Apollo: Journal of Tourism and Business is committed to maintaining high standards of publication ethics, research integrity, transparency, and responsible scholarly communication.
All parties involved in the publication process, including authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher, are expected to adhere to recognized principles of ethical scholarly publishing. The journal's editorial practices are guided by relevant recommendations and flowcharts of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Concerns about research or publication integrity are assessed fairly, impartially, and with appropriate confidentiality. The reporting and assessment procedure is described in Section 10: Allegations of Research Misconduct.
Authors must submit original work. Text, ideas, data, figures, tables, or other material derived from other sources must be appropriately cited, quoted, or acknowledged. Plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, misleading manipulation of data, and misrepresentation of research findings are unacceptable.
Authors must not submit the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal. Manuscripts substantially published elsewhere are normally not eligible for consideration unless the circumstances are disclosed and secondary publication is justified under accepted scholarly publishing practices.
All listed authors must meet all four authorship criteria adopted by the journal: substantial contribution to the conception or design of the work, or acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; drafting or critical intellectual review of the manuscript; approval of the version to be published; and agreement to be accountable for the work. Detailed eligibility requirements are provided in the Authorship Criteria section of the Author Guidelines. Relevant contributors who do not meet these criteria should be acknowledged with their written permission.
The author list and order must be agreed before submission. Requests to add, remove, or rearrange authors after submission must include a clear justification and written agreement from all authors, including anyone being added or removed, and require editorial approval. Changes after publication require an appropriate correction if approved. Unresolved authorship disputes may be referred to the relevant institution.
Authors are responsible for the accuracy and integrity of reported data. Editors or reviewers may request relevant underlying data, documentation, ethical approvals, or other supporting materials to evaluate the research. Any restrictions arising from participant privacy, consent, confidentiality, or other legitimate obligations must be explained, and suitable secure alternatives should be considered where possible.
Authors must appropriately acknowledge publications and other sources that influenced the research. Information obtained through private communication, confidential review activities, or other restricted sources must not be used without appropriate authorization.
Authors who discover a significant error or inaccuracy in submitted or published work must notify the journal promptly and cooperate in assessing and correcting the scholarly record. Available post-publication actions are explained in Section 11.
Authors must disclose financial, institutional, professional, personal, or other relationships that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the research, interpretation of findings, or publication process.
Editors and reviewers must also disclose potential conflicts of interest and withdraw from handling or reviewing manuscripts when impartiality could reasonably be questioned.
If no competing interests exist, authors should explicitly state this in the manuscript.
Authors must disclose all sources of financial or material support related to the research and publication. Where applicable, the funder's role in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, and the decision to submit must be stated.
If the research received no specific funding, authors should state this explicitly.
Research involving human participants must comply with applicable institutional, national, and international ethical standards. Where required, authors must obtain approval from an appropriate research ethics committee or institutional review board and provide the approval information in the manuscript. Any applicable exemption or waiver should be explained.
Informed consent must be obtained when required. Authors must protect participant privacy, confidentiality, dignity, and personal information.
Research involving animals must comply with applicable institutional and national animal welfare requirements. Authors should follow relevant reporting standards where applicable.
The journal may request documentation of ethical approval, informed consent, exemptions, or other research permissions before or after publication.
Authors must obtain appropriate consent or permission before publishing identifiable personal information, images, case details, or confidential institutional information.
Editors and reviewers must treat submitted manuscripts and associated correspondence as confidential. Unpublished information obtained through editorial or peer-review activities must not be used for personal advantage or disclosed without authorization.
When an integrity concern requires consultation or referral, relevant information may be shared with authorized parties as described in Section 10, with appropriate safeguards.
Generative artificial intelligence and AI-assisted technologies cannot be listed as authors because they cannot assume responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, originality, or ethical conduct of scholarly work.
Authors who use AI-assisted tools for language improvement, editing, coding assistance, data processing, analysis, visualization, or other substantial research-related activities must disclose such use transparently where relevant.
Authors remain fully responsible for content generated or modified using AI-assisted technologies, including factual accuracy, citations, data integrity, originality, copyright compliance, and the manuscript's conclusions.
AI tools must not be used to fabricate references, participants, data, results, images, or other research evidence. Any use of synthetic or simulated data must be explicitly identified and accurately described rather than presented as observations from real participants or events.
Editors evaluate manuscripts and make publication decisions based on academic merit, originality, relevance, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and suitability for the journal's scope, without inappropriate commercial, personal, institutional, or other influence.
Editors must evaluate manuscripts without discrimination based on nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, political belief, institutional affiliation, geographic location, or other personal characteristics unrelated to scholarly merit.
Editors should select reviewers with relevant expertise and avoid inappropriate conflicts of interest. Ordinarily, research manuscripts should be evaluated by at least two reviewers where peer review is required.
Editors must protect confidential information relating to manuscripts, reviewers, authors, and editorial communications, subject to the limited disclosures necessary for authorized editorial activities or integrity assessments.
Editors must not handle manuscripts or integrity concerns when a relationship or interest could compromise impartiality. Manuscripts submitted by editors, editorial board members, or closely associated individuals must be handled independently under the journal's standard procedures.
Editors must not require unnecessary citations to increase journal, editor, reviewer, or author citation metrics. Citation requests must be based solely on legitimate scholarly relevance.
The publisher supports editorial independence and recognizes that decisions concerning individual manuscripts are the responsibility of editors acting on scholarly and ethical grounds.
The publisher supports the journal in protecting the scholarly record, implementing ethics policies, assessing integrity concerns, coordinating appropriate referrals, and publishing corrections or other notices when necessary. Electronic archiving and preservation arrangements are described separately in the journal's relevant policy.
Commercial considerations, advertising, sponsorship, or institutional relationships must not improperly influence editorial decisions or the handling of integrity concerns.
Apollo: Journal of Tourism and Business considers concerns about research and publication integrity before, during, and after publication. An allegation is a concern requiring assessment and does not, by itself, establish that misconduct has occurred.
The journal applies relevant COPE guidance and flowcharts according to the nature of the concern, the evidence available, and the stage of publication.
Concerns considered under this procedure may include:
Not every error, disagreement, or authorship dispute constitutes research misconduct. The journal considers the circumstances and evidence without prejudging intent or institutional findings.
Authors, reviewers, readers, and other parties may submit concerns to the editorial office at apollo[at]mediadigitalpublikasi.com, using the subject line Research Integrity Concern.
Reports should provide, where available:
Anonymous reports will be assessed when they contain sufficiently specific and verifiable information. The absence of a named complainant does not automatically invalidate a concern.
The editor or an appropriately designated independent handler assesses whether the concern is sufficiently specific, supported, and relevant to the journal's content or processes. Additional information or specialist advice may be requested.
Anyone with a conflict of interest must not direct the assessment. Concerns involving the handling editor will be reassigned to an uninvolved editor. Concerns involving the Editor-in-Chief should be referred to the publisher for arrangement of independent editorial assessment.
Similarity scores, automated screening results, and AI-detection outputs may inform an assessment but do not, on their own, establish plagiarism, fabrication, or other misconduct.
Where appropriate, the journal informs the relevant author(s) of the specific concerns and provides a reasonable opportunity to respond. Authors may be asked for original data, analysis files, research records, permissions, ethical documentation, or other relevant evidence.
The journal considers explanations and supporting materials fairly. Restrictions on sharing sensitive information should be explained so that secure or appropriately limited access can be considered.
Editorial processing or publication may be paused while substantial concerns are assessed. Failure to respond does not automatically establish misconduct, but the journal may proceed using available evidence and seek institutional assistance.
The journal assesses the reliability and integrity of submissions and publications; it does not replace a formal institutional investigation into a researcher's conduct.
When concerns require access to institutional records, investigation of research practices, or determination of responsibility, the journal may contact the relevant institution, research integrity officer, ethics committee, funder, or other competent body. Relevant information may also be shared with other affected journals where justified.
The journal seeks sufficient information from any investigation to determine appropriate editorial action. It may act to protect readers and the scholarly record when the available evidence warrants action, even if an institutional investigation is incomplete or unavailable.
Reports and related correspondence are handled with appropriate confidentiality. Information is shared only as reasonably necessary for assessment, investigation, editorial action, or applicable obligations.
The journal seeks to protect the identity of individuals raising concerns where practicable, but cannot guarantee absolute anonymity if disclosure is necessary. Good-faith reporting must be treated respectfully, and all parties should avoid intimidation, retaliation, or unsupported public accusations.
Depending on the evidence and publication stage, outcomes may include:
Authors and reporting parties will be informed of the outcome to the extent appropriate, subject to confidentiality and privacy restrictions. Handling time depends on the complexity of the case and the availability of external information.
A request to withdraw a manuscript does not automatically close an integrity assessment. Concerns about the fairness of the procedure or significant new evidence may be submitted under Section 12.
Apollo: Journal of Tourism and Business issues post-publication notices when necessary to maintain the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record, following relevant COPE guidance.
Retraction is intended to correct the literature and alert readers, rather than punish authors. Unreliable findings may result from serious honest error as well as misconduct; notices should explain the basis for the action accurately.
Authorship disagreement alone does not normally justify retraction when the reliability of the findings is not in doubt. An appropriate authorship correction may instead be considered following resolution of the dispute.
Notices must clearly identify and link to the affected article. Retracted articles normally remain accessible with their retracted status prominently identified. Exceptional removal may be considered only where justified by circumstances such as serious privacy, legal, or public-health concerns, with an explanatory record retained where possible.
Authors should be informed and given an appropriate opportunity to respond. Their agreement is not a prerequisite for justified editorial action. Expressions of concern should be updated or followed by an appropriate notice when a conclusion is reached.
Authors may submit a reasoned appeal against an editorial decision when they believe a significant factual or procedural error occurred. Appeals should identify the decision, explain the grounds, and provide relevant supporting evidence.
Complaints concerning editorial conduct, peer review, conflicts of interest, or the handling of an integrity concern should be sent to apollo[at]mediadigitalpublikasi.com. Assessment will be independent of the person whose conduct is being challenged where necessary.
Reports about suspected research or publication misconduct are handled under Section 10. An appeal concerning such a case should identify significant new evidence or a specific problem in the assessment process.
Appeals do not guarantee reconsideration or acceptance. Repeated appeals without substantial new evidence or a distinct procedural concern may be declined.
Before submitting a manuscript, authors should ensure that:
