Peer Review Process

The peer review procedure for the International Journal of Tourism, Hospitality, and Civilization (IJTHC) is summarized as follows:

Transparency of Identity:

Transparency of identity: Double-anonymized

The reviewer communicates with the editors

Review information: Not published  

IJTHC adheres to a rigorous double-anonymized reviewing policy in which the identity of both the reviewer and author are always concealed from both parties.

To ensure the integrity of the peer review process we assign reviewers and cannot accept author recommendations.

For publishing in this journal, our editors will first evaluate your article to see if it is appropriate. Your submission will normally be sent to at least two reviewers for an independent expert evaluation of the scientific quality if it is judged appropriate. Our editors will make the final decision about the acceptance or rejection of your article.

Reviewers should be specialists in their disciplines, and able to provide an objective appraisal of the manuscript.

The peer review process

The peer review process for the International Journal of Tourism, Hospitality, and Civilization (IJTHC) is as follows:

Steps in the Review Process:

  1. Initial Submission: The manuscript is submitted to the editor-in-chief or via the journal's submission platform.
  2. Editorial Review: Upon receipt, the editorial board reviews the manuscript to assess its compatibility with the journal’s scope and requirements. The board may request amendments from the author before sending the manuscript to reviewers or may reject the manuscript outright if it does not comply with the journal’s publication standards or ethical guidelines.
  3. Peer Review: If the manuscript is initially accepted for peer review, the editor-in-chief selects two reviewers from the approved list, either from within the editorial board or from external experts. These reviewers assess the manuscript and provide detailed feedback, which may include suggestions for revisions.
  4. Review Outcome: The peer review can result in one of the following decisions:
    • Acceptance without changes
    • Acceptance with minor revisions
    • Acceptance with substantial revisions
    • Rejection

Reviewers’ reports are forwarded to the editor-in-chief, who then communicates the final decision to the author. If revisions are requested, the author is given a deadline (usually within 30 days) to make the necessary changes. If the author fails to submit the revised manuscript within this time frame, the manuscript is considered withdrawn. In cases of conflicting reviewer opinions, a third reviewer may be consulted.

  1. Revisions and Final Review: After the author submits the revised manuscript, the editorial board ensures that all suggested changes have been made satisfactorily. The manuscript may be sent back to the reviewers for a final evaluation before the editor-in-chief makes the final decision on publication.
  2. Final Quality Check: Once the article has passed the peer review and revision stages, it undergoes a final review by the editorial board to ensure it meets the journal’s linguistic, formatting, and publication standards.
  3. Proofing and Publication: The manuscript is converted into a PDF proof and sent to the author for final review. Any last amendments are made, and once the author approves the proof, the final version is sent to the printing press for publication.