Peer Review

Each paper submitted to the Journal of Tourism, Sustainability and Well-being (JTSW) is first desk-reviewed by an editor (Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editor, or Guest-Editor) and, if it is considered suitable for this journal, the manuscript will be sent to at least two independent referees. The reviewers will assess submitted manuscripts for originality, validity, quality and significance.  Based on the reviewers' recommendations and the authors’ revisions, the Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors will determine whether the manuscript should be published in the journal. The standard for publication in JTSW is that a paper must make a significant theoretical, methodological or practical contribution to the development of understanding the relationships between tourism, sustainable development and well-being of tourism-related stakeholders.

JTSW operates a double-blind peer-review process, where the reviewers do not know who are the authors of the paper and the authors do not know who provides the review reports.

The detailed review process is the following:

1. After the submission of the manuscript to the JTSW, it will receive an initial desk assessment by the journal’s Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors or Guest-Editor. If the submitted paper does not pass the initial desk assessment, it is immediately desk rejected. Otherwise, the manuscript will move to the next stage of the peer-review process.
2. The Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors and Guest-Editors (if applicable) will select referees who are experts in the field of the paper to review the manuscript. A minimum of two reviewers will be invited for each submitted paper. The reviewers will be asked to read and comment on the submitted manuscript based on originality, validity, quality and significance, and recommend a decision.
3. Once the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editors have received and considered the reviewers’ reports, in addition to their own assessment of the quality of the paper, an Editor will inform the authors about the decision (accept, reject or ask for major or minor revisions). The reviewers’ reports will be shared with the authors along with any additional guidance from the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editors.

In case the paper is accepted as it is, it is ready to move to publication. However, this is not common. Usually, the authors need to revise the paper and resubmit the manuscript for a new assessment. Revisions can be only a few straightforward recommendations (‘minor revisions’) or require more substantial changes (‘major revision’).

If the Editor-in-Chief asks for revisions, the authors will have time to amend the paper based on the reviewers’ comments. The authors should resubmit the paper with all changes made and a document responding to reviewers’ comments.

4. Once the authors resubmit the paper with the revisions made, an editor will look through the revisions. A second round of peer-review may be conducted, asking the reviewers to assess how the authors have responded to their comments.
5. After this second round of review, the authors may then be asked to make further revisions, or the paper might be rejected if the editor believes the changes the authors have made are not adequate. However, if the revisions have now brought the paper up to the standard required by the JTSW, it will then be accepted.

Please note that reviewers advise the Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors about potential weaknesses in the manuscript, but the Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors decide whether the reviewers’ concerns are serious or not. For example, a reviewer might recommend acceptance but also note a shortcoming in the work that the editors believe to significantly undermine the research's contribution. Or a reviewer might recommend rejection based primarily on a legitimate shortcoming for which another member of the review team might propose a workable solution.

We expect to make informed decisions on all manuscripts and provide consistently thorough, constructive, and impartial reviews of all manuscripts by following this process. We seek to provide authors with an understanding of their manuscript's perceived strengths and weaknesses, the rationale for decisions, and advice on how to proceed.

JTSW does not support the use of artificial intelligence for conducting manuscript evaluations by reviewers.