Peer Review process
Double anonymous peer review
Articles are reviewed by the international standardized system of peer review with "double blind" that guarantees the anonymity of authors and evaluators throughout the review process. All papers submitted to the Journal of Tourism and Heritage Research will be evaluated according to criteria of strict scientific quality.
Reviews will be indexed and reviewed by the editorial team. The works reviewed must have been published in the last two years.
Research articles must be original and may not be submitted simultaneously to other journals
There will be external evaluators from outside the editorial board of the journal
The article review process is carried out with the Open Journal System (OJS) software that guarantees the automated and auditable electronic record of all interactions.
The review process includes the following phases:
- A first phase in which the Editorial Board will carry out a general review of the quality and adequacy of the work both to the publication standards and to the theme of the journal. The latter may reject it without being sent to external evaluators or return it directly to the author for its adaptation (before submitting it to external evaluation), in the case of works whose quality is ostensibly low, that do not conform to the standards of the journal or that do not make any contribution to the thematic areas of the same.
- A second phase in which the works that pass the first phase will be sent to two external evaluators, specialists in the field or line of research in question. In the event that the evaluations are discrepant, or that for any other reason it deems it necessary, the Editorial Board may send the text to a third evaluator whose decision will determine the result.
In view of the reports of the evaluators, the Editorial Board may take one of the following decisions, which will be communicated to the author:
- Publishable: as is or with minor changes.
- Publishable after revision/restructuring: In this case, the publication will be conditioned to the author's realization of the changes required by the editorial staff of the journal. A brief explanatory report of the changes introduced and how they adapt to the requirements of the Editorial Board must be attached.
- Not publishable but with the possibility of rewriting and forwarding the work. In this case, the submission of a new version will not imply any guarantee of publication, but the evaluation process will start again from its beginning.
- Not publishable. In this case, the article is rejected with reasons. The author can always exercise his right of complaint by writing to the publisher of the journal.
Errors in format and presentation, non-compliance with the rules of the journal or spelling and syntactic incorrectness may be grounds for rejection of the work without it being submitted to evaluation.
Likewise, when modifications are requested, the author will have a period of two months to make them, being subject to review by the evaluators who requested them. Failure to meet the deadlines will result in the archiving of the shipment.
The average time of evaluation of the articles is 30 days, counting from the date of confirmation of the receipt of the same, except incidents. The evaluators receive the request for evaluation with a suggested deadline and their commitment is requested to avoid delays. Once the evaluation process has been completed, the Editorial Board will communicate by email the acceptance or not of the works to the authors as well as the date of publication when appropriate. The results of the academic opinion process will be unappealable in all cases.
The average first response time is 30 days
If a work is accepted for publication, the rights of reproduction in any form and medium are of the that will assess any request by the authors to obtain permission to reproduce their contributions. Likewise, it is understood that the possible opinions expressed in the articles are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not compromise the opinion and scientific policy of the journal.
Handbook of tourism management heritage annually lists all people who have made anonymous evaluations, statistics of accepted, reviewed and rejected articles, as well as the average length of time between the receipt of an article and the communication of the final decision to its author
Articles are reviewed by the international standardized system of peer review with "double blind" that guarantees the anonymity of authors and evaluators throughout the review process. All papers submitted to the Journal of Tourism and Heritage Research will be evaluated according to criteria of strict scientific quality.
Reviews will be indexed and reviewed by the editorial team. The works reviewed must have been published in the last two years.
The article review process is carried out with the Open Journal System (OJS) software that guarantees the automated and auditable electronic record of all interactions.
The review process includes the following phases:
- A first phase in which the Editorial Board will carry out a general review of the quality and adequacy of the work both to the publication standards and to the theme of the journal. The latter may reject it without being sent to external evaluators or return it directly to the author for its adaptation (before submitting it to external evaluation), in the case of works whose quality is ostensibly low, that do not conform to the standards of the journal or that do not make any contribution to the thematic areas of the same.
- A second phase in which the works that pass the first phase will be sent to two external evaluators, specialists in the field or line of research in question. In the event that the evaluations are discrepant, or that for any other reason it deems it necessary, the Editorial Board may send the text to a third evaluator whose decision will determine the result.
In view of the reports of the evaluators, the Editorial Board may take one of the following decisions, which will be communicated to the author:
- Publishable: as is or with minor changes.
- Publishable after revision/restructuring: In this case, the publication will be conditioned to the author's realization of the changes required by the editorial staff of the journal. A brief explanatory report of the changes introduced and how they adapt to the requirements of the Editorial Board must be attached.
- Not publishable but with the possibility of rewriting and forwarding the work. In this case, the submission of a new version will not imply any guarantee of publication, but the evaluation process will start again from its beginning.
- Not publishable. In this case, the article is rejected with reasons. The author can always exercise his right of complaint by writing to the publisher of the journal.
Errors in format and presentation, non-compliance with the rules of the journal or spelling and syntactic incorrectness may be grounds for rejection of the work without it being submitted to evaluation.
Asimismo, cuando se soliciten modificaciones, el autor dispondrá de un plazo de dos meses para realizarlas, quedando las mismas sujetas a revisión por parte de los evaluadores que las solicitaron. El incumplimiento de los plazos conllevará el archivo del envío.
The average time of evaluation of the articles is 30 days, counting from the date of confirmation of the receipt of the same, except incidents. The evaluators receive the request for evaluation with a suggested deadline and their commitment is requested to avoid delays. Once the evaluation process has been completed, the Editorial Board will communicate by email the acceptance or not of the works to the authors as well as the date of publication when appropriate. The results of the academic opinion process will be unappealable in all cases.
If a work is accepted for publication, the rights of reproduction in any form and medium are of the that Handbook of tourism management heritage will assess any request by the authors to obtain permission to reproduce their contributions. Likewise, it is understood that the possible opinions expressed in the articles are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not compromise the opinion and scientific policy of the journal.
Handbook of tourism management heritage annually lists all people who have made anonymous evaluations, statistics of accepted, reviewed and rejected articles, as well as the average length of time between the receipt of an article and the communication of the final decision to its author
