Peer Review Process

Type of Review

Jurnal Manajemen Perhotelan uses a double-blind peer-review process. The identities of authors are not disclosed to reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors.

To support the double-blind process, authors must submit two files:

  1. a complete manuscript that includes the authors' identities; and
  2. an anonymised manuscript without names, affiliations, acknowledgements, or other identifying information.

Number of Reviewers

Each manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening is assigned to at least two independent reviewers. If the reviewers provide conflicting recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief may appoint a third reviewer. The third review is considered together with the previous reviews in reaching the editorial decision.

Reviewer Qualifications

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and research experience in the subject area of the manuscript. Reviewers should demonstrate an equivalent record of scholarly achievement. Reviewers must have no conflict of interest with the authors or the submitted manuscript. Further provisions are available in the journal's Conflict of Interest Policy.

Stages of the Review Process

1. Submission and Administrative Check

The editorial office checks the completeness of the submission and its compliance with the Author Guidelines and journal template. The editorial office also checks the anonymised manuscript. Submissions that do not meet these requirements are returned to the authors for correction before entering the review process.

2. Similarity Screening

All submitted manuscripts are screened using Turnitin. A manuscript may be returned or rejected if its similarity index exceeds 20% overall or 5% from a single source. Properly attributed direct quotations and reference lists are excluded from the assessment. The similarity report is retained as part of the journal's editorial records.

3. Initial Editorial Review

The Editor-in-Chief and the relevant Section Editor assess the manuscript before peer review. The assessment considers the manuscript's relevance to the journal's aim and scope, originality, methodological soundness, and compliance with research ethics. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be rejected or asked for revision at this stage. This decision is normally made within one weeks of submission.

4. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial review are sent to at least two independent reviewers. Reviewers evaluate the anonymised manuscript and are expected to submit their reports within 2 weeks of accepting the review invitation.

5. Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final editorial decision based on the reviewers' comments and the overall quality of the manuscript. The available decisions are:

  • Accept
  • Minor revision
  • Major revision
  • Resubmit for review
  • Reject

6. Revision

Authors are given 2-3 weeks to complete a minor revision and 4-5 weeks to complete a major revision. Authors might provide a point-by-point response to all reviewer comments. Manuscripts requiring major revision may be returned to the original reviewers for further assessment.

7. Copyediting, Layout, and Proofreading

Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting and layout preparation. The process includes language editing, formatting, and compliance with the journal's house style. Authors are given an opportunity to review and approve the final proof before publication.

8. Publication

Once published, each article is assigned a DOI. Article metadata is deposited with Crossref and relevant indexing services.

Review Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • Relevance to the journal's aim and scope
  • Originality and contribution to hospitality and tourism knowledge
  • Adequacy and currency of the literature review
  • Appropriateness and rigour of the research design
  • Adequacy of sampling and data analysis
  • Quality and depth of interpretation
  • Consistency between the research objectives, findings, and conclusions
  • Theoretical and/or managerial implications
  • Compliance with research ethics
  • Clarity of writing and accuracy of references

Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on each manuscript. Reviewer recommendations are considered carefully but are not determined solely by the number of positive or negative recommendations. Editorial decisions are based on the academic quality, originality, relevance, and integrity of the manuscript. The publisher, sponsors, professional associations, and payment of any article processing charge have no influence on editorial decisions.

Authors receive the reviewers' comments together with the editorial decision.

Indicative Timeline

Stage

Target

Administrative check and initial editorial review

Within 1 weeks of submission

Peer review

Within 2 weeks of reviewer acceptance

First editorial decision

Approximately 4 weeks from submission

Final decision to publication

Approximately 4–6 weeks from submission

The actual duration may vary depending on reviewer availability, revision requirements, and the complexity of the manuscript.

Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Reviewers must not use artificial intelligence (AI) tools during the peer-review process. Reviewers must not upload a submitted manuscript, or any part of it, to an AI application or other external system. This restriction is intended to protect the confidentiality of manuscripts and the intellectual property of authors. Further information is available in the Artificial Intelligence Policy.

Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision if they believe that the decision was based on a factual error or a material misunderstanding of the manuscript. An appeal must be submitted in writing to [email protected] within two weeks of the decision. The appeal should clearly state the grounds for the appeal and provide supporting information where appropriate. The appeal is assessed by an editor who was not involved in the original decision. The outcome of the appeal is final.

Ethical Standards

The journal's peer-review process follows the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and the COPE Core Practices.