Peer Review Process

All submissions to the journal are first subjected to a preliminary review by the Editorial Office. At this stage, the following aspects are evaluated:
• Whether the necessary permissions have been obtained,
• Compliance with ethical principles and the presence of ethics committee approval (if required),
• Adherence to the APA 7 citation and referencing style,
• Conformity with the journal's submission guidelines and scope.
Articles found to be lacking in any of these areas during the preliminary review are returned to the corresponding author with a request to address the deficiencies.
Articles that pass the preliminary review are forwarded to the Editor or Associate Editors. At this stage, based on the following reasons, some articles may be rejected without entering the peer review process:
• The article is deemed to lack sufficient contribution to the existing literature,
• The article is found to be insufficient in terms of originality,
• The article contains major scientific, methodological, or structural deficiencies,
• The topic and/or scope of the article is not aligned with the focus areas of the journal.


Key Principles Of The Peer Review Process
Journal of Gundem Tourism applies a double-blind peer review system for the evaluation of all articles submitted for publication. In this system, the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept anonymous from each other throughout the review process. Authors are not asked to suggest potential reviewers for their articles.
Double-blind peer review plays a critical role in ensuring that research is evaluated objectively, fairly, and without bias in academic publishing. By concealing the identities of authors and reviewers, this process minimizes potential prejudices and ensures that evaluations are based solely on academic merit. As a result, reviewers focus only on the scientific quality of the work, uninfluenced by personal, institutional, or geographic factors. The system also enhances the quality of scholarly publishing by thoroughly assessing methodological coherence, the reliability of data analysis, and the academic contribution of the findings. This approach promotes adherence to scientific ethics and helps maintain a reliable and impartial evaluation system within the academic community.
The peer review process in our journal is conducted in accordance with the following principles:
• Article evaluation is carried out using the double-blind peer review system, where authors and reviewers remain unaware of each other’s identities.
• During their service at the journal, Editorial Board Members, the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors, and Section Editors are not assigned as reviewers. However, their opinions may be sought regarding whether a article should proceed to the peer review stage, based on their area of expertise.
• To serve as a reviewer for the journal, a minimum academic qualification of a doctoral degree (Ph.D.) is required.
• Reviewers from the same institution as the author(s) will not be assigned. Geographical and institutional diversity is considered in reviewer selection.
• For each submission, review invitations are sent to three reviewers in the initial stage. A minimum of two positive recommendations are required for publication. If the reviewer reports are contradictory, an additional reviewer may be assigned.
• Empty reviewer reports—that is, reports lacking any comments, suggestions, or evaluations of the article —are not taken into account during the decision-making process and are not shared with the authors.
• If a reviewer recommends a minor revision, the revised article will not be sent back to that reviewer unless they explicitly request to see the revision again. In contrast, if a major revision is recommended, the article will be sent back to the reviewer unless they indicate that a second review is not necessary.
• If revisions are requested from the author(s), all changes must be clearly marked in a different color (for convenience, the "Track Changes" function in Word may be used). Otherwise, reviewers will not be able to identify the modifications. Authors may also upload a response letter to reviewers, if they wish.
• While the article is under review, no identifying information about the author(s) should appear in the uploaded files—either directly or indirectly (e.g., references to a thesis or conference presentation). Such details should be added only after acceptance during the layout stage.
• All communication and file exchange with authors and reviewers is conducted exclusively through the Dergipark system.


Final Review

Articles that receive favorable reviews from the referees at the end of the peer review process are accepted for publication. In cases where reviewer opinions conflict and/or the article is deemed unsuitable for publication based on the reviewers’ evaluations, the final decision is made by the Editorial Board.
The decision of the Editorial Board is communicated to the author(s) by the Section Editor.

The article processes proceed within the timeframes outlined below:


Maximum time for preliminary check of the article5 days
Response time for the reviewer invitation5 days
Review period granted to the reviewer15 days
Additional review time granted upon reviewer’s request14 days
Time given to the author for minor revisions14 days
Time given to the author for major revisions21 days


Last Update Time: 9/11/25