Reviewing an Paper for Tourism and Hospitality—A Peep behind the Curtain
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. How the Peer-Review Process Works
- “… hold a Ph.D. (or MD for medical fields), preferably with postdoctoral experience;
- Be an active researcher;
- Possess official and recognised affiliation (University or Research Institute) relevant experience and have a proven publication record in the field of the submitted paper (Scopus, ORCID); [… and …]
- Have the necessary expertise to judge the scientific quality of the manuscript” [4] (p. 1).
- Provide quality review reports and remain responsive throughout the peer review process;
- Maintain standards of professionalism and ethics.
3. How to Conduct a Review
4. How to Structure the Review and What to Include
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Gillett, M. Understanding Peer Review: What It Is, How It Works and Why It Is Important. Times High Education. Available online: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/understanding-peer-review-what-it-how-it-works-and-why-it-important (accessed on 2 October 2022).
- Else, H. Scammers impersonate guest editors to get sham papers published. Nature 2021, 599, 361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hernandez-Maskivker, G.; Capdevila, M.; Ivanov, S.; Garrod, B. Open-access publishing and tourism and hospitality research. Tour. Int. Interdiscip. J. 2022; in press. [Google Scholar]
- MDPI. Reviewers Guide. Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/reviewers (accessed on 2 October 2022).
- Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Available online: https://publicationethics.org/files/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers-v2_0.pdf (accessed on 2 October 2022).
- Garrod, B. Open review: An invitation to participate in tourism and hospitality. Tour. Hosp. 2022, 3, 161–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chong, W.; Mason, S. Don’t be Cruel: How to Write a Fair Peer Review Report. Times High Education. Available online: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/dont-be-cruel-how-write-fair-peer-review-report (accessed on 2 October 2022).
- MDPI Instructions for Authors. Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/tourismhosp/instructions (accessed on 2 October 2022).
General view (answers may be: high, average, low) |
|
Specific questions (answers may be: yes, can be improved, must be improved, not applicable) |
|
English language and style (choose one) |
|
Recommendation (choose one) |
|
Recommendation | Guidance to Reviewers |
---|---|
Accept in present form | The only notable shortcomings of the paper are with the usage of the English language and/or the style (including the formatting in house style). The paper has achieved an acceptable standard in every respect in terms of its content. This would normally be indicated by the paper being considered ‘high’ or ‘average’ in terms of the paper’s merits, including its overall merit, and a response of ‘yes’ to the quality-check responses below that. Few papers submitted to any journal can be expected to be without shortcomings in their content, so ‘accept in its present form’ should be expected to be an unusual recommendation for papers that have not been revised. Choosing this option should be a rarity and requires full justification in the written part of the review. |
Accept subject to minor revisions | The paper is considered to be ‘low’ in at least some respects in terms of its various merits, although not necessarily its overall merit. It may also have at least some aspects that ‘can be improved’. There may even be a small number of aspects that ‘must be improved’. Such revisions should usually be of the form that can easily verified by the Academic Editor. Only limited judgment should be required on their part to determine whether the paper can be accepted or must now be rejected. Note that, in this case, reviewers will only get to review the revised paper if they request this. If the recommendations are such that judgment is needed to verify their adequacy, then a ‘reconsider after major revisions’ recommendation would be more appropriate. |
Reconsider after major revisions | The paper will usually have few or no areas where its merit is considered ‘high’ and many where it is considered ‘average’ and some where it is ‘low’. Overall merit is usually rated ‘low’ but may, in some cases, be considered ‘average’, depending on the reviewer’s opinion on the various aspects of the paper’s content, which will mostly be rated as ‘can be improved’ or ‘must be improved’. This recommendation signals to the Academic Editor that the reviewer considers the paper to have the potential to be published but final judgement must be reserved until those revisions have been made and the paper reviewed again. Reviewers who make a ‘reconsider after major revisions’ recommendation will usually be asked to review the paper again once the authors have revised and resubmitted it. |
Reject | The paper has many merits that are considered ‘low’, although there may be some that are ‘average’ and perhaps even one that is ‘high’. Overall merit will usually be considered ‘low’. The reviewer will consider most aspects ‘must be improved’ but there may be some that ‘can be improved’. There may even be some aspects of the paper content that are acceptable and do not need to be improved. Making a recommendation rejection does not necessarily mean that the review believes that the paper has no prospect of ever being accepted, merely that this is unlikely in its present state. The purpose of this recommendation is therefore to signal that the paper is not ready for publication and that the authors could, if they wish to, re-work the paper to present it as a new submission in the future. |
Type | Purpose and Style | Review Process |
---|---|---|
Article | These are original research manuscripts. The work should report scientifically sound experiments and provide a substantial amount of new information. The article should include the most recent and relevant references in the field. The structure should include abstract, keywords, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, and conclusions (optional), with a suggested minimum word count of 4000 words. Please refer to the journal webpage for specific instructions and templates.A wide range of methodologies and methods are acceptable, including quantitative, qualitative, and a variety of mixed methods. Such papers are not purely discursive: they collect and analyse data, using either an inductive or deductive framework, to generate and/or test theory. The data may be numerical, textual, visual, or material. A wide variety of methods of analysis are acceptable, including statistics, hermeneutics, semiotics, content analysis, etc. Not all of the hypotheses in an empirical paper need to be supported, but a sufficient number of them should be supported for the conclusions of the paper to be considered to be making a significant contribution to what is now known, as opposed to what is still not known. | Single-blind peer review confirmed by the Academic Editor |
Review paper | Review papers map out and analyse the literature within a specified field relevant to the purpose and scope of the journal concerned. Such fields tend to be well-demarcated, although this is not necessarily the case, and often represent emerging areas of interest. The reviews may be systematic or selective: no review can claim to be comprehensive of the field as a whole. To be published in this journal, review papers should comprise more than a simple bibliometric analysis and categorisation of papers, or the production of rankings of topics, authors, keywords, etc. Review papers should take a critical approach to the subject and use the associated literature it to comment upon the theoretical and/or applied development of the chosen field. Systematic reviews should follow the PRISMA guidelines. | Single-blind peer review confirmed by the Academic Editor |
Technical note | Technical notes are abridged empirical research papers, usually intended to announce the initial findings from a research project. Such findings should, however, be self-contained and robust in themselves. Technical notes should not be seen as a poor alternative to empirical papers that are not considered ‘worthy’ of full paper status. They should include all the elements of empirical papers and be judged according to the same standards of research conduct. It should describe important modifications or unique applications for the described method. Technical notes can also be used for describing a new software tool or computational method. The structure should include an Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion and Conclusions, with a suggested minimum word count of 3500 words. | Single-blind peer review confirmed by the Academic Editor |
Perspective paper | These papers are intended to contribute to policymaking and practice dealing with a specific issue that fits within the purpose and scope of the journal. They are not usually empirically based but rather attempt to highlight a new or neglected issue within the field relevant to theory, policymaking, or practice. Such papers could present concepts, specific regulations, plans, strategies, protocols, and/or policy/practice guidance. Perspective papers should not be simply descriptive but should make a critical analysis of a concept, issue, problem, or impact. | Single-blind peer review confirmed by the Academic Editor |
Comment paper (plus rejoinder and reply) | Comment papers are written in response to a paper that has recently been published in the journal. They are intended to identify one or more aspects of that paper that raise significant concerns in terms of the quality or safety of its conclusions. Such concerns could relate to the paper’s motivation, theoretical background, relationship to previous research, methodology and methods, results, conclusions, implications, and/or limitations. The comment paper should identify the concerns, demonstrate their implications, and suggest a way forward to ensure that such practices do not reoccur. The author(s) of the original paper will be given a right of reply (called a ‘rejoinder’); if they choose to do so, the author(s) of the comment may make a final summing up (called a ‘reply’). Comments, rejoinders, and replies should not include ad hominem remarks. | Consideration by the Academic Editor |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Garrod, B. Reviewing an Paper for Tourism and Hospitality—A Peep behind the Curtain. Tour. Hosp. 2022, 3, 861-869. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp3040054
Garrod B. Reviewing an Paper for Tourism and Hospitality—A Peep behind the Curtain. Tourism and Hospitality. 2022; 3(4):861-869. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp3040054
Chicago/Turabian StyleGarrod, Brian. 2022. "Reviewing an Paper for Tourism and Hospitality—A Peep behind the Curtain" Tourism and Hospitality 3, no. 4: 861-869. https://doi.org/10.3390/tourhosp3040054