The Emerging Tourism Review (ETR) peer review process is designed to uphold rigorous academic standards while accommodating the fast-paced development of contemporary tourism technology, infrastructure, and interconnected systems research.

1. Core Principles

ETR employs a double-blind peer review system in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process. This approach is intended to promote objectivity, minimize potential institutional or personal bias, and ensure that manuscripts are evaluated primarily on the quality, originality, methodological rigor, and analytical validity of the research.

2. Evaluation Stages

• Initial Desk Review: The Managing Editor conducts an initial screening to assess the manuscript’s alignment with the journal’s scope, compliance with the APA 7th Edition referencing and formatting requirements, adherence to submission guidelines, and originality. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s basic requirements or exceed the maximum allowable similarity index of 15% may be rejected at this stage.

• Reviewer Assignment: Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are anonymized and assigned to a minimum of two independent peer reviewers, and, where appropriate, up to three reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on their relevant academic and professional expertise, including areas such as tourism infrastructure, smart digital ecosystems, destination management, tourism technology, sustainability, and supply-chain integration.

• Double-Blind Review: Reviewers independently evaluate the manuscript and provide constructive feedback regarding its originality, theoretical contribution, methodological rigor, quality of analysis, relevance, and practical implications. Reviewer identities and confidential comments are protected throughout the process.

• Editorial Decision: Following consideration of the reviewers’ recommendations and comments, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final editorial decision. Possible outcomes include Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. The editorial decision is based on the overall quality and suitability of the manuscript and may differ from an individual reviewer’s recommendation.

3. Specific Assessment Criteria for ETR

In addition to standard academic and methodological criteria, reviewers are encouraged to consider the following thematic indicators relevant to ETR:

• Connectivity and Innovation: The originality and significance of the theoretical, technological, or practical contributions proposed to address connectivity challenges within tourism ecosystems.

• Digital Ethics and Data Governance: The transparency and ethical soundness of data collection, extraction, processing, and analysis, particularly in studies involving artificial intelligence, digital footprint tracking, big data, or other digital technologies.

• Operational Feasibility: The extent to which the research findings can be translated into practical applications, including infrastructure planning, logistical efficiency, destination operations, business processes, or other forms of tourism industry management.

• Sustainability and Resilience: The contribution of the research to sustainable, responsible, and resilient tourism development, including its potential to support regenerative approaches where relevant.

• Theoretical and Practical Contribution: The extent to which the manuscript advances existing knowledge while offering meaningful implications for researchers, policymakers, destination managers, industry practitioners, or other relevant stakeholders.

4. Standard Timeline

Recognizing the rapid development of tourism technologies, infrastructure, and emerging industry practices, ETR aims to provide an efficient peer review process without compromising the quality and thoroughness of academic evaluation.

The standard target timeframe from manuscript submission to the first-round editorial decision is approximately 4–6 weeks, subject to reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the timely completion of the review process. In some cases, additional time may be required to secure appropriate reviewers or complete a thorough evaluation.