Tourist Destination implements an independent and systematic editorial review and peer-review process to ensure the academic quality, originality, methodological soundness, and research integrity of all scientific studies published in the journal. Editorial decisions are based solely on the scientific quality of the submitted work, its relevance to the journal’s scope, its originality, methodological soundness, and the contribution it will make to the field.
Initial Submission and Technical Review
All manuscripts are submitted via the journal’s online manuscript submission system. Following submission, each manuscript is first reviewed by the editorial office for technical and administrative compliance.
At this stage, the manuscript is checked for:
Manuscripts that do not meet technical requirements may be returned to the authors for necessary corrections before entering the scientific review process.
Editorial Preliminary Review
Manuscripts that pass the technical review are assigned to the Editor-in-Chief, a Section Editor, or another authorized editor appropriate to the subject area.
The assigned editor subjects the manuscript to a preliminary review based on the following criteria: Manuscripts are also examined using similarity detection software (see Plagiarism Screening and Similarity Policy). Similarity reports are not used as an automatic criterion for acceptance or rejection; they are evaluated by the relevant editor, taking into account the quality of the manuscript and the source of the similarity.
Studies that fall outside the journal’s scope, are deemed to have insufficient scientific contribution, contain serious methodological issues, fail to meet basic academic standards, or are determined to have ethical concerns may be rejected by editorial decision without being sent for external peer review.
This practice is considered an editorial rejection or desk rejection.
Studies that successfully pass the editorial preliminary evaluation are sent for independent external peer review.
Selection of Reviewers
Tourist Destination uses a double-blind peer review system. Under this system, the identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, nor are the identities of the reviewers disclosed to the authors.
Manuscripts are reviewed by at least two independent external reviewers.
Reviewers are selected based on:
Care is taken to ensure that there are no personal, professional, academic, or institutional relationships between authors and reviewers that could compromise the independence of the review process.
Reviewers are required to disclose any existing or potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review invitation. A reviewer with a conflict of interest that could prevent them from conducting an impartial review or that could raise reasonable doubt regarding their impartiality should not accept the review invitation.
Review invitations, review periods, and revision submission deadlines are tracked by the editorial office. If the review period is extended, the editor may appoint additional reviewers or reorganize the process.
In cases where authors are permitted to suggest reviewers, these suggestions are purely advisory. Suggested reviewers are added to the reviewer pool and are not assigned to review the article of the author who made the suggestion. The final authority regarding the selection of reviewers rests with the journal editors.
Peer Review
Reviewers are expected to evaluate the work impartially, scientifically, and in accordance with the principles of confidentiality.
Depending on the nature of the work, the following elements may be considered as part of the review: Reviewers are expected to support their evaluations with detailed, well-reasoned, and constructive comments.
Reviewers may provide one of the following opinions: The reviewers’ opinions serve as scientific advice to the editor. The final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of the article is not automatically determined by a simple majority of the reviewers’ votes. The final decision is made by the relevant editor after evaluating the reviewers’ reports, the scientific quality of the article, and the journal’s editorial policies together.
Conflicting Reviewer Opinions
If there are significant discrepancies between the reviewers’ evaluations or recommendations, or if the existing review reports are insufficient to make a sound editorial decision, the editor may: The final decision rests with the responsible editor and is not based solely on the numerical majority of the reviewers’ recommendations.
Revision Process
If revisions are requested by reviewers or editors, authors are expected to submit a detailed response to the reviewers along with the revised manuscript.
Authors must respond to each evaluation communicated by the reviewers and editors in a clear and systematic manner and explain the changes made.
If authors disagree with a reviewer’s suggestion, they may provide a scientific and well-reasoned explanation.
Depending on the nature of the requested changes, the revised manuscript may: Multiple rounds of revision may be conducted if deemed necessary.
A request for revision does not imply that the article will subsequently be accepted.
Editorial Decision
Taking into account the reviewer reports, the authors’ revisions, the authors’ responses to the reviewers, and the final version of the article, the relevant editor makes one of the following decisions: An article is accepted only when it is determined to meet scientific, ethical, methodological, and editorial standards.
The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the scientific integrity and independence of the journal’s overall editorial process.
Editorial Independence and Conflicts of Interest
Editorial decisions are made independently of any commercial, financial, institutional, political, or personal influences.
Editors and editorial board members may not participate in the review and decision-making processes for manuscripts involving a conflict of interest.
If an Editor-in-Chief, editor, editorial board member, publisher’s representative, or any other person serving in the journal’s administration submits a manuscript to the journal, that person shall not be involved in any way in the review and decision-making process for the manuscript in question.
Such manuscripts are assigned to an independent editor and are subject to the same scientific review and peer-review standards as all other manuscripts.
No preferential treatment or guarantee of acceptance is provided for manuscripts submitted by editors, editorial board members, reviewers, institutions affiliated with the journal, or other stakeholders.
Confidentiality
All submitted manuscripts and related editorial correspondence are considered confidential.
Editors and reviewers must not: share unpublished information or data accessed during the review process with third parties;
Research Integrity and Ethical Issues
If serious concerns arise regarding the following issues at any stage of the review process, the editorial process may be temporarily suspended: These situations are evaluated in accordance with the journal’s publication ethics policies and internationally accepted principles of publication ethics.
When necessary, authors may be asked to provide explanations, data, ethics committee documents, or other supporting documents.
Depending on the nature of the violation, the article may be rejected, relevant institutions may be contacted, or—if the work has already been published—appropriate corrections, retractions, or other post-publication actions may be taken.
Language and Formatting, Production, and Publication
Works that are ultimately accepted are submitted to the editorial production process.
At this stage, the article is checked for:
During language and formatting editing, the scientific findings or fundamental meaning of the work are not altered without the authors’ knowledge.
Once the layout is complete, the article is sent to the corresponding author for a final review, if necessary.
After the final reviews are completed, the work is published online with its final bibliographic information and persistent identifier.
Special Issues and Thematic Sections
Articles submitted to special issues, thematic issues, or sections with guest editors are subject to the same standards of scientific evaluation, independent peer review, publication ethics, and editorial decision-making as those submitted to regular issues.
Guest editors may be involved in coordinating the peer review process. However, the editor-in-chief retains overall oversight and responsibility for the editorial process in special issues as well.
Manuscripts written by guest editors or submitted by individuals with a close conflict of interest with guest editors are reviewed by an independent editor.
Appeals and Complaints
Authors may appeal an editorial decision if they believe a significant scientific, factual, or procedural error occurred during the review process.
In appeals, the reasons why the decision should be reconsidered must be explained in a clear, well-reasoned, and, as much as possible, evidence-based manner.
Merely disagreeing with a single reviewer’s opinion does not, on its own, constitute sufficient grounds for an appeal to be accepted.
Appeals and complaints are evaluated independently of the editor who made the initial decision when necessary and are resolved in accordance with the journal’s appeals and complaints policy.
Responsibility for Editorial Decisions
Reviewers provide editors with expert opinions and scientific evaluations. However, the final responsibility for the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript rests with the journal editors.
Editorial decisions are based on:
The publisher, journal owner, sponsors, or other external parties may not interfere with editorial decisions regarding individual articles.
