Editorial Principles, Duties and Responsibilities

1. Purpose

These Editor's Guidelines have been prepared to define the duties, responsibilities, and authority of all editors serving Journal of Academic Tourism Analysis (Journal ATA), to ensure consistency in editorial decision-making, and to maintain the highest standards of scientific quality, publication ethics, and editorial independence.

These guidelines apply to the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors, Assistant Editors, and all members involved in the editorial process.

2. Fundamental Editorial Principles

Editors of Journal ATA perform their responsibilities in accordance with the following principles:

• Scientific integrity
• Academic freedom
• Editorial independence
• Impartiality
• Transparency
• Accountability
• Confidentiality
• Publication ethics
• Scientific excellence
• Continuous improvement

Scientific merit shall always remain the primary criterion throughout the editorial process.

3. Editorial Mission

The primary responsibility of an editor extends beyond making publication decisions.

Editors are expected to:

• maintain the scientific quality of the journal;
• implement the journal's editorial policies;
• manage the peer-review process;
• uphold publication ethics;
• ensure a fair and impartial editorial process; and
• contribute to the national and international reputation of the journal.

Editors share collective responsibility for protecting the scientific credibility and institutional identity of Journal ATA.

4. Editorial Responsibilities

Editors are responsible for:

• implementing the journal's aims and editorial policies;
• maintaining scientific quality standards;
• making impartial editorial decisions;
• managing peer-review effectively;
• evaluating suspected ethical misconduct;
• protecting confidentiality;
• ensuring timely editorial processing;
• maintaining professional communication with authors and reviewers; and
• supporting the international development of the journal.

5. Editorial Decision Principles

Editorial decisions shall be based exclusively on:

• scientific originality;
• theoretical contribution;
• methodological rigor;
• analytical quality;
• ethical compliance;
• academic writing quality; and
• consistency with the journal's aims and scope.

Editors shall never consider:

• academic rank;
• institutional affiliation;
• nationality;
• gender;
• language;
• political opinion;
• religious belief; or
• personal relationships.

6. Editorial Independence

Editors make all editorial decisions independently.

Neither the publisher, sponsoring institutions, nor any third party may influence editorial decisions.

Scientific merit shall remain the sole basis for editorial judgment.

7. Impartiality

Editors shall treat every manuscript equally.

All submissions are evaluated exclusively according to their scientific quality.

Editors shall not allow personal opinions, academic competition, or institutional relationships to influence editorial decisions.

8. Confidentiality

Editors are required to maintain confidentiality regarding:

• submitted manuscripts;
• reviewer reports;
• editorial correspondence; and
• all information related to the editorial process.

Such information shall not be disclosed to third parties.

9. Conflict of Interest

Editors shall withdraw from handling manuscripts whenever:

• they belong to the same institution as the authors;
• recent scientific collaboration exists;
• supervisory relationships exist;
• personal conflicts of interest arise; or
• impartial judgment cannot reasonably be maintained.

The manuscript shall then be reassigned to another editor.

10. Responsibility for Scientific Quality

Editors are responsible for ensuring the scientific quality, ethical compliance, and integrity of every article published in Journal ATA.

Whenever necessary, editors may request additional reviews or further evaluations to ensure scientific quality.

11. Continuous Professional Development

Editors are expected to remain informed about current developments in:

• scholarly publishing;
• publication ethics;
• open science;
• artificial intelligence;
• editorial management; and
• international publishing standards.

Journal ATA considers continuous professional development an integral component of editorial excellence.

Editorial Organization, Roles and Responsibilities

12. Editorial Organization

The editorial structure of Journal of Academic Tourism Analysis consists of:

• Editor-in-Chief
• Associate Editors
• Assistant Editor
• Language Editor
• Technical Editor
• Research Integrity Editor
• Editorial Office

Each editor performs responsibilities within their designated role while collaborating throughout the editorial process.

13. Editor-in-Chief

The Editor-in-Chief holds overall responsibility for the journal's editorial management and scientific publishing policy.

Responsibilities include:

• developing the journal's scientific vision;
• implementing editorial policies;
• safeguarding publication ethics;
• maintaining editorial independence;
• assigning Associate Editors;
• making final publication decisions;
• requesting additional reviews when necessary;
• evaluating ethical concerns;
• planning the journal's international development; and
• monitoring editorial performance.

The Editor-in-Chief has sole authority to make final publication decisions.

14. Associate Editors

Associate Editors manage the scientific evaluation of manuscripts within their areas of expertise.

Responsibilities include:

• conducting editorial screening;
• selecting reviewers;
• managing reviewer invitations;
• evaluating reviewer reports;
• supervising revisions;
• ensuring scientific quality; and
• providing editorial recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief.

Associate Editors recommend decisions but do not issue final acceptance or rejection decisions.

15. Assistant Editor

The Assistant Editor coordinates editorial operations.

Responsibilities include:

• checking submissions;
• verifying required documentation;
• communicating with authors;
• monitoring editorial timelines;
• coordinating reviewer correspondence; and
• supporting publication scheduling.

16. Language Editor

The Language Editor evaluates the linguistic quality of accepted manuscripts.

Responsibilities include:

• language editing;
• academic writing review;
• terminology consistency;
• grammar and punctuation correction; and
• reviewing English titles and abstracts.

The Language Editor does not modify scientific content.

17. Technical Editor

The Technical Editor is responsible for production quality.

Responsibilities include:

• page layout;
• APA 7 compliance;
• technical review of tables and figures;
• DOI assignment procedures;
• metadata verification;
• XML production; and
• final technical quality control.

18. Research Integrity Editor

The Research Integrity Editor oversees publication ethics.

Responsibilities include:

• evaluating allegations of misconduct;
• reviewing similarity reports;
• assessing conflicts of interest;
• managing corrections and retractions; and
• advising editors according to COPE principles.

19. Editorial Office

The Editorial Office coordinates the administrative aspects of the editorial process.

Responsibilities include:

• registering submissions;
• managing editorial correspondence;
• sending reviewer invitations;
• monitoring deadlines;
• maintaining archives; and
• preserving editorial records.

20. Editorial Collaboration

Editors work collaboratively to maintain consistent editorial standards.

Editors are expected to:

• respect editorial decisions;
• exchange scientific opinions constructively;
• avoid conflicts of interest; and
• protect the journal's overall editorial quality.

21. Delegation of Authority

The Editor-in-Chief may delegate specific editorial responsibilities to Associate Editors whenever appropriate.

However, responsibility for the final publication decision remains exclusively with the Editor-in-Chief.

Editorial Desk Review, Reviewer Selection and Decision-Making

22. Purpose of Editorial Desk Review

The Editorial Desk Review is the first and one of the most important stages of the editorial process.

Its objectives are to:

·        ensure scientific quality before peer review;

·        reduce unnecessary reviewer workload;

·        identify manuscripts that do not meet the journal's publication standards.

Desk Review is a quality assurance mechanism rather than merely an early rejection procedure.

23. Desk Review Criteria

Editors evaluate submissions according to the following criteria.

23.1 Consistency with the Journal's Aims and Scope

The manuscript must fall within the journal's disciplinary focus.

23.2 Scientific Originality

The manuscript should generate new knowledge, contribute to existing scholarship, and demonstrate originality.

23.3 Theoretical Contribution

The manuscript should develop, refine, challenge, or critically evaluate existing theories or conceptual frameworks.

Purely descriptive studies lacking theoretical contribution may be rejected during desk review.

23.4 Literature Quality

The literature review should be current, international, critical, and directly related to the research problem.

23.5 Research Design

The research design should be scientifically appropriate, transparent, and reproducible.

23.6 Methodological Quality

Editors evaluate whether:

·        appropriate methodology has been selected;

·        data collection procedures are clearly described;

·        analytical methods are appropriate;

·        validity and reliability (or trustworthiness) have been adequately addressed.

23.7 Ethical Compliance

Studies requiring ethics approval must include all necessary documentation.

Manuscripts presenting ethical concerns may be rejected before peer review.

23.8 Academic Writing Quality

The manuscript should demonstrate clear, coherent, and professional academic writing.

24. Desk Rejection

Editors may reject manuscripts without external review if they:

·        fall outside the journal's scope;

·        lack originality;

·        fail to provide theoretical contribution;

·        contain major methodological weaknesses;

·        present ethical concerns;

·        exhibit unacceptable similarity;

·        fail to comply with academic writing standards; or

·        do not meet the journal's scientific quality threshold.

Authors shall receive a concise and reasoned editorial explanation.

25. Reviewer Selection

Reviewer selection is based upon:

·        subject expertise;

·        publication record;

·        recent scholarly activity;

·        reviewing performance;

·        absence of conflicts of interest;

·        institutional diversity; and

·        international expertise whenever appropriate.

26. Number of Reviewers

Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers.

Additional reviewers may be appointed whenever reviewer opinions substantially differ or specialized expertise is required.

27. Evaluation of Reviewer Reports

Editors assess not only reviewer recommendations but also the quality of reviewer reports.

Reviewer reports should be:

·        scientifically justified;

·        constructive;

·        respectful; and

·        sufficiently detailed.

Reports lacking adequate justification may be returned for revision.

28. Editorial Decision Matrix

Editorial decisions are based upon:

·        reviewer reports;

·        scientific contribution;

·        theoretical contribution;

·        methodological quality;

·        editorial assessment; and

·        ethical compliance.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory rather than determinative.

Editors retain full responsibility for publication decisions.

29. Types of Editorial Decisions

Journal ATA applies the following editorial decisions:

·        Accept

·        Minor Revision

·        Major Revision

·        Resubmit for Review

·        Reject

All editorial decisions shall include appropriate justification.

30. Editorial Communication

Editors are expected to communicate with authors in a professional, respectful, impartial, and constructive manner.

Editorial comments should address the manuscript rather than the authors personally.

Revision Management, Ethical Misconduct, Appeals and Post-Publication Procedures

31. Revision Management

Revision is an integral component of the editorial process intended to improve the scientific quality of manuscripts.

Editors should manage revisions transparently, constructively, and consistently.

The objective is not merely to identify deficiencies but to assist authors in strengthening the scholarly contribution of their work.

32. Types of Revision

Minor Revision

The manuscript is scientifically acceptable but requires limited improvements, such as:

·        language editing;

·        formatting;

·        references;

·        tables;

·        minor clarifications.

Minor revisions may not require a second round of peer review.

Major Revision

The manuscript demonstrates scientific potential but requires substantial improvements regarding:

·        methodology;

·        data analysis;

·        discussion;

·        literature review; or

·        theoretical framework.

Major revisions may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation.

33. Evaluation of Revised Manuscripts

Editors evaluate revised manuscripts according to:

·        the extent to which reviewer comments have been addressed;

·        scientific adequacy of revisions;

·        quality of the response document; and

·        consistency of newly added material.

Authors are expected not only to revise their manuscripts but also to justify each revision scientifically.

34. Response to Reviewers

Authors submitting revised manuscripts should provide a detailed Response to Reviewers document.

The document should specify:

·        each reviewer comment;

·        the author's response;

·        changes made; and

·        corresponding page numbers.

Incomplete response documents may be returned for revision.

35. Evaluation of Ethical Misconduct

Editors carefully investigate allegations concerning:

·        plagiarism;

·        self-plagiarism;

·        fabricated data;

·        falsified data;

·        duplicate publication;

·        salami publication;

·        inappropriate authorship;

·        peer-review manipulation;

·        citation manipulation; and

·        unethical use of artificial intelligence.

Additional documentation may be requested whenever necessary.

36. Procedures for Ethical Concerns

When ethical concerns arise, editors normally follow the procedure below.

1.     Preliminary assessment

↓

2.     Request for explanation from the authors

↓

3.     Consultation with the Research Integrity Editor

↓

4.     Independent expert opinion when necessary

↓

5.     Final editorial decision

37. Appeals

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by providing scientific justification.

Appeals may involve reconsideration of:

·        reviewer reports;

·        editorial assessments; and

·        newly submitted scientific evidence.

Appeals should, whenever possible, be handled by editors who were not directly involved in the original decision.

38. Post-Publication Ethics

Editors continue to monitor the integrity of published articles.

Where necessary, the journal may issue:

·        Corrections;

·        Editorial Notes;

·        Expressions of Concern; or

·        Retractions.

Such actions are intended to preserve the reliability of the scholarly record.

39. Retractions

Retractions are issued only in cases involving serious scientific or ethical misconduct.

Retraction procedures shall be transparent, justified, and consistent with internationally accepted publication ethics.

40. Editorial Responsibility After Publication

Editorial responsibility does not end with publication.

Editors remain responsible for maintaining the scientific integrity of published articles, investigating ethical concerns, and implementing post-publication corrections whenever necessary.

Editorial Performance, Quality Assurance and Continuous Improvement

41. Editorial Quality Assurance

Journal of Academic Tourism Analysis considers editorial quality to encompass not only the scientific standard of published articles but also the efficiency, consistency, transparency, and integrity of editorial processes.

Editorial procedures are therefore continuously monitored, evaluated, and improved.

42. Editorial Performance Indicators

The Editorial Office annually reviews the following indicators:

·        Number of submissions

·        Desk rejection rate

·        Number of manuscripts sent for peer review

·        Acceptance rate

·        Average time to first decision

·        Average peer-review duration

·        Average submission-to-publication time

·        Reviewer invitation acceptance rate

·        Reviewer completion rate

These indicators are used to monitor editorial effectiveness and identify opportunities for improvement.

43. Editorial Quality Review

The Editor-in-Chief conducts a comprehensive editorial quality review at least once each year.

The review includes evaluation of:

·        reviewer report quality;

·        consistency of editorial decisions;

·        processing times;

·        ethical procedures;

·        author satisfaction; and

·        reviewer satisfaction.

44. Reviewer Performance Monitoring

Reviewer performance is evaluated according to:

·        timeliness;

·        scientific competence;

·        quality of feedback;

·        adequacy of justification; and

·        contribution to editorial quality.

Reviewers who consistently fail to meet the journal's standards may be removed from the reviewer database.

45. Evaluation of Editorial Performance

Editorial performance is assessed considering:

·        workflow management;

·        decision timelines;

·        reviewer management;

·        maintenance of scientific quality;

·        ethical oversight; and

·        editorial communication.

The objective of evaluation is continuous improvement rather than individual performance control.

46. Continuous Improvement

Journal ATA is committed to continuously improving its editorial system.

Editorial policies, peer-review procedures, author guidelines, ethical standards, and publication processes are reviewed regularly and updated whenever necessary.

47. Editorial Training

Editors are encouraged to pursue continuous professional development in:

·        scholarly publishing;

·        editorial ethics;

·        open science;

·        research integrity;

·        artificial intelligence; and

·        international publishing standards.

Newly appointed editors are expected to familiarize themselves with these guidelines before assuming editorial responsibilities.

48. Editorial Meetings

Editorial meetings may be organized whenever necessary.

These meetings may address:

·        editorial policies;

·        workflow performance;

·        ethical issues; and

·        quality improvement initiatives.

49. Annual Editorial Report

Journal ATA aims to publish an Annual Editorial Report summarizing its editorial activities.

The report may include:

·        submission statistics;

·        acceptance rate;

·        reviewer statistics;

·        editorial timelines;

·        publication timelines;

·        subject distribution;

·        international authorship;

·        international reviewers; and

·        major editorial developments.

The report reflects the journal's commitment to transparency and accountability.

50. Editorial Commitment

Editors of Journal ATA are committed to maintaining:

·        scientific integrity;

·        editorial independence;

·        impartiality;

·        transparency;

·        publication ethics; and

·        scientific excellence

above all personal, institutional, or commercial interests.

The principles set forth in these guidelines constitute the foundation of the Journal ATA editorial system and shall be observed by all editors.

Editorial Decision Guidelines for Special Cases

51. Purpose

Not all manuscripts follow a routine editorial pathway. Editors may encounter conflicting reviewer reports, ethical concerns, methodological disagreements, or other complex situations requiring careful judgment.

The purpose of this section is to ensure that editorial decisions remain consistent, transparent, scientifically justified, and ethically sound.

52. Conflicting Reviewer Recommendations

Case 1

Reviewer A: Accept

Reviewer B: Reject

Editors should evaluate:

·        the scientific quality of each review;

·        the strength of the arguments;

·        the manuscript's theoretical contribution; and

·        methodological quality.

When necessary, a third reviewer may be appointed.

Case 2

Reviewer A: Major Revision

Reviewer B: Reject

Editors should determine whether the identified weaknesses are correctable through revision.

Where substantial scientific potential remains, a Major Revision decision may be appropriate.

Case 3

Reviewer reports fundamentally disagree.

Editors should:

·        compare reviewer arguments;

·        seek methodological advice if necessary; and

·        appoint an additional reviewer whenever appropriate.

53. Inadequate Reviewer Reports

Reports consisting only of statements such as:

"This manuscript is good."

"Accept."

"Reject."

are considered insufficient.

Editors may request revised reviewer reports containing adequate scientific justification.

54. Inappropriate Reviewer Language

Reviewer reports containing:

·        offensive language;

·        personal attacks;

·        disrespectful expressions; or

·        discriminatory remarks

are unacceptable.

Editors may edit or return such reports before communicating with the authors.

55. Editorial Decisions Different from Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewer recommendations are advisory.

Editors may reach different decisions provided that appropriate scientific justification is documented.

56. Scientifically Strong but Out-of-Scope Manuscripts

High-quality manuscripts falling outside the journal's aims and scope should be rejected.

Whenever appropriate, editors are encouraged to recommend more suitable journals.

57. Poor Language Quality

Manuscripts with substantial scientific merit but inadequate language quality may be returned for language revision rather than immediate rejection.

58. Ethical Concerns

Editors should initiate ethical assessment whenever concerns arise regarding:

·        similarity;

·        unusual data;

·        suspicious images;

·        citation manipulation; or

·        undisclosed AI use.

Editorial processing may be suspended until clarification is obtained.

59. Suspected AI-Generated Content

Editors should evaluate:

·        scientific consistency;

·        citation accuracy;

·        coherence; and

·        AI disclosure statements.

Authors may be requested to provide clarification.

60. Inappropriate Author Responses

Revision letters containing offensive, disrespectful, or inappropriate language may be returned to the authors.

Journal ATA expects professional communication from all participants.

61. Recognition of Author Identity

If editors infer the identity of the authors during anonymous review, this alone does not necessarily require withdrawal.

However, editors must recuse themselves whenever impartiality may reasonably be compromised.

62. Excessive Revision Cycles

Journal ATA does not support unlimited revision rounds.

Editors may terminate the review process where meaningful scientific improvement is no longer evident.

63. Post-Publication Error Reports

Editors evaluate reported errors according to:

·        their scientific significance;

·        their impact on the published findings; and

·        the need for correction.

64. Editorial Discretion

In situations not explicitly covered by these guidelines, editors shall act according to the principles of:

·        publication ethics;

·        scientific integrity;

·        impartiality; and

·        transparency.

All exceptional editorial decisions should be documented for institutional record.

Editorial Decision Standards and Decision Matrix

65. Purpose

Editorial consistency requires that comparable manuscripts receive comparable editorial decisions based upon common scientific standards.

This section establishes the decision framework applied by Journal ATA editors.

66. General Decision Principle

Editorial decisions shall never rely on a single criterion.

Editors evaluate manuscripts considering:

• scientific originality;
• theoretical contribution;
• literature quality;
• research methodology;
• data analysis;
• reliability of findings;
• discussion quality;
• scholarly contribution;
• ethical compliance; and
• reviewer reports.

67. Acceptance

A manuscript may be accepted when it:

• presents a clear research question;
• makes an original scholarly contribution;
• demonstrates a strong theoretical framework;
• employs appropriate methodology;
• reports reliable findings;
• adequately addresses reviewer comments; and
• raises no ethical concerns.

Reviewer recommendations alone do not determine acceptance.

68. Minor Revision

Minor Revision is appropriate when improvements concern:

• language;
• references;
• formatting;
• figures or tables; or
• minor clarification.

These revisions do not alter the scientific substance of the manuscript.

69. Major Revision

Major Revision is appropriate when substantial improvements are required regarding:

• theoretical framework;
• literature review;
• discussion;
• interpretation of findings; or
• analytical depth,

provided that the manuscript retains clear scientific potential.

70. Rejection

Rejection may be appropriate when manuscripts:

• lack originality;
• fail to provide theoretical contribution;
• contain major methodological weaknesses;
• present inadequate research questions;
• involve ethical misconduct;
• rely upon unreliable data;
• fall outside the journal's scope; or
• fail to improve after revision.

All rejection decisions should include clear scientific justification.

71. Editorial Decision Matrix

Editorial decisions should consider scientific quality across originality, theory, methodology, ethics, analytical quality, and writing standards rather than reviewer recommendations alone.

72. Consistency of Editorial Decisions

Editors should strive to maintain consistency by applying the same scientific standards to manuscripts of comparable quality.

These guidelines serve as the common framework for editorial judgment.

Editorial Checklists

73. Purpose

Editorial Checklists are designed to ensure that editorial decisions are systematic, transparent, consistent, and based upon common scientific standards.

These checklists serve as quality assurance tools rather than mandatory scoring systems.

74. Desk Review Checklist

Before sending a manuscript for peer review, editors should verify:

Scope

☐ The manuscript fits the journal's aims and scope.

☐ The research is directly related to tourism or a tourism-related discipline.

Scientific Contribution

☐ The study is original.

☐ It contributes new knowledge.

☐ It provides theoretical contribution.

☐ The research problem is clearly defined.

Literature

☐ Current literature has been used.

☐ International literature is adequate.

☐ The literature review is critical.

☐ The research gap is clearly identified.

Methodology

☐ Appropriate research design.

☐ Adequate sample.

☐ Clear data collection procedures.

☐ Appropriate analytical methods.

☐ Validity and reliability addressed.

Ethics

☐ Ethics approval included.

☐ Conflict of interest declared.

☐ Funding information provided.

☐ AI disclosure included where applicable.

Writing Quality

☐ Academic writing quality is satisfactory.

☐ APA 7 compliance.

☐ Tables and figures are appropriate.

☐ Similarity report reviewed.

75. Reviewer Selection Checklist

☐ Appropriate subject expertise.

☐ Recent publications in the field.

☐ No conflict of interest.

☐ Institutional independence.

☐ Satisfactory previous reviewing performance.

☐ Reasonable reviewing workload.

☐ International expertise where appropriate.

76. Reviewer Report Checklist

☐ Scientifically justified.

☐ Constructive.

☐ Respectful.

☐ Identifies strengths.

☐ Identifies weaknesses.

☐ Supports editorial decision-making.

77. Revision Checklist

☐ All reviewer comments addressed.

☐ Response to Reviewers submitted.

☐ Changes clearly indicated.

☐ Scientific revisions satisfactory.

☐ Newly added material is consistent.

☐ No remaining ethical concerns.

78. Pre-Acceptance Checklist

☐ Scientific contribution confirmed.

☐ Reviewer reports complete.

☐ Revisions satisfactory.

☐ Editorial assessment completed.

☐ Ethical compliance confirmed.

☐ Final decision documented.

79. Pre-Publication Checklist

☐ DOI prepared.

☐ ORCID information verified.

☐ Author information confirmed.

☐ English title checked.

☐ English abstract reviewed.

☐ Keywords verified.

☐ APA 7 compliance confirmed.

☐ Page layout completed.

☐ Metadata completed.

☐ Publication license assigned.

80. Annual Editorial Self-Assessment Checklist

Each year the Editorial Office should evaluate:

☐ Reviewer turnaround times.

☐ Acceptance rate.

☐ Desk rejection rate.

☐ Growth of international authorship.

☐ Growth of international reviewers.

☐ Monitoring of ethical issues.

☐ Editorial policy updates.

☐ Applications to new indexing databases.

☐ Overall improvement in journal quality.