Peer Review Process Policy

1. Peer Review Model

The International Journal of Sustainable Competitiveness in Tourism (IJSCOT) applies a double-blind peer review process to evaluate the quality, originality, relevance, and academic contribution of submitted manuscripts. Under this model, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.

All research articles submitted to IJSCOT are subject to editorial screening and external peer review before a publication decision is made. Submission does not guarantee acceptance or publication.

2. Stages of the Peer Review Process

The peer review process consists of the following stages:

Stage 1: Initial Submission and Administrative Screening

The editorial team checks whether the manuscript complies with the journal's author guidelines, scope, formatting requirements, completeness of required documents, and relevant ethical declarations.

Stage 2: Similarity Screening

Submitted manuscripts are screened using plagiarism detection or similarity-checking software. The editorial team assesses similarity reports to identify potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, inappropriate reuse of previously published material, or other publication ethics concerns. Similarity percentages are considered alongside the nature and context of matching text; no single percentage automatically determines whether a manuscript is acceptable.

Manuscripts with substantial unresolved similarity or suspected ethical violations may be returned to the authors, rejected, or investigated in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policy.

Stage 3: Editorial Assessment

The editor assesses the manuscript's relevance to the journal's aims and scope, originality, academic significance, methodological appropriateness, clarity, and overall suitability for peer review. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be rejected at this stage.

Stage 4: Assignment to Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the manuscript's subject area. Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research experience, subject knowledge, and ability to provide an objective assessment.

Reviewers should not have conflicts of interest that could compromise their impartiality. Where appropriate, the editor may appoint additional reviewers.

Stage 5: Peer Review and Evaluation

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript and provide constructive comments and recommendations to the editor. Authors may be asked to revise their manuscripts in response to the reviewers' comments.

Stage 6: Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' reports and the editor's independent assessment, the editor makes one of the following decisions:

Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication, subject to any necessary final editorial preparation.
Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited revisions before a final decision.
Major Revision: Substantial revisions are required, and the revised manuscript may be sent for further review.
Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's publication requirements or is otherwise unsuitable for publication.

The final publication decision rests with the editor. Reviewer recommendations inform the decision but do not automatically determine the outcome.

Stage 7: Revision and Final Verification

Revised manuscripts are assessed to determine whether the authors have adequately addressed the reviewers' and editor's comments. Additional review may be requested when necessary. Manuscripts accepted for publication proceed to copyediting, proofreading, and production in accordance with the journal's editorial procedures.

3. Review Criteria

Reviewers are requested to assess manuscripts using the following criteria, as applicable to the article type:

Relevance to the aims and scope of IJSCOT.
Originality and contribution to knowledge in tourism, sustainability, competitiveness, and related fields.
Clarity of the research problem, objectives, and research questions.
Appropriateness of the theoretical framework and use of relevant literature.
Suitability and transparency of the research methodology.
Quality of data analysis and interpretation of findings.
Consistency between the results, discussion, conclusions, and research objectives.
Quality of academic writing, structure, tables, figures, and references.
Compliance with research ethics and applicable publication requirements.
Significance of the manuscript for academic development, professional practice, policy, or future research.

Reviewers should provide clear, evidence-based, respectful, and constructive feedback to support editorial decision-making and improve manuscript quality.

4. Reviewer Qualifications and Responsibilities

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and ability to evaluate the submitted manuscript objectively. They are expected to have relevant academic qualifications, research experience, scholarly publications, or demonstrated professional expertise in the subject area being reviewed.

Reviewers are responsible for:

Conducting an independent, impartial, and constructive assessment.
Maintaining the confidentiality of manuscripts and review materials.
Declaring any actual or potential conflicts of interest.
Avoiding discriminatory, offensive, or personal comments.
Identifying relevant literature that may have been overlooked, where appropriate.
Informing the editor of suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, or other ethical concerns.
Completing reviews within the agreed timeframe.

Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained during peer review for personal or professional advantage and must not disclose manuscript content to unauthorized parties.

5. Number of Reviewers

Each manuscript that proceeds to external peer review is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers. The editor may invite additional reviewers when the reports are conflicting, specialist expertise is required, or further assessment is necessary to support a fair editorial decision.

If a reviewer declines the invitation or fails to provide a review within the agreed period, the editor may appoint a replacement reviewer.

6. Review Timeline

IJSCOT aims to conduct the review process in a timely and transparent manner. The following are target timeframes:

Initial editorial screening: approximately 1–2 weeks after submission.
External peer review: approximately 2–4 weeks after reviewers accept the invitation.
Author revision: determined by the revision category and the deadline communicated by the editor.
Final editorial assessment: conducted after the revised manuscript has been received and assessed.

These timeframes are indicative rather than guaranteed. The actual duration may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the need for additional review, and the time required by authors to revise their manuscripts. Authors will be informed of significant delays when appropriate.

7. Editorial Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript's academic merit, originality, relevance, methodological quality, and compliance with publication ethics. Decisions must not be influenced by an author's nationality, institutional affiliation, personal relationships, or commercial considerations.

Editors and reviewers must disclose and appropriately manage potential conflicts of interest. Individuals with conflicts that could compromise their impartiality should not participate in the relevant review or decision-making process.

8. Publication Ethics and Confidentiality

IJSCOT is committed to maintaining integrity, fairness, confidentiality, and accountability throughout the peer review process. The journal expects editors and reviewers to follow recognized publication ethics principles, including the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Reviewers must not contact authors directly about a manuscript under review unless authorized by the editor. Manuscripts and associated review materials must be treated as confidential. Any concerns about research misconduct or publication ethics must be reported to the editor for appropriate assessment.

Further information is available in the journal's publication ethics and research misconduct policies.

9. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision should submit a reasoned written explanation to the editorial team. Appeals must identify specific factual errors, misunderstandings, or procedural concerns relevant to the decision. The editor or an appropriate independent editorial representative will assess the appeal.

Complaints regarding the conduct of editors, reviewers, or the peer review process will be handled fairly and confidentially in accordance with the journal's applicable policies and recognized publication ethics guidance.

10. Policy Review

IJSCOT may periodically review and update this policy to ensure that its peer review procedures remain transparent, fair, consistent, and aligned with recognized standards of scholarly publishing.

Ethical Reference

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9