Peer Review process

Articles are reviewed using the international standardised evaluation system known as “double-blind” peer review, which guarantees the anonymity of authors and reviewers throughout the review process. All articles submitted to Journal of Tourism and Heritage Researchare evaluated in accordance with strict scientific quality criteria.

Reviews are indexed and reviewed by the editorial team. The works reviewed must have been published in the previous two years.

The article review process is conducted using Open Journal System (OJS) software, which guarantees an automated and auditable electronic record of all interactions.

The review process consists of the following stages:

  1. A first stage in which the Editorial Board conducts a general review of the quality and suitability of the article as regards the journal’s publication guidelines and scope. The article may be rejected before peer review or returned to the author for modification (before submission for peer review) if it presents poor quality, does not comply with the publication guidelines or makes no contribution to the fields covered by the journal.
  2. A second stage in which the articles accepted in the first stage are submitted for peer review by two external specialists in the subject or field of research. Should discrepancies arise between the peer reviewers, or for any other reason deemed necessary, the Editorial Board may send the article to a third reviewer whose decision shall determine the outcome.

In view of the peer review reports, the Editorial Board may take one of the following decisions, which shall be communicated to the author:

  1. Publishable: as it stands or with minor changes.
  2. Publishable after revision/restructuring: in this case, publication will be conditional upon the author effectuating the changes required by the Editorial Board. Authors must attach a brief explanatory report detailing the changes made and how these comply with the requirements of the Editorial Board.
  3. Not publishable, but with the possibility of rewriting and resubmission:  in this case, resubmission of a new version does not imply any guarantee of publication, only that the peer review process will commence anew from the beginning.
  4. Not publishable: in this case, articles are rejected for substantiated reasons. Authors can always exercise their right to contest this decision in writing, addressed to the Editorial Board.

Errors of format and presentation, non-compliance with the journal publication guidelines or incorrect spelling and syntax may be reasons for rejecting the article prior to submission for peer review.

When modifications are requested, authors will have of a period of one month in which to make them, and these will be subject to review by the reviewers who requested them.

The average evaluation time for articles is 30 days from the date of confirmation of the receipt of the same, save in exceptional circumstances. Peer reviewers receive the request to review with a suggested deadline and they are asked to avoid delays. Following peer review, the Editorial Board shall inform authors by email whether the article has been accepted or not for publication, as well as the date of publication when appropriate. The results of the academic decision process shall be final in all cases.

The journal of Journal of Tourism and Heritage Research all rights to reproduce published articles in any form and medium, and authors must request permission to reproduce their articles. All opinions expressed in the articles are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not reflect the opinion or scientific policy of the journal.

Each year,from 2020,  Journal of Tourism and Heritage Research annual list of all peer reviewers, statistics on accepted, revised and rejected articles, and the average period between reception of an article and communication of the final decision to the author.