific reasoning or research reporting.
Inadequate clarity or presentation.
Substantial violations of publication ethics.

Reviewer recommendations inform editorial decisions but do not automatically determine the final outcome.

7. Editorial Decision-Making

The editorial team evaluates reviewer reports and determines the appropriate editorial decision.

The Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor is responsible for ensuring that the decision is based on scholarly merit, reviewer evaluations, journal policies, and research integrity.

When reviewers provide substantially different recommendations, the editor may:

Examine the reasons for the differing assessments.
Request clarification from the reviewers.
Seek an additional independent review.
Make a reasoned editorial decision based on the available evidence.

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by personal, financial, institutional, political, or commercial interests.

The final decision to accept or reject a manuscript remains the responsibility of the journal's authorized editorial team.

8. Manuscript Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors must carefully consider the reviewers' comments and editorial instructions.

Authors are expected to:

Revise the manuscript according to relevant reviewer recommendations.
Provide a detailed response to reviewer comments.
Explain the changes made in the revised manuscript.
Provide academically justified explanations when particular recommendations are not adopted.
Submit the revised manuscript within the specified deadline.

Revisions should be submitted through the JTOS online journal management system unless otherwise instructed by the editorial office.

The editor may return the revised manuscript to the original reviewers or request additional review when necessary.

Submission of a revised manuscript does not guarantee its acceptance.

9. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers play an essential role in maintaining the scientific quality and credibility of JTOS publications.

Reviewers are expected to:

Provide independent and objective assessments.
Maintain confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts.
Assess manuscripts within their areas of expertise.
Disclose actual or potential conflicts of interest.
Provide constructive and respectful feedback.
Identify significant methodological or ethical concerns.
Complete reviews within the agreed time frame or inform editors of possible delays.
Avoid using unpublished research information for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewers must not contact manuscript authors directly about submissions under review.

10. Confidentiality of Peer Review

All manuscripts under editorial assessment are treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers and editors must not disclose manuscript content, unpublished data, review reports, or editorial correspondence to unauthorized parties.

Confidential information must not be used for personal research, commercial activities, or other purposes unrelated to the assigned editorial work.

Reviewers and editors must also comply with the journal's Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy when using AI-assisted technologies during editorial assessment.

Confidential manuscripts must not be uploaded to external AI platforms without appropriate authorization and adequate safeguards.

11. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers and editors must disclose any financial, personal, professional, or institutional relationships that may compromise their impartiality.

Individuals with relevant conflicts of interest must decline or withdraw from the affected review or editorial assignment.

Manuscripts submitted by members of the JTOS Editorial Board must be handled independently.

Editorial board membership does not provide preferential treatment or exemption from normal peer-review requirements.

12. Research Integrity During Peer Review

Editors and reviewers must report credible concerns regarding research and publication integrity through appropriate confidential editorial channels.

Potential concerns may include:

Plagiarism or redundant publication.
Fabricated or falsified research data.
Manipulated images or research findings.
Unethical research procedures.
Inappropriate authorship practices.
Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
Fabricated references or citations.
Manipulation of the peer-review process.

Such concerns will be evaluated according to JTOS Publication Ethics and the Allegations of Research Misconduct Policy.

An allegation does not automatically establish research misconduct.

13. Review Timelines

JTOS aims to conduct editorial screening, peer review, revision, and final decision-making in a timely and responsible manner.

Review deadlines and revision periods are communicated through the journal's online editorial system or official editorial correspondence.

The duration of peer review may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the extent of revisions required, and the need for additional evaluation.

JTOS does not guarantee manuscript acceptance or publication within a fixed period.

14. Editorial Documentation and Transparency

JTOS maintains appropriate editorial records to support the transparency, accountability, and verifiability of the review process.

Relevant records may include:

Manuscript submission and editorial assignment information.
Reviewer invitations and responses.
Reviewer evaluation forms and review reports.
Editorial recommendations and decisions.
Revision requests and revised manuscripts.
Author responses to reviewer comments.
Relevant editorial correspondence.

Editorial records are maintained within the journal's management system and other authorized institutional records, subject to confidentiality and data-protection requirements.

15. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may request reconsideration of an editorial decision when they believe a significant factual error, procedural irregularity, or unmanaged conflict of interest has affected the assessment.

Appeals should provide clear reasons and relevant supporting evidence.

An appeal does not automatically entitle the manuscript to a new review or reversal of the editorial decision.

Where practicable, appeals will be evaluated by an editor who was not directly responsible for the original decision.

16. Continuous Improvement

JTOS periodically reviews its editorial and peer-review procedures to maintain scientific quality, ethical compliance, and effective publication management.

The journal encourages reviewers and editors to provide professional, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations.

This policy may be updated to reflect developments in scholarly publishing standards and publication ethics.

Peer Review Process Summary

Manuscript Submission: The author submits the manuscript through the JTOS OJS.
Initial Editorial Screening: The Managing Editor and editorial team evaluate compliance with journal requirements.
Reviewer Assignment: The manuscript is assigned to two qualified reviewers.
Double-Blind Peer Review: Reviewers independently evaluate scientific quality and provide recommendations.
Editorial Evaluation: The editorial team considers reviewer reports and determines the next action.
Revision: Authors revise the manuscript when requested.
Final Editorial Decision: The authorized editor determines whether the manuscript is accepted or rejected.
Publication: Accepted manuscripts proceed through editing, production, and publication procedures.

Peer Review Statement

All manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Tourism Sustainability (JTOS) are subject to initial editorial screening and, when suitable, double-blind peer review by two reviewers. Publication decisions are based on scholarly quality, reviewer reports, editorial judgment, and compliance with research integrity standards.