Peer Review Process and Policy

The Journal of Event, Travel and Tour Management (JETT) is committed to maintaining a rigorous, transparent, fair, and ethical peer-review process. Peer review is an essential component of the journal's quality assurance system and is intended to assess the originality, scholarly contribution, methodological quality, relevance, and integrity of submitted manuscripts.

JETT applies a double-blind peer-review system in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other during the review process. Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, the reviewers' evaluations, and the journal's editorial policies.

1. Type of Peer Review

JETT employs a double-blind peer-review process. Under this system, authors do not know the identities of the reviewers, and reviewers are not provided with the identities of the authors.

Authors are required to remove identifying information from manuscript files intended for peer review, including names, institutional affiliations, acknowledgments, and other information that could directly reveal their identities, where applicable.

Author information must be entered accurately in the journal's submission system. The editorial team will take reasonable steps to preserve anonymity throughout the review process. However, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly when the subject matter or cited work makes authors identifiable.

2. Peer-Review Stages

All manuscripts submitted to JETT undergo the following stages.

Stage 1. Manuscript Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal's Online Journal System (OJS) and provide the required metadata, author information, declarations, and supporting documents.

The corresponding author must confirm that the manuscript complies with the journal's submission requirements and publication ethics policies.

Stage 2. Initial Editorial Screening

The editorial team conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript is suitable for further consideration.

The screening includes:

• Relevance to the journal's focus and scope.

• Originality and potential scholarly contribution.

• Compliance with the author guidelines and manuscript format.

• Clarity of the research objectives and overall manuscript structure.

• Adequacy of the research design and methodology, where applicable.

• Completeness of references and required declarations.

• Compliance with authorship, research ethics, and publication ethics requirements.

• Initial similarity screening and identification of potential publication misconduct.

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope, fail to meet essential submission requirements, or present substantial unresolved ethical or scholarly concerns may be returned to the authors or rejected without external peer review.

Passing the initial screening does not guarantee acceptance.

Stage 3. Similarity and Originality Assessment

All submitted manuscripts are subject to similarity screening using an appropriate similarity-checking tool, such as Turnitin or another tool available to the journal.

The assessment is intended to identify potential plagiarism, unattributed textual overlap, inappropriate reuse of previously published material, and possible redundant publication.

Similarity reports are interpreted by the editorial team in context. A similarity percentage alone does not establish plagiarism, and a low percentage does not automatically demonstrate originality.

The assessment considers the nature and location of matching text, the adequacy of citations, the reuse of the authors' own previously published material, and the overall originality of the manuscript.

Where concerns are identified, the editorial team may request clarification or revision, conduct further assessment, or reject the manuscript in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policies.

Stage 4. Reviewer Selection and Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to an editor who coordinates the peer-review process.

Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the manuscript's subject area and, where appropriate, its research methodology.

Reviewers are selected based on:

• Relevant academic qualifications and subject expertise.

• A record of scholarly research, publications, or professional expertise appropriate to the manuscript.

• Ability to provide an independent and evidence-based assessment.

• Absence of relevant conflicts of interest.

• Availability to complete the review within the agreed timeframe.

Reviewers should not have relationships with the authors or institutions that could compromise their impartiality. The editorial team may appoint an additional reviewer if the reports are conflicting, incomplete, or require further specialist assessment.

Stage 5. External Peer Review

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts independently and provide constructive comments and a recommendation to the responsible editor.

Reviewers are expected to assess the scholarly quality of the manuscript objectively and to explain the reasons supporting their recommendations.

The review report should identify the manuscript's strengths, weaknesses, required revisions, and any concerns relating to research integrity or publication ethics.

Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial decision but do not automatically determine the outcome. The editor retains responsibility for assessing the reports and determining the appropriate next step.

Stage 6. Revision by Authors

When revisions are requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response addressing the comments of the reviewers and editor.

Authors should clearly explain the revisions made and provide a reasoned response when they disagree with a particular recommendation.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers, assessed by additional reviewers, or evaluated by the responsible editor, depending on the extent and nature of the revisions.

Additional revision rounds may be required if substantive concerns remain unresolved.

Stage 7. Editorial Decision

After considering the reviewers' reports, the authors' responses, and the manuscript's overall quality, the editor makes an editorial recommendation or decision within the authority assigned by the journal.

The possible decisions are:

• Accept: The manuscript meets the journal's requirements and can proceed to publication preparation.

• Minor Revision: Limited revisions are required before a final decision.

• Major Revision: Substantial revisions are required, and the manuscript may undergo further peer review.

• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's requirements or contains deficiencies that cannot be adequately resolved.

The Editor-in-Chief retains final responsibility for publication decisions in accordance with the journal's editorial governance. Reviewer recommendations are advisory and are not determined solely by majority vote.

Acceptance is not guaranteed by completing revisions; the revised manuscript must satisfy the journal's editorial requirements.

Stage 8. Copyediting and Publication

Accepted manuscripts proceed to the journal's production process, which may include copyediting, proofreading, reference and metadata verification, and layout preparation.

The final publication is subject to completion of the required editorial and production procedures.

3. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria, as applicable to the manuscript type.

A. Relevance and Contribution

• Relevance to event management, travel management, tour management, and the journal's stated scope.

• Originality and significance of the research question or scholarly argument.

• Clear identification of the research gap and contribution to existing knowledge.

• Potential implications for academic research, professional practice, or policy.

B. Literature Review and Theoretical Foundation

• Relevance, quality, and currency of the literature cited.

• Critical synthesis of previous research rather than merely descriptive reporting.

• Appropriateness of the theoretical or conceptual framework.

• Clarity of the relationship between the literature, research objectives, and findings.

C. Research Methodology

• Appropriateness of the research design and methods.

• Clarity of sampling, data collection, instruments, and analytical procedures, where applicable.

• Adequacy of the analysis and justification of methodological choices.

• Transparency and reproducibility of the research process, where applicable.

• Compliance with relevant research ethics requirements.

D. Results and Discussion

• Clarity and accuracy of the results or principal arguments.

• Consistency between evidence, interpretation, and conclusions.

• Critical engagement with previous studies.

• Recognition of research limitations.

• Relevance of the findings to the research objectives.

E. Conclusions and Implications

• Conclusions supported by the presented evidence.

• Clear theoretical, practical, managerial, or policy implications, as appropriate.

• Appropriate recommendations for future research or professional practice.

F. Presentation and Publication Ethics

• Clarity, organization, and academic language.

• Accuracy and completeness of citations and references.

• Appropriate use of tables, figures, and supplementary materials.

• Originality and compliance with the journal's similarity and plagiarism policy.

• Proper authorship, conflict-of-interest, funding, and ethical declarations.

For review articles, conceptual articles, and case studies, the criteria will be adapted to the relevant scholarly approach and manuscript type.

4. Reviewer Qualifications and Responsibilities

JETT appoints reviewers who possess relevant subject expertise and the professional competence necessary to assess the submitted manuscript.

Reviewers may include academics, researchers, and qualified practitioners whose expertise is appropriate to the manuscript's subject and methodology.

Reviewers are expected to:

• Provide independent, objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations.

• Maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and review reports.

• Disclose actual or potential conflicts of interest before accepting an assignment.

• Decline assignments outside their competence or when impartiality may be compromised.

• Identify relevant published work that has not been appropriately acknowledged.

• Notify the editor of suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, or other ethical concerns.

• Avoid personal criticism, discriminatory language, and requests for unnecessary citations.

• Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe or notify the editor promptly if an extension is required.

Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained during peer review for personal, professional, or financial advantage. They must not share or delegate manuscript assessments without the editor's authorization.

The journal's reviewer selection and conduct are guided by the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

5. Number of Reviewers

Each manuscript proceeding to external peer review is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers.

The editorial team may appoint a third reviewer or seek specialist advice when:

• Reviewer recommendations differ substantially.

• Additional methodological or subject expertise is required.

• A reviewer is unable to complete the assessment.

• Further independent evaluation is necessary to support a fair editorial decision.

The final decision remains the responsibility of the authorized editor.

6. Review Timeline

JETT aims to provide an initial editorial screening outcome within approximately 1–2 weeks after submission, subject to editorial workload and the completeness of the submission.

For manuscripts sent to external review, the target period for reviewers to submit their reports is approximately 2–4 weeks after accepting the review invitation.

The overall time required for the first decision may vary according to reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the need to appoint additional reviewers, and the time required to address editorial or ethical concerns.

Authors will be informed of significant delays where reasonably practicable. Revision deadlines will be communicated in the relevant editorial decision.

These timeframes are indicative targets rather than guaranteed deadlines. Actual performance should be monitored and the published targets adjusted when necessary.

7. Editorial Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, originality, methodological quality, relevance to the journal's scope, and compliance with publication ethics.

Editors and reviewers must disclose relevant conflicts of interest and withdraw from the assessment when their impartiality could reasonably be questioned.

Manuscripts submitted by members of the editorial team must be handled by an independent editor who has no relevant conflict of interest. The submitting editor must not participate in the confidential evaluation or decision-making process for their own manuscript.

The publisher and other interested parties must not improperly influence editorial decisions.

8. Confidentiality and Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence

Manuscripts under review and the information contained in them are confidential.

Reviewers and editors must not disclose manuscript content or use unpublished information for purposes unrelated to the review process.

Confidential manuscript files and review reports must not be uploaded to public or unauthorized artificial intelligence services where confidentiality or data protection could be compromised.

Reviewers and editors remain responsible for the accuracy, independence, and integrity of their assessments. Any permitted use of AI-assisted tools must comply with the journal's applicable AI policy and confidentiality requirements.

9. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit a reasoned appeal to the editorial office.

An appeal should identify the specific grounds for reconsideration and provide supporting evidence. The journal may seek an independent assessment where appropriate.

Disagreement with a reviewer alone does not automatically justify overturning an editorial decision. Appeals are assessed according to the journal's policies, the available evidence, and the principles of editorial fairness.

Complaints concerning reviewer conduct, editorial procedures, conflicts of interest, or suspected research misconduct will be handled under the journal's applicable publication ethics policies.

10. Ethical Standards and Reference Guidelines

JETT is committed to peer review that is fair, confidential, transparent, timely, and free from inappropriate influence.

The journal's peer-review policy is informed by the principles and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), particularly the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

Reviewers, editors, and authors are expected to uphold the principles of research integrity, respect for intellectual property, disclosure of conflicts of interest, and responsible scholarly communication.

Relevant guidance:

• COPE, Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9

• COPE, Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.12

11. Policy Review

The editorial team is responsible for reviewing this policy periodically to ensure that it remains consistent with the journal's actual editorial practices and recognized publication ethics standards.

Any substantive changes to the peer-review process will be reflected on the journal website.

Journal of Event, Travel and Tour Management (JETT)
Published by Politeknik Pariwisata NHI Bandung

Website: https://journal.poltekpar-nhi.ac.id/index.php/jett