Review Process

Peer Review Process

Apollo: Journal of Tourism and Business applies a rigorous peer-review process to maintain the quality, validity, originality, and academic integrity of published articles.

All research manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo an initial editorial assessment followed, where appropriate, by independent peer review. The journal applies a Double-Anonymized Peer Review process, in which the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors.

Manuscripts that proceed to peer review are normally evaluated by a minimum of two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the subject of the manuscript.

Peer Review Workflow

1. Submission and Administrative Check
The editorial office checks the submitted manuscript for completeness, compliance with the journal's author guidelines and template, required declarations, basic publication requirements, and supporting information.
2. Desk Review and Initial Editorial Evaluation
The Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor evaluates the manuscript's relevance to the journal's focus and scope, originality, academic quality, methodological appropriateness, research integrity, and overall suitability for peer review.

Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal's scope, substantially deficient in academic quality, fail to comply with essential submission requirements, or present significant ethical concerns may be declined without external peer review.
3. Reviewer Selection
Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial evaluation are normally assigned to at least two independent reviewers who possess relevant academic or professional expertise. Reviewers should not have conflicts of interest that could compromise the objectivity of the evaluation.
4. Double-Anonymized Peer Review
The journal applies a Double-Anonymized Peer Review model. Reviewers receive an anonymized version of the manuscript, and reviewer identities are not disclosed to the authors.

Authors are therefore expected to prepare manuscripts in a manner that does not reveal their identities within the anonymized manuscript file used for peer review.
5. Reviewer Evaluation
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on scholarly and technical considerations, which may include originality, relevance, theoretical foundation, research design, methodology, data analysis, interpretation of results, quality of discussion, clarity of presentation, validity of conclusions, ethical considerations, and contribution to the fields of tourism, hospitality, business, and management.
6. Editorial Decision
After considering the reviewers' reports and the editor's own assessment, an editorial decision is communicated to the corresponding author.

Possible decisions may include:
  • Accept Submission;
  • Revisions Required / Minor Revision;
  • Resubmit for Review / Major Revision; or
  • Decline Submission.
7. Author Revision
When revision is requested, authors should address the reviewers' and editor's comments carefully and provide a revised manuscript together with a clear response explaining how each substantive comment has been addressed.
8. Re-Evaluation
A revised manuscript may be evaluated by the editor or returned to the original or additional reviewers, particularly when substantial revisions have been requested. Additional rounds of revision may be required before a final decision is reached.
9. Final Decision
The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection is made by the responsible editor based on the manuscript's academic quality, reviewer reports, revisions, ethical compliance, and suitability for the journal. Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial decision but do not themselves constitute the final publication decision.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are generally requested to consider the following aspects:

  • Relevance to the journal's focus and scope;
  • Originality and significance of the research;
  • Clarity of the research problem and objectives;
  • Adequacy of the theoretical or conceptual framework;
  • Appropriateness and rigor of the methodology;
  • Reliability and adequacy of data analysis;
  • Quality of results and their interpretation;
  • Depth and relevance of the discussion;
  • Consistency between objectives, results, and conclusions;
  • Contribution to existing knowledge or professional practice;
  • Quality and relevance of scholarly references;
  • Research and publication ethics; and
  • Overall clarity and academic presentation.

Review Timeline

The journal seeks to conduct the peer-review process efficiently while maintaining appropriate academic standards. Reviewers are normally requested to complete an individual review assignment within approximately four weeks.

The actual time required to reach an editorial decision may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, the number of revision rounds required, and the responsiveness of the authors.

Accordingly, the stated review period should be understood as a target rather than a guarantee of acceptance or publication within a specific period.

Reviewer Independence and Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any relationship or interest that could reasonably affect their impartiality. Reviewers should decline an invitation when they have a financial, professional, institutional, collaborative, personal, or other conflict that may compromise an independent assessment.

Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts objectively and must not request unnecessary citations for the purpose of increasing their own citation counts or those of particular authors, journals, or institutions.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted for peer review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, or use unpublished information contained in a manuscript for personal, academic, commercial, or other purposes without appropriate authorization.

Reviewer reports and communications associated with the peer-review process are also treated as confidential editorial records.

Submissions from Editors and Editorial Board Members

Editors and Editorial Board members are not prohibited from submitting manuscripts to Apollo: Journal of Tourism and Business. However, they must not participate in the editorial evaluation, reviewer selection, peer review, or publication decision concerning their own manuscripts.

Such submissions must be assigned to another qualified editor and processed independently under the journal's standard peer-review procedures to avoid actual or perceived conflicts of interest.

Editorial Independence
The final decision on publication rests with the responsible editor. Decisions are based on scholarly merit, relevance to the journal, research integrity, peer-review reports, and compliance with the journal's editorial and ethical policies. Acceptance is never guaranteed solely on the basis of reviewer recommendations.