Jurnal Kepariwisataan implements a double-anonymized peer review process, ensuring that the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process.

Double-Blind Review Policy

To ensure fairness and objectivity:

Authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other
Authors must remove all identifying information from the manuscript
Self-references should be written in the third person

Manuscripts are evaluated based on academic quality, originality, and relevance to tourism and hospitality management.

1. Submission of Manuscript

The corresponding author submits the manuscript through the journal’s online submission system. Authors must upload two separate files: 1. Title Page (author details, affiliations, acknowledgements, conflict of interest), 2. Anonymized Manuscript (without any identifying information). Manuscripts that do not comply with anonymization requirements will be returned before review.

2. Editorial Office Screening

The Editorial Office conducts an initial screening to ensure that the manuscript follows the Author Guidelines, required documents are complete, the manuscript is properly anonymized for double-blind review, and the submission fits the journal’s format and structure. At this stage, scientific quality is not yet evaluated.

3. Desk Review

The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the manuscript based on scope and relevance to the journal, originality and novelty,theoretical and methodological contribution, overall academic merit. Based on Editorial desk review the manuscript may be: Rejected (desk rejection), or sent for peer reviews.

4. Assignment to Associate Editor (Handling Editor)

If suitable for review, the EIC assigns an Associate Editor (AE) or Handling Editor. The Handling Editor is responsible for managing the peer review process, selecting qualified reviewers, making recommendations based on reviewer feedback.

5. Reviewer Invitation

The Handling Editor invites at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. Additional reviewers may be invited if invitations are declined, reviews are delayed, or additional opinions are needed.

6. Reviewer Response

Invited reviewers evaluate the invitation based on subject expertise, availability, potential conflicts of interest. Reviewers may accept the invitation or decline and optionally suggest alternative reviewers.

7. Peer Review Process

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript through multiple readings, consist of:

First Reading
Assess overall relevance and contribution
Identify major flaws or suitability

Detailed Review

Theoretical framework
Research methodology
Data analysis and validity
Contribution to tourism and hospitality knowledge
Provide constructive, point-by-point feedback

Reviewer Recommendation

Reviewers submit one of the following recommendations:

Accept
Minor Revision
Major Revision
Reject

8. Editorial Evaluation of Reviews

The Handling Editor reviews all reviewer reports and assesses consistency among reviewer recommendations; Evaluates the strength of arguments. If reviewer opinions differ significantly, the editor may invite an additional reviewer, or make a decision based on editorial judgment.

9. Decision Communication

The editorial decision is communicated to the author, including anonymized reviewer comments. Possible decisions:

Accept
Minor Revision
Major Revision
Reject

Reviewer identities remain confidential under the double-blind review model.

10. Revision Process

If revision is required, authors must submit a revised manuscript include a response to reviewers explaining changes made For:

Major revisions → manuscript may be re-evaluated by reviewers
Minor revisions → may be assessed by the Handling Editor

11. Final Decision

After revision, the editor makes the final decision:

Accept for publication
Request further revision
Reject

12. Production and Publication

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting process follow by layout and proofreading and final online publication

13. Reviewer Notification

Reviewers are informed of the final decision. If applicable, reviewers may be invited to review revised versions, and acknowledged for their contribution.