Peer Review Statement of the Journal of Tourism Management Studies of the Smart Era (TMSSE)
Ethical Principles of Peer Review
Given the growing culture of research and the submission of scholarly work to academic journals for evaluation and publication, establishing uniform procedures in manuscript review and adhering to ethical standards in peer review has become inevitable. Naturally, the fate of much faculty research is closely tied to the review process and the judgments made by reviewers. While emphasizing that judgment and evaluation carry special significance and sensitivity in all matters, it is incumbent upon all esteemed reviewers, in their capacity as scientific arbiters, to devote deeper consideration to the content of manuscripts. Beyond assessing writing mechanics and structural details, they should evaluate the overall scholarly framework of each article as an impactful scientific work contributing to the field of "tourism studies and smart tourism-related topics."
The esteemed Editorial Board of the Journal of Tourism Management Studies of the Smart Era (TMSSE) requires precise and expert evaluations from reviewers to ensure fair judgment of submitted manuscripts. An ideal reviewer, aiming to enhance the quality of manuscripts, should thoroughly and carefully read the article, pose constructive questions to the author(s), and, through their expert feedback, prevent the publication of low-quality or scientifically deficient papers. Undoubtedly, the role of reviewers in a journal is highly sensitive and fundamental. Essentially, reviewers carry out two important functions:
First, they provide an opinion on the scholarly value of a manuscript for publication (typically after revisions).
Second, they offer constructive criticism to the authors, regardless of whether the article is accepted or rejected.
Most reviewers are skilled at fulfilling the first role; however, they need to strengthen their capacity for the second role—the constructive function that enhances the quality of articles. In truth, a reviewer acts as a good advisor to the authors. In other words, it is fitting that the esteemed reviewer sees what the author has overlooked and brings it to their attention. A reviewer can thus serve as a collaborator, a supervisor, a consultant, or even a compassionate critic who assists the authors.
Common Sense Guidelines in Judgment
The principle of Common Sense in judgment provides a customary standard for reviewers. This principle means that "reviewers should judge in the manner they would wish to be judged." For example, just as reviewers expect to be treated with respect, they should treat the manuscript and its authors with equal respect.
Reasons for Acceptance or Rejection of Manuscripts
Numerous reasons may lead to the acceptance or rejection of manuscripts. For the sake of procedural uniformity and fair judgment, it is helpful to review these reasons, as this can benefit both reviewers and early-career researchers.
Common reasons for accepting a manuscript include:
Relevance of the article to the journal's mission and scope
Clear identification of a research problem by the authors
Logical coherence among the research problem, objectives, methodology, findings, and conclusions
Use of up-to-date international scholarly sources
Other features that make the article compelling and engaging to reviewers
On the other hand, common reasons for rejection typically include:
Incomplete or outdated statistical data and information
Insufficient or unsatisfactory literature review
Inappropriate measurement tools or data analysis methods
Unwarranted conclusions drawn from the findings
An overly promotional or applied approach that distances the work from research-oriented, knowledge-production frontiers
While such articles may have value, they are generally not suitable for publication in academic journals.
Systematic Approach to Manuscript Review
The first question a reviewer must answer is whether the manuscript aligns with the journal's scope. It is also essential that journal editors, through initial screening, only forward manuscripts relevant to the journal's mission to reviewers. Positive bias (unfair acceptance) or negative bias (unfair rejection) is a significant concern in peer review. Therefore, a strictly confidential double-blind review process is implemented.
Another critical consideration is that reviewers should possess sufficient scholarly expertise on the subject of the manuscript they are evaluating. A good review requires adequate knowledge and command of the relevant scientific field. If a reviewer finds the manuscript's topic outside their area of expertise or experience, they should respectfully decline the review to uphold authors' rights. This action embodies the very spirit of ethical reviewing and gives authors the opportunity to have their work evaluated by other specialized reviewers.
There is no single prescribed method for reading a manuscript; each reviewer adopts their own approach. Some reviewers prefer a quick, superficial reading, which is neither advisable nor consistent with scientific and ethical reviewing standards. It is recommended that reviewers allocate at least two hours to review each manuscript, in accordance with professional standards.
Key Responsibilities of Reviewers
Reviewers assist the Editor-in-Chief in the qualitative, content-based, and scholarly assessment of manuscripts and contribute to improving article quality through communication between the editorial board and the authors.
Since the peer review process is a fundamental step in manuscript acceptance, reviewers who, for any reason (e.g., lack of expertise, extended review timeline, etc.), are unable to complete the review should decline the assignment promptly.
Reviewers must keep all information obtained during the review process confidential and must not use it for personal gain.
Reviewers should be mindful of potential conflicts of interest when reviewing a manuscript that relates to their own published or in-press work. If they perceive any such conflict, they must immediately return the manuscript to the Editor-in-Chief and disclose the situation.
Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of all submitted manuscripts, treating all information contained within as privileged.
Reviewers should verify the accuracy and completeness of citations and references used in the manuscript. All research, sources, and quotations incorporated in the article must be fully and properly cited.
Reviewers must notify the editorial office of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and any other published or under-review work.
Reviewers are expected to submit their feedback within the designated timeframe. While delays are sometimes unavoidable, reviewers should inform the Editor-in-Chief of any anticipated delays and propose a new completion date.
Reviews must be based on sound scientific evidence and adequate reasoning, articulated clearly and transparently to both the editorial team and the authors. Reviewers must refrain from expressing subjective, personal, racial, religious, or other biased opinions in their evaluations.
Reviewer Registration via Publons
Reviewers are encouraged to register and manage their reviewing activities through the Publons platform, which provides a comprehensive record of peer review contributions and enhances academic recognition. To join, please visit the Publons website and connect your reviewing profile with the journal.
Link for reviewer registration: https://publons.com