Peer Review Policy

Indonesian Tourism Justice Review applies a rigorous double-anonymized peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, academic integrity, and scholarly contribution of all manuscripts submitted for publication. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the peer review process.

All submitted manuscripts are evaluated based on their academic quality, relevance to the journal's aims and scope, methodological rigor, originality, theoretical or conceptual contribution, clarity of presentation, ethical standards, and significance to the field of tourism and related interdisciplinary studies.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the editorial team to determine whether it:

• falls within the aims and scope of the journal;
• meets the journal's basic submission and formatting requirements;
• demonstrates sufficient academic quality and originality;
• presents an appropriate research design and methodology;
• complies with publication ethics and research integrity requirements; and
• is suitable for external peer review.

The editorial team may reject a manuscript at this stage if it is clearly outside the journal's scope, does not meet minimum scholarly standards, contains substantial ethical concerns, or is otherwise unsuitable for peer review. An editorial screening decision does not necessarily reflect the final publication decision.

2. Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.

Reviewers are selected based on their:

• relevant academic and research expertise;
• publication record and subject knowledge;
• methodological competence;
• independence from the authors; and
• absence of actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest.

The journal may appoint additional reviewers when the manuscript is highly interdisciplinary, methodologically complex, or when the reviewers' recommendations substantially differ.

Reviewers should not be selected if they have a personal, professional, institutional, financial, or academic relationship with the authors that could reasonably affect their objectivity.

3. Double-Anonymized Review

The journal uses a double-anonymized peer review model. Authors' identities are concealed from reviewers, and reviewers' identities are concealed from authors.

Authors are therefore required to submit manuscripts in a form that does not directly identify them in the main manuscript file. Reviewers are expected to maintain the confidentiality of the review process and must not attempt to identify the authors.

Although the journal takes reasonable measures to preserve reviewer and author anonymity, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly in highly specialized research areas.

4. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, timely, and academically substantive evaluations of submitted manuscripts.

Reviewers should assess, where applicable:

• originality and significance of the research;
• clarity and relevance of the research questions;
• engagement with relevant and current literature;
• theoretical or conceptual framework;
• appropriateness and rigor of the methodology;
• quality and interpretation of evidence or data;
• validity of the analysis and conclusions;
• contribution to tourism scholarship and related disciplines;
• clarity, coherence, and academic quality of the manuscript; and
• compliance with relevant ethical standards.

Reviewers should distinguish between major and minor concerns and provide sufficiently detailed comments to assist authors in improving their manuscripts.

Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained through the peer review process for personal research or professional advantage.

5. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting an assignment.

A reviewer should decline the review if they:

• have collaborated closely with any of the authors;
• are from the same institution or organization as an author;
• have a personal or professional relationship that may compromise impartiality;
• have a financial or other competing interest related to the manuscript; or
• believe that they cannot provide an independent and objective assessment.

Editors are also required to disclose and appropriately manage conflicts of interest. An editor with a conflict of interest must not participate in decisions concerning the relevant manuscript.

6. Review Reports

Reviewers are asked to provide clear and evidence-based comments. Reviews should focus on the manuscript rather than the authors and should be respectful, professional, and constructive.

Reviewer reports should not contain discriminatory, defamatory, offensive, or inappropriate comments.

Reviewers may recommend one of the following outcomes:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject and Resubmit
• Reject

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the designated handling editor.

7. Editorial Decision

The editorial decision is based on the overall quality of the manuscript, reviewer reports, the manuscript's contribution to the journal, and compliance with publication ethics.

Possible decisions include:

Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with no or only minimal editorial amendments.

Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited revisions that do not substantially affect its central argument, methodology, or findings.

Major Revision: Significant revisions are required before the manuscript can be considered for publication. A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

Reject and Resubmit: The manuscript is not acceptable in its current form but may be substantially redeveloped and submitted as a new manuscript. Resubmission does not guarantee acceptance.

Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's scholarly, methodological, ethical, or scope requirements and will not be considered for publication.

The journal does not guarantee acceptance based solely on positive reviewer recommendations. Editorial decisions may take into account the consistency and quality of the review reports, the journal's scope, publication priorities, and overall scholarly standards.

8. Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors should submit:

1. a revised version of the manuscript; and
2. a detailed response to the reviewers' comments explaining how each issue has been addressed.

Authors should clearly identify substantive changes made to the manuscript. Where authors disagree with a reviewer, they should provide a reasoned academic justification.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editorial team, depending on the extent of the revisions.

9. Reviewer Timelines

Reviewers are normally given a reasonable period to complete their evaluations. The journal monitors the review process to minimize unnecessary delays and may invite alternative reviewers when an invited reviewer is unable to complete the review within the expected timeframe.

The journal aims to maintain an efficient review process while prioritizing the quality and independence of peer review.

10. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to the journal are treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose manuscript content, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, or other confidential information to third parties without appropriate authorization.

Authors should also respect the confidentiality of reviewer comments and editorial communications.

11. Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that the decision resulted from a significant factual error, serious procedural irregularity, or demonstrable misunderstanding of the manuscript.

Appeals must be submitted in writing and should provide a clear and substantive explanation of the grounds for appeal. Appeals that merely disagree with the academic judgment of reviewers or editors without providing substantive grounds will normally not be considered.

The Editor-in-Chief or an independent editor may review the appeal and determine whether further evaluation is warranted. The decision following an appeal is final.

12. Reviewer Recognition

The journal recognizes the scholarly contribution of peer reviewers while maintaining reviewer confidentiality. Where appropriate and consistent with the journal's systems and policies, reviewers may receive formal acknowledgment of their contribution.

13. Ethical Standards

The peer review process is conducted in accordance with internationally recognized principles of publication ethics and research integrity. The journal expects editors, reviewers, and authors to uphold standards of confidentiality, independence, transparency, fairness, and academic integrity.

The journal reserves the right to investigate suspected misconduct arising during the peer review process and to take appropriate action in accordance with its publication ethics policies.

14. Editorial Independence

Peer review and editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit and the relevance of the manuscript to the journal's aims and scope. Decisions are not influenced by the authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, race, religion, political views, or other personal characteristics.

The final responsibility for editorial decisions rests with the journal's editorial leadership.