Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy of Bali Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Culture Research

1. Introduction

The Bali Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Culture Research (BJHTCR) upholds a rigorous and transparent peer review process to ensure the quality, integrity, and academic contribution of published research. The peer review process is designed to maintain high scholarly standards, promote innovative research, and provide constructive feedback to authors.

2. Scope of Peer Review

All submitted manuscripts undergo a double-blind peer review process, meaning that both the authors and reviewers remain anonymous. The review focuses on the following criteria:

  • Rigour: The methodological soundness, coherence, and clarity of the research.

  • Relevance: The significance of the study to hospitality, tourism, and cultural research.

  • Contribution: The originality and impact of the research in advancing knowledge in the discipline.

  • Use of Existing Research: The extent to which the manuscript builds on and engages with existing literature.

  • Clarity and Structure: The quality of writing, logical flow, and organisation of the manuscript.

3. Peer Review Process

3.1 Initial Submission and Screening

Upon submission, the editorial team conducts an initial screening to check for:

  • Adherence to journal guidelines.

  • Plagiarism (using plagiarism detection software).

  • Alignment with the journal’s scope and academic quality requirements.

Manuscripts that pass this stage proceed to peer review. Those that do not meet the criteria may be rejected or returned for revision before review.

3.2 Assignment to Reviewers

Manuscripts are assigned to two or more independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research experience, and familiarity with the manuscript's topic.

3.3 Review Criteria and Evaluation

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on the following aspects:

  • Significance and Contribution: Does the study provide new insights or perspectives?

  • Theoretical and Conceptual Framework: Are the theories and concepts well-defined and appropriately applied?

  • Methodological Rigor: Is the research design, data collection, and analysis appropriate?

  • Findings and Discussion: Are results well-presented, well-interpreted, and supported by evidence?

  • Implications and Conclusion: Are the implications for research, practice, or policy well articulated?

  • Language and Formatting: Does the manuscript meet academic writing and formatting standards?

Each reviewer submits a detailed report along with a recommendation:

  1. Accept as is.

  2. Accept with minor revisions.

  3. Revise and resubmit (major revisions required).

  4. Reject.

3.4 Decision Making

The editorial team evaluates the reviewers' reports and makes a decision:

  • If both reviewers recommend acceptance (with or without minor revisions), the manuscript proceeds to final editing and publication.

  • If major revisions are required, authors are given a specific timeframe to revise and resubmit.

  • If one reviewer recommends rejection while the other recommends revision, the editorial team may assign a third reviewer.

  • If both reviewers reject the manuscript, it is declined.

Authors receive feedback summarising the reviewers’ comments and the final editorial decision.

4. Ethical Considerations

  • Confidentiality: All submitted manuscripts and reviewer reports are confidential.

  • Reviewer Conduct: Reviewers must provide objective, constructive feedback and disclose any potential conflicts of interest.

  • Plagiarism and Misconduct: Manuscripts suspected of plagiarism, data fabrication, or ethical misconduct will be investigated and may be rejected.

5. Appeals and Revisions

Authors who wish to appeal a rejection decision must submit a written appeal with detailed justification. Appeals are reviewed by the editorial team, and in some cases, a third-party reviewer may be consulted.

6. Final Publication Process

After acceptance, manuscripts undergo final editing, proofreading, and formatting before publication. Authors are given an opportunity to review proofs before final publication.

7. Continuous Improvement

BJHTCR regularly evaluates its peer review process to ensure efficiency, fairness, and academic excellence. Feedback from reviewers, authors, and editorial board members is used to enhance the process.

This peer review policy ensures that BJHTCR maintains high academic standards and contributes valuable research to the fields of hospitality, tourism, and cultural studies.