Review Process

At the beginning of the review process, the editor-in-chief reads the manuscript offered to the journal. For the special issues, the manuscripts are read by guest editors. Based on the reading, the editor will either initiate a peer review process (double-blind peer review for article and review article manuscripts, open peer review for research notes), request changes to the manuscript before submitting it for peer review, or reject the manuscript. If the manuscript does not meet the criteria for a peer-reviewed article, the author may be asked to edit the manuscript and submit it as a research note.

Manuscripts are reviewed by two experts in the field selected by the editor-in-chief/editors. The publication decision will be made based on their statements. The editorial team of the journal may assist in the selection of reviewers and the publication decision-making process.

The editor-in-chief/editors will submit their decision and the expert statements to the author. The expert statements can be edited, for example, by softening the style or removing details that could reveal the identity of the person submitting the statement. If the manuscript is accepted for publication, the decision will be accompanied by a summary of the corrections that must be made to the manuscript before publication. If the manuscript is not accepted as an article or review article, the author may be offered the opportunity to edit the manuscript and submit it as a commentary.

The author must submit the corrected manuscript by the agreed deadline and include a description of how the text has been modified on the basis of the expert statements. The editor-in-chief/editors will assess whether the manuscript has been adequately modified. If necessary, the manuscript will be returned to the author for re-editing.

Reviewer Guidelines

In circumstances where the expert is unable to conduct the review, for example, due to a conflict of interest or any other reason, they should notify the editor-in-chief and decline the task.

The manuscripts submitted for review are confidential and may not be shown to third parties.

No remuneration will be paid for the review.

The aim of the expert statement is to:
- Help the editor-in-chief to make a decision about accepting the manuscript for publication
- Help the author to edit the text

The review must include a freely-formulated statement and a recommendation on the manuscript's suitability for publication.

Freely-formulated statement

The statement must be written in a fair and encouraging manner. The reviewer should consider what kind of feedback and criticism would be most helpful to the author.

The following questions may be helpful in reviewing the manuscript and writing the statement:

• Is the manuscript suitable for the Finnish Journal of Tourism Research?
• Is the text important in its own field of research? Does it provide new information and/or present existing information in a new way? How does the text contribute to its field?
• Is the research question clearly stated?
• Does the author cite relevant literature? Is the author familiar with the topic and its literature? Which key sources might be missing from the manuscript?
• Are the key concepts comprehensively defined?
• Are the research materials and methods presented in a clearly understandable and sufficiently detailed manner? Is the material used suitable for the research questions? Has the suitability and reliability of the material and methods been considered?
• Are the results presented in a clear and logical manner?
• Are the conclusions well argued? Do the conclusions take the discussion forward or do they repeat what has already been said?
• Does the content match what was indicated in the introduction?
• Does the article have a clear structure? Are the headings and chapters well structured? Is the language clear and easy to understand? Are the sources listed and cited correctly?
• Are there any significant issues with the content, structure or layout of the manuscript that should be addressed by the author?

The reviewer must indicate if they discover or suspect plagiarism or inadequate referencing.

In addition to the statement, the reviewer may also submit a version of the manuscript that includes more detailed comments and instructions to the author.

Recommendation for the acceptance of a manuscript

The review must include a recommendation on the manuscript's suitability for publication:

1) Suitable for publication in its current form

2) Suitable for publication after (minor) corrections

3) Suitable for publication after major corrections

4) Not suitable for publication