 |
PEER-REVIEW PROCESS
Every manuscript submitted to TOBA: Journal of Tourism, Hospitality, and Destination goes through editorial screening and peer review, so that the journal publishes only work that is sound, original, and relevant.
TOBA uses a double blind review. Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. Subject experts assess the scientific merit and originality of each manuscript, its relevance to tourism, hospitality, and destination studies, and its fit with the Focus and Scope.
The Process at a Glance
1. Initial evaluation → 2. Editor and reviewers assigned → 3. Peer review → 4. Decision → 5. Revision, if required → 6. Layout and acceptance letter
| Stage | What happens | Time frame |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Initial evaluation | The editors check the scope, the format, the originality, and the ethics of the manuscript. | Before the manuscript is sent to reviewers |
| 2. Assignment of editor and reviewers | The Chief Editor assigns a handling editor, who selects and invites the reviewers. | After the initial evaluation |
| 3. Peer review | Reviewers evaluate the manuscript and recommend a decision. | Usually 2 weeks |
| 4. Decision | The handling editor makes a recommendation, and the Chief Editor makes the final decision. | After the reviews are received |
| 5. Revision | When a revision is required, authors revise the manuscript and the revised version is checked by the reviewers. | 2 weeks for the authors |
| 6. Layout and acceptance letter | The managing editor prepares the layout, and the Chief Editor sends the acceptance letter to the author. | After acceptance |
The time frames are estimates and not guarantees. They depend on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, and the number of review rounds. Planned issue dates are given on the Publication Frequency page.
1Initial Evaluation
The editors first decide whether a manuscript can be sent to reviewers.
| Check | Description |
|---|---|
| Scope and focus | The manuscript must fit the Focus and Scope of the journal. |
| Format | The editorial office checks the format, the citation style, and compliance with the Author Guidelines, the Manuscript Preparation, and the TOBA template. Manuscripts that do not comply are returned to the authors for correction before review. |
| Originality | Before a manuscript is sent to reviewers, it is checked with iThenticate, as described in the Plagiarism Policy. A high similarity result is a screening signal and not proof of plagiarism. The editors examine the result and do not reject a manuscript automatically. |
| Ethics | For research that involves participants, the editors check that permission and consent are described and that the required statements are included. |
2Assignment of Editor and Reviewers
| Item | Description |
|---|---|
| Handling editor | The Chief Editor assigns an editor to each manuscript. The handling editor selects the reviewers, invites them to review, and manages the review. |
| Number of reviewers | Each manuscript is evaluated by at least three independent reviewers. |
| Reviewer selection | Reviewers are subject experts with relevant research experience, preferably from institutions other than that of the corresponding author. Invited reviewers accept or decline according to their expertise, their availability, and any conflict of interest. |
| Becoming a reviewer | Researchers who wish to review for TOBA can register through the Call for Reviewer form. Current reviewers are listed on the Reviewer Board page. |
2.1 Anonymity
Before the review, the editorial office removes the author names, the affiliations, the acknowledgments, and the author contribution statements from the manuscript. Reviewers do not receive this information. Editors keep the funding and competing interest statements.
2.2 Conflicts of interest
Reviewers and editors who have a conflict of interest must decline the review or step out of the decision, as described in the Conflicts of Interest policy. A manuscript submitted by an editor or by a member of the editorial board is handled by an editor who is not involved, and the author takes no part in its evaluation or in the decision.
3Peer Review
Reviewers assess the scientific quality, the originality, the validity, and the relevance of the manuscript, and they give constructive comments to the authors. They then recommend that the manuscript be accepted, revised, or rejected. Reviewers are usually asked to return their evaluation within 2 weeks.
What reviewers evaluate
| Section | Questions the reviewers consider |
|---|---|
| Title and abstract | Does the title describe the study accurately? Do the abstract and the keywords show the contribution of the article? |
| Introduction | Does the introduction give the background, the relevant literature, the research gap, and the novelty of the study? Is the research objective stated clearly at the end of the introduction? |
| Research Method | Is the design appropriate and repeatable? Are the participants or data sources, the instruments, and the analysis described? Are validity and reliability addressed where relevant? Are permission and consent described for research with participants? |
| Results and Discussion | Are the results correct and clear? Are they linked to previous studies and theory? Do they show what the findings mean for tourism, hospitality, and destination theory or practice? |
| Conclusion | Are the conclusions supported by the results, and do they answer the research objective? |
| References | Are the references relevant, recent, accurate, and written in the required style? Are earlier studies on the topic included? |
| Ethics and integrity | Are there signs of plagiarism, fabricated or manipulated data, undisclosed use of generative AI, or other concerns? |
Reviewers must keep every manuscript and every review confidential. When reviewers use AI tools, they must follow the Generative AI Policies.
4Decision
The handling editor makes a recommendation on the basis of the reviewers' comments, and the Chief Editor makes the final decision. When the reviewers' comments differ greatly, an additional reviewer may be invited before the decision is made. The decision and the anonymous comments of the reviewers are sent to the author through the online system. Publication charges never influence the decision. The charges are listed on the Author Fees page.
| Decision | Meaning | Author action |
|---|---|---|
| Accepted | The manuscript is accepted and moves to layout. | No revision is needed. |
| Minor revision | Small changes are needed before the manuscript can be accepted. | Resubmit within 2 weeks. |
| Major revision | Substantial changes are needed before the manuscript can be accepted. | Resubmit within 2 weeks. |
| Rejected | The manuscript is not accepted for publication in TOBA. | No further action. |
5Revision
When a revision is required, the managing editor returns the manuscript to the author together with the comments of the reviewers. Authors must resubmit the revised manuscript within 2 weeks. The resubmission must include the following:
| Item | Description |
|---|---|
| Revised manuscript | The revised version in the TOBA template, with all changes highlighted. |
| Response letter | A letter that answers each comment of the reviewers, explains each change, or explains why a comment was not followed. |
The handling editor then sends the revised manuscript back to the reviewers. A manuscript with a major revision normally returns to the same reviewers for a second round. For a minor revision, a further review is decided by the editor. Authors who need more time must inform the editorial office before the deadline.
6Complaints and Appeals
| Item | Description |
|---|---|
| Who can appeal | Authors who believe that a decision resulted from a mistake or from an unfair review. |
| How to appeal | Send an email to tobajurnal@gmail.com with the subject "Appeal: [Manuscript Identifier]". |
| What to include | A clear explanation of the reasons, supporting evidence, and a response to the specific points of the decision. Disagreement alone is not a ground for reconsideration. |
| How it is handled | An editor who is not involved examines the appeal and may ask for an additional opinion. The decision on an appeal is final, and a manuscript can be appealed only once. |
| Misconduct concerns | Concerns about misconduct follow the Allegations of Misconduct policy. |
7Acceptance and Publication
After a manuscript is accepted, the managing editor handles the layout, and the Chief Editor sends the acceptance letter to the author. The manuscript is then assigned to an upcoming issue, which is published in February, May, August, or November. Changes after publication follow the Correction and Retraction policy, and scholarly comments on published articles follow the Post-Publication Discussion procedure.
Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
The journal is committed to the following principles, which are explained further in the Publication Ethics policy.
| Commitment | Summary |
|---|---|
| Confidentiality | Information about manuscripts and reviews is kept confidential. |
| Objectivity and impartiality | Reviews are based on merit, are free from bias and conflicts of interest, and are constructive. |
| Timeliness | Reviews are completed within a reasonable time, and authors are kept informed of the progress. |
| Transparency and accountability | Reviewers give reasoned comments, and editors make fair decisions. |
| Conflicts of interest | Editors and reviewers declare conflicts of interest, and the journal keeps the evaluation unbiased. |
| Plagiarism and misconduct | The journal watches for suspected cases and handles them promptly under the Allegations of Misconduct policy. |
| Recognition of reviewers | The journal acknowledges the contribution of its reviewers. |
Questions About Peer Review
Questions about the peer review process can be sent to the editorial office at tobajurnal@gmail.com. More information is available on the Author Guidelines, Editorial Board, and Reviewer Board pages.
TOBA: Journal of Tourism, Hospitality, and Destination • Double blind peer review
