Review and Publication Process

Tourist Destination implements an independent, rigorous, and systematic editorial and double-blind peer-review workflow to ensure the academic quality, originality, methodological soundness, and research integrity of all published scholarly works.

1. Initial Submission and Technical Desk Check

All manuscripts are submitted via the journal’s online submission system. Following submission, each manuscript undergoes a technical and administrative desk check:

• Compliance with the journal’s scope and author guidelines,
• Verification that the main manuscript file is completely anonymized for double-blind review,
• Verification that separate Title Page, conflict of interest, ethical approval, and AI disclosures are provided,
• Similarity screening via plagiarism detection software (Turnitin / iThenticate).

Manuscripts that do not meet technical or scoping requirements may be desk-rejected or returned to the authors for corrections before proceeding.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review and Reviewer Selection

Tourist Destination strictly enforces a double-blind peer review system. Reviewers do not know the identities or affiliations of the authors, and authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.

• External Reviewers: Each research manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers who are recognized experts in the relevant field.
• Handling of Supplementary Files: Any supplementary files, survey instruments, simulation codes, or anonymized datasets submitted by authors are made available to reviewers to enable a thorough evaluation of the methodology and reproducibility. Authors must ensure that supplementary files are completely blinded.
• Closed Peer Review & Report Confidentiality: The journal operates a closed review model. Reviewer evaluation reports, reviewer names, and correspondence remain strictly confidential; they are shared only with the handling editors and corresponding authors and are not published publicly on the website.

3. Review Decisions and Revision Workflow

Reviewers provide scientific recommendations (Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Reject) with constructive, detailed feedback. The responsible Editor evaluates all reports, author revisions, and rebuttal letters before rendering a decision.

4. Article Types Exempt from External Peer Review

Original research articles and review articles are mandatory subjects of double-blind external peer review. The following non-research or editorial items are exempt from external peer review and are handled directly by the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board:

• Editorials & Editorial Notes: Introductory notes, journal announcements, or perspective articles written by editors.
• Book Reviews: Critical evaluations of scholarly publications.
• Corrections, Errata & Corrigenda: Formal notices of post-publication errata.
• Retraction Notices: Formal statements explaining manuscript retractions.
• Letters to the Editor & Discussion Notes: Post-publication scholarly feedback and author responses.

All such articles are clearly labeled on the publication record as "Editorial Material / Non-peer-reviewed".

5. Editorial Independence & Governance

Editorial decisions are based solely on scientific merit, originality, methodological rigor, and ethical integrity. Commercial interests, sponsorships, or publisher relations have no bearing on editorial decisions.