Journal of Academic Tourism Analysis (Journal ATA) is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access scholarly journal committed to scientific excellence, editorial transparency, research integrity, and ethical publishing.
The peer-review process constitutes the cornerstone of the journal's quality assurance system. These guidelines have been prepared to clarify reviewers' responsibilities, establish consistent evaluation standards, and promote constructive scholarly feedback.
1. Responsibilities of Reviewers
Reviewers are expected to:
- maintain scientific objectivity;
- evaluate manuscripts solely on academic merit;
- preserve confidentiality;
- complete reviews within the requested timeframe; and
- provide constructive and evidence-based comments.
Peer review should aim not only to assist editorial decision-making but also to improve the scientific quality of submitted manuscripts.
2. Accepting a Review Invitation
Reviewers should accept invitations only if:
- the manuscript falls within their area of expertise;
- they are able to complete the review within the requested deadline.
Reviewers should decline invitations when:
- the topic lies outside their expertise;
- they cannot provide an impartial evaluation; or
- they are unable to complete the review on time.
3. Confidentiality
All submitted manuscripts are confidential documents.
Reviewers must not:
- share manuscripts with third parties;
- use unpublished information for personal benefit;
- disclose any aspect of the review process.
Information obtained through peer review may be used solely for editorial evaluation.
4. Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts considering:
- Scientific originality
- Theoretical contribution
- Literature review
- Research methodology
- Data analysis
- Findings
- Discussion
- Conclusions
- Ethical compliance
- Academic writing quality
5. Writing a Review Report
Review reports should be:
- objective;
- constructive;
- respectful;
- scientifically justified; and
- sufficiently detailed.
Reviewers should explain the reasons supporting each recommendation rather than merely stating conclusions.
6. Constructive Feedback
Reviewers are encouraged to provide recommendations that help authors improve their work.
Instead of writing “This is a poor manuscript.”, consider writing "The theoretical framework would benefit from a broader discussion of recent international literature."
7. Reviewer Recommendations
Reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:
- Accept
- Minor Revision
- Major Revision
- Resubmit for Review
- Reject
Reviewer recommendations are advisory.
The final publication decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief.
8. Review Timeline
Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within the requested period.
If additional time is required, the Editorial Office should be informed promptly.
9. Ethical Concerns
Reviewers should immediately notify the editor if they suspect:
- plagiarism;
- fabricated or falsified data;
- duplicate publication;
- missing ethics approval;
- citation manipulation;
- unethical use of artificial intelligence; or
- any other form of research misconduct.
10. Post-Review Confidentiality
The obligation of confidentiality continues after completion of the review process.
Reviewers must not disclose or discuss reviewed manuscripts with third parties after the editorial process has concluded.
