PUBLISHING ETHICS

The publication of articles in Bali Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Culture Research (BJHTCR), a peer-reviewed journal, constitutes a fundamental component in advancing knowledge within the fields of hospitality, tourism, and cultural studies. As a platform dedicated to scholarly excellence, BJHTCR ensures that published research reflects the highest standards of academic rigour and integrity. Peer-reviewed articles in BJHTCR not only contribute to the global discourse in these disciplines but also uphold the principles of the scientific method, fostering innovation and evidence-based practice.

Given the journal’s commitment to ethical scholarship, it is imperative that all parties involved in the publishing process—authors, editors, and peer reviewers—adhere to clearly defined standards of ethical conduct. BJHTCR aligns with international best practices to ensure transparency, fairness, and accountability at every stage of the editorial process. Authors are expected to submit original work with accurate and verifiable data, while reviewers and editors must evaluate submissions objectively, free from conflicts of interest. By maintaining these ethical standards, BJHTCR safeguards the credibility of published research and reinforces its role as a trusted resource for academics and practitioners in hospitality, tourism, and cultural studies.

 

 

1. Reporting Standards

Authors must ensure that their manuscripts present an accurate and objective account of the research conducted, accompanied by sufficient detail and references to permit replication. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable. Theoretical and methodological frameworks should be clearly articulated, and findings must be discussed within an appropriate scholarly context.

 

2. Data Access and Retention

Authors may be required to provide raw data, methodological details, or supplementary materials for editorial review, and should be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable period post-publication. Where applicable, datasets should be archived in recognised repositories to ensure transparency, reproducibility, and compliance with funder or institutional policies.

 

3. Originality and Plagiarism

Submissions must represent original work, and where the contributions of others are incorporated, proper attribution must be provided. Plagiarism—whether verbatim, paraphrased, or in the form of unattributed ideas—constitutes a serious ethical breach. Manuscripts found to contain plagiarised content, including self-plagiarism (redundant publication of one’s own work without citation), will be rejected or retracted.

 

4. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication

Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals concurrently is unethical. Authors must not publish redundant or overlapping publications unless justified (e.g., translations or secondary analyses with full cross-referencing). Prior publication as an abstract or thesis does not typically preclude submission, but full disclosure is required.

 

5. Acknowledgement of Sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be provided, including publications that have influenced the reported study. Authors should cite only sources they have directly consulted; secondary sourcing should be clearly indicated. Excessive self-citation or preferential citation to manipulate impact metrics is discouraged.

 

6. Authorship of the Paper

Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made significant intellectual contributions to the research, including conception, design, execution, or interpretation. All co-authors must approve the final manuscript and its submission. Contributors who do not meet authorship criteria (e.g., technical assistance) should be acknowledged. Ghost, guest, or gift authorship is unacceptable.

 

7. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects

Research involving human or animal subjects must adhere to ethical standards, including approval by an institutional review board (IRB) or ethics committee. Manuscripts must include a statement confirming compliance with relevant guidelines (e.g., Declaration of Helsinki, ARRIVE) and detailing informed consent procedures. Hazards posed by chemicals, procedures, or equipment must be clearly disclosed.

 

8. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All financial, institutional, or personal relationships that could unduly influence the research must be disclosed. Potential conflicts include funding sources, employment affiliations, or personal connections with editors/reviewers. If uncertain, authors should err on the side of transparency.

 

9. Fundamental Errors in Published Works

Should authors identify significant errors or inaccuracies in their published work, they must promptly notify the journal and cooperate in issuing a correction, retraction, or erratum. Failure to do so may constitute scholarly misconduct.

 

 

1. Contribution to Editorial Decision

Peer reviewers play a pivotal role in the scholarly publishing process by providing objective, well-reasoned evaluations that assist editors in making informed decisions. Reviewers should assess the manuscript’s originality, methodological rigour, clarity of presentation, and significance to the field. Constructive criticism, including suggestions for improvement, should be offered to enhance the quality of the work. If a reviewer determines that the manuscript falls outside their area of expertise, they should promptly notify the editor to avoid delays.

 

2. Promptness

Reviewers must adhere to agreed-upon timelines to ensure the timely progression of the peer-review process. If unforeseen circumstances prevent the completion of a review within the stipulated timeframe, the reviewer should immediately inform the editor and, if necessary, decline the invitation. Prolonged delays undermine the efficiency of scholarly communication and disadvantage authors awaiting decisions.

 

3. Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose any details of the submission to third parties or use unpublished material for personal advantage. Discussions with colleagues (if seeking specialist input) must be authorised by the editor and conducted with strict confidentiality. Any breach of this obligation constitutes a serious ethical violation.

 

4. Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted impartially, with assessments based solely on the intellectual merit of the work. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate; feedback should be objective, evidence-based, and free from bias related to nationality, institutional affiliation, or competing theories. If a reviewer perceives a conflict of interest that could compromise objectivity (e.g., prior collaboration with the author), they must recuse themselves from the review process.

 

5. Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited, particularly if it substantially informs the study’s context or findings. However, reviewers must not exploit their position to demand undue citation of their own work or that of colleagues unless academically justified. Any suggestions for additional references should be based solely on scholarly relevance.

 

6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest—financial, professional, or personal—that could influence their judgement. Examples include close associations with the authors, competitive research interests, or financial ties to entities connected to the manuscript. If such conflicts exist, reviewers should decline the invitation or seek the editor’s guidance on whether recusal is necessary. Undisclosed conflicts undermine the integrity of the peer-review process.

 

 

1. Publication Decision

Editors bear ultimate responsibility for determining which submissions merit publication in the journal. This decision must be based on:

•  The manuscript’s academic rigour, originality, and contribution to the field

•  The validity of its methodology and conclusions

•  The outcomes of peer review

•  The journal’s editorial policies and ethical standards

Editors may consult with associate editors or editorial board members for complex cases but must not allow external influences (commercial, political, or personal) to affect editorial independence. Decisions should be communicated clearly to authors, with constructive feedback when submissions are rejected.

 

2. Fair Play

Editors must evaluate all manuscripts objectively, without prejudice regarding:

•  Authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, nationality, or institutional affiliation

•  The perceived standing of the authors or their institutions

•  The potential commercial impact of the research

Submissions should be assigned to reviewers based on expertise alone, and editorial processes must ensure equitable treatment of all authors. Special consideration should be given to early-career researchers and submissions from underrepresented regions.

 

3. Confidentiality

Editors and editorial staff must maintain strict confidentiality regarding:

•  All submitted manuscripts and their contents

•  The identity of reviewers (in single-blind or double-blind systems)

•  Any correspondence related to the submission

Confidential material must not be disclosed to anyone except corresponding authors, reviewers, and other editorial advisors as necessary. Unpublished materials must not be used for personal research without express written consent from the author.

 

4. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Editors must:

•  Recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where they have competing interests (e.g., personal relationships with authors, financial stakes in the research)

•  Disclose any institutional affiliations that might create perceived conflicts

•  Ensure editorial staff and board members adhere to the same standards

 

Any conflicts that could influence editorial judgment must be declared to the publisher and managed appropriately, typically through delegation to an alternative editor.

 

5. Involvement and Cooperation in Investigations

Editors have a duty to act when ethical concerns arise by:

•  Investigating allegations of misconduct (plagiarism, data fabrication, authorship disputes) in collaboration with institutions

•  Publishing corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern when warranted

•  Maintaining documentation of investigations and their outcomes