For Reviewers

01.Welcome to ITJ Reviewers

The Indonesian Tourism Journal (ITJ) welcomes qualified scholars and researchers to participate in its peer-review activities. Independent scholarly evaluation contributes to credible evidence, responsible methodological reporting, constructive academic discussion, and the quality of published research in tourism studies. Reviewers help evaluate submissions but do not make the final publication decision.

The journal publishes interdisciplinary tourism research encompassing destination management, tourism policy and governance, hospitality, sustainable and community-based tourism, tourism marketing, cultural heritage, visitor experiences, and tourism technologies. Review invitations are assigned by the editorial team according to the reviewer's expertise, suitability, availability, and independence.

Peer Review at a Glance

ITJ applies a double-blind peer-review model and requires at least two independent reviewer reports before an editorial decision to accept a manuscript. The total evaluation process is estimated at 2–14 weeks, subject to the needs of individual submissions.

02.Reviewer Eligibility and Invitations

Potential reviewers are considered on the basis of relevant subject knowledge and an ability to provide a fair, evidence-based assessment of a manuscript. Review expertise may concern a research theme, methodology, geographic setting, or a particular theoretical approach. An invitation is not an obligation to accept; scholars should respond promptly and decline when they cannot review independently or within the agreed time.

01

Relevant Academic Expertise

Reviewers should normally have a master's or doctoral qualification and the specialist knowledge necessary to assess the particular manuscript.

02

Research Experience

Recent scholarly publications, practical research experience, and familiarity with the manuscript's tourism field or methodological approach are considered.

03

Independence and Impartiality

Reviewers must disclose personal, institutional, professional, financial, or collaborative interests that might affect an objective evaluation.

04

Professional Availability

An invited scholar should accept only when able to deliver a useful review within the period agreed with the editorial office.

Registering an Interest in Reviewing

Researchers who wish to be considered for future invitations may use ITJ's official OJS registration page. The form includes the option “Yes, I would like to be contacted with requests to review submissions to this journal” and a field for Reviewing interests. Researchers should describe their methodological or subject specialties accurately. Registration does not guarantee selection as a reviewer or assignment to a manuscript.

03.Reviewer Ethics, Confidentiality, and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers are responsible for preserving the confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts, maintaining scientific independence, and ensuring that their assessments are based on evidence rather than personal preference. These expectations apply when a review is accepted and also to manuscript information encountered before declining an invitation.

01
Confidential Handling

Do not distribute, quote publicly, reproduce, or discuss unpublished manuscripts, datasets, reviewer communications, or editorial decisions with unauthorized parties. Do not use unpublished ideas or results for personal or institutional advantage.

02
Double-Blind Anonymity

Do not attempt to identify the authors or disclose your own identity to the authors during the confidential review. If identity becomes apparent and creates a relevant conflict, notify the handling editor.

03
Disclosure of Competing Interests

Disclose potential personal, professional, institutional, or financial competing interests before accepting. The ITJ policy includes a restriction on reviewing manuscripts by researchers with whom the reviewer has coauthored work during the preceding five years.

04
Evidence-Based and Respectful Reporting

Explain concerns about research questions, theory, sampling, data, ethics, analysis, or interpretation in a clear and professional manner. Comments must address the manuscript rather than the personal characteristics of its authors.

05
Research Integrity Alerts

Privately report suspected plagiarism, redundant publication, fabricated or manipulated data, consent problems, undisclosed conflicts, or improper research permissions. Describe the evidence available rather than treating suspicion as a proven violation.

06
Responsible Use of Technology

Do not upload manuscripts, reviewer reports, unpublished data, or editorial correspondence to external generative-AI services without specific authorization and adequate safeguards. Reviews and scientific judgments must remain the reviewer's own work.

07
No Unauthorized Delegation

Do not ask students, colleagues, or assistants to assess a manuscript unless the journal has authorized their participation. Maintain confidentiality whenever expert consultation is approved.

Editorial Independence

Reviewers submit independent assessments and recommendations. The Editor-in-Chief or authorized academic editor retains responsibility for the final decision. Reviewer recommendations are not guarantees of publication, and publication charges must not influence review outcomes.

04.Scientific Assessment Criteria for Tourism Manuscripts

A useful review is tailored to the manuscript's objectives and design. Reviewers should assess whether the research question, theoretical framework, methods, evidence, analysis, discussion, and conclusions form a coherent scholarly contribution. The following dimensions are especially relevant to ITJ's tourism-focused scope.

01

Relevance and Original Contribution

Examine the manuscript's contribution to tourism scholarship, the clarity of its research gap, and its importance for destination, visitor, hospitality, heritage, or tourism-sector questions.

02

Conceptual and Theoretical Basis

Assess the appropriateness of theories or concepts and whether existing research has been engaged critically rather than simply summarized.

03

Research Design and Transparency

Evaluate the appropriateness of qualitative, quantitative, mixed-methods, comparative, review, or modelling designs, including case selection, sampling, and analytic procedures.

04

Reliability and Interpretation of Findings

Consider the quality of tourism statistics, survey or interview records, field observations, documentary evidence, analyses, and the alignment of interpretations with the data.

05

Research Ethics and Participant Protection

Assess informed consent, privacy, permissions, and protection of tourists, employees, businesses, local communities, and heritage stakeholders when relevant.

06

Discussion, Contribution, and Limitations

Examine how findings relate to earlier evidence, identify analytical limitations, and provide credible implications for tourism policy, practice, governance, or future scholarship.

07

Citations and Scholarly Presentation

Check whether significant claims are supported by suitable sources and whether tables, figures, references, terminology, and narrative presentation are clear and accurate.

08

Reporting Standards for Reviews

For evidence syntheses, assess search strategies, eligibility criteria, screening, and synthesis transparency; PRISMA may be used when relevant to systematic reviews.

Assessment Across Tourism Subfields

Different tourism research designs require different evidence. For example, hospitality service-quality surveys require suitable measurement and sampling procedures, while community-based tourism fieldwork requires credible qualitative evidence and attention to consent, representation, and local context.

05.OJS Review Workflow and Indicative Timelines

The ITJ editorial team coordinates reviews through Open Journal Systems (OJS). The specific manuscript, due dates, available review forms, and communication channels are supplied in the invitation or assigned workflow. Reviewers should follow the instructions in their OJS dashboard rather than relying on a generic workflow for every manuscript.

01
Receive Invitation

An assigned reviewer receives an invitation and checks the manuscript topic, abstract or permitted overview, proposed deadline, and any potential competing interests.

02
Accept or Decline

Respond through the journal's authorized OJS workflow. Decline promptly if there is insufficient expertise, limited availability, a relevant conflict, or another obstacle to an impartial review.

03
Access the Anonymized Manuscript

If accepted, examine the review files and supplementary information made available in OJS, respecting all confidentiality requirements.

04
Evaluate Scientific Merit

Read the manuscript thoroughly, assess its research design and evidence, identify substantive and presentation issues, and prepare clear review comments.

05
Submit Review Report

Enter the recommendation and comments in the journal's online review form or upload a report when that option is provided. Separate author-facing feedback from confidential comments to the editor.

06
Assess Revisions When Invited

If reassigned, review the amended manuscript and authors' response, focusing on whether substantive concerns have been addressed and whether new issues materially affect the work.

Published Indicative Review Periods

01

Overall Editorial Evaluation

2–14 weeks is the journal's stated indicative duration for its broader manuscript evaluation process.

02

Initial Reviewer Assessment

An invited reviewer may receive 2–10 weeks to complete an initial review, subject to the assigned deadline.

03

Revised Manuscript Assessment

ITJ currently requests a further report within three days for revised manuscripts; extensions are available on request.

Important Timing Note

The periods above are indicative statements from the ITJ Peer Review Process and are not fixed deadlines for every manuscript. Reviewers should confirm the specific due date shown in the invitation and ask the editorial office for an extension when necessary.

06.Preparing Review Reports and Recommendations

A high-quality review report explains the manuscript's scientific merits and limitations in a manner that is useful to both the authors and the handling editor. It should distinguish major substantive concerns from minor presentation matters, identify the relevant manuscript sections, and explain why a proposed revision or clarification is necessary.

Suggested Review Report Components

01
Brief Overall Assessment

Summarize the research question, central contribution, relevance to ITJ, and the manuscript's most significant merits and limitations.

02
Major Scientific Comments

Discuss concerns affecting originality, theory, research design, validity, evidence, analysis, ethical safeguards, or the credibility of conclusions. Provide a reasoned explanation of each comment.

03
Minor Editorial Comments

Identify specific issues in structure, terminology, figures, tables, reference accuracy, citations, or clarity that can be addressed without redesigning the research.

04
Recommendation to the Editor

Provide a recommendation based on the manuscript's scholarly merits: acceptance, revision, additional assessment where appropriate, or rejection. The available labels are determined by the OJS review form.

05
Confidential Remarks When Necessary

Use editor-only comments to raise sensitive integrity concerns or explain issues inappropriate for disclosure to the authors. Do not include personal allegations in the author-facing review.

Examples of Constructive Scientific Feedback

On sampling: “Please explain the participant selection criteria and justify whether the sample supports the comparisons presented in Table 2.”

On analysis: “The conclusion about destination competitiveness requires a clearer link between the reported indicators and the analytical framework.”

On research ethics: “Please clarify how consent and privacy were addressed for the interviews with residents and tourism operators.”

These examples are illustrative prompts for reviewer reporting, not mandatory wording. Reviewers should base their actual comments on a careful reading of the assigned manuscript and its supporting evidence.

Final Editorial Decision

Reviewer recommendations contribute to the evaluation but do not replace editorial judgment. The responsible academic editor makes the publication decision after considering the reviewer reports, authors' responses, and applicable journal policies.

07.Reviewer Resources and Editorial Assistance

Reviewers should consult ITJ's current editorial policies and use the official OJS channels for reviewer invitations, deadline requests, confidential questions, and communication about research-integrity concerns. The links below are provided to support transparent and timely academic assessment.

Official ITJ Links

Questions or Difficulties with a Review Invitation

Contact the journal through its official contact page. Reviewers should avoid direct contact with authors during confidential review and should not send manuscript files through unapproved third-party services.

This guide explains reviewer responsibilities and OJS participation. Where an invitation or a current editorial policy contains manuscript-specific requirements, reviewers should follow the instructions communicated by the authorized ITJ editorial office.