Publication Ethics

The Tourism and Hospitality International Journal (THIJ) adheres to the highest ethical standards regarding authorship, data integrity, ethical conduct of research, disclosure of conflicts of interest, and other relevant aspects of academic publishing. All editorial decisions are made independently by the editorial team.

Duties of Editors

Fair play and editorial independence

Editors assess submitted manuscripts exclusively based on their academic merit—considering factors such as significance, originality, methodological rigor, and clarity—as well as their relevance to the journal’s scope. Manuscripts are evaluated without regard to the author’s race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, nationality, religious beliefs, political views, or institutional affiliation. Editorial and publication decisions are guided solely by the journal’s policies. The Editor-in-Chief holds complete authority over all editorial content and the timing of its publication.

Confidentiality

Editors and the editorial team will maintain strict confidentiality regarding submitted manuscripts, disclosing information only to the corresponding author, reviewers, and editorial advisors, as necessary.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Editors and the editorial board members will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their research purposes without the author's explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained by the editors as a result of processing the manuscript will be kept confidential and will not be used for their personal benefit. The editors will refuse to consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competition, collaboration or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions related to the articles; instead, they will ask another editorial board member to handle the manuscript.

Publication decision

Editors ensure that all manuscripts submitted for publication undergo peer review by at least two reviewers specialised in the field. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, the reviewers' comments and the legal requirements currently in force regarding defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may also consult with other editors when making this decision.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations

Editors will take responsive action when ethical questions are raised regarding a submitted manuscript or a published article. All reported acts of unethical editorial behaviour will be analysed, even if they are discovered years after publication. If, after investigation, the ethical concern is well-founded, a correction, retraction, expression of concern or another note that may be relevant will be published in the journal.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review helps editors make editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, can help authors improve their manuscripts. Peer review is essential to formal academic communication and central to the scientific endeavour.

Promptness

Any invited referee who does not feel qualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that their immediate review will be impossible should notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such. They should not be shared or discussed with third parties unless authorised by the Editor-in-Chief, and such authorisation will only be granted in exceptional and specific circumstances. This confidentiality requirement also applies to guest reviewers who declined the review invitation.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated with supporting arguments so the authors can use them to improve the manuscript (for example, indicating relevant published work that has not yet been cited, suggestions for improving the methodological approach or the data analysis used, etc.). Personal criticism of authors is not permitted.

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited. Any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument reported in previous publications must be accompanied by the respective citation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and any other manuscripts (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions related to the manuscript and the work described therein must immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards

Authors of original research papers should accurately and concisely describe the work conducted and the results obtained. The manuscript must contain sufficient detail and references to enable others to reproduce the work. Review articles should be accurate, objective, and complete, while opinion or perspective editorials must be identified as such. The use of fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements is considered unethical and unacceptable.

Data access and retention

Authors may be requested to provide the raw data from their study along with the manuscript for editorial review. They should also be prepared to make the data publicly available. Authors should ensure the data is accessible to other professionals for at least 10 years after publication. It is preferable to use an institutional data repository or data centre. The confidentiality of participants must be protected, and legal rights regarding proprietary data should not prevent their disclosure.

Originality and plagiarism

Authors must ensure that they have written and presented original work. If they have used the work and/or words of others, they must be duly cited. Publications that have influenced the nature of the work presented in the manuscript should also be cited. Plagiarism can take various forms, including presenting someone else's work as one's own, copying or rephrasing significant portions of someone else's work without giving credit or claiming research findings conducted by others. Plagiarism in any form is considered unethical editorial behaviour and is not acceptable.

Multiple, duplicate, redundant or concurrent submission/publication

Articles that describe the same research should not be published in more than one journal or primary publication. Therefore, authors should not submit a manuscript for review if it has already been published in another journal. Submitting a manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously is unethical and unacceptable editorial behaviour.

The publication of specific articles in multiple journals is sometimes justified, provided that certain conditions are met. For a secondary publication to be accepted, the authors and editors of the relevant journals must agree that it reflects the same data and interpretation as the primary document. It is essential to cite the primary reference in the secondary publication.

Authorship of the manuscript

Only individuals who meet the following authorship criteria should be listed as authors of the manuscript, as they must be able to take responsibility for its content publicly: (i) those who made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, acquisition of data or analysis/interpretation of the study; and (ii) those who drafted the manuscript or critically reviewed it for its important intellectual content; and (iii) those who have seen and approved the final version of the document and agreed to its submission for publication. Individuals who have contributed significantly to the work presented in the manuscript, such as technical assistance, writing and editing support, or general guidance, but do not meet the criteria for authorship should be acknowledged in the 'Acknowledgements' section. Before citation, written permission must be obtained. The author responsible for correspondence must ensure that the list of authors includes all appropriate co-authors (as defined above) and no inappropriate co-authors and confirm that all co-authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Authors should disclose any conflicts of interest that could influence the results or their interpretation of the manuscript. This should be done as early as possible, typically by submitting a disclosure form and including a statement in the manuscript. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include financial conflicts, such as honoraria, scholarships, participation in speakers' bureaus, affiliations, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, paid expert testimony, or patent licensing agreements. Non-financial conflicts such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge, or beliefs about the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript should also be disclosed. All financial support for the work must be disclosed, including the grant number or other reference number if applicable.

Acknowledgement of sources

Authors must properly acknowledge the work of others and cite publications that influenced their work. Private information obtained through conversation, correspondence, or discussion with a third party should not be used or disclosed without the express written authorisation of the source. Authors must obtain express written authorisation from the author(s) of the work involved in confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or applying for grants, before using any information obtained during such services.

Hazards and human or animal subjects

If the work involves using chemicals, procedures, or equipment that present unusual risks inherent in their use, the authors must identify them in the manuscript. If the work consists of the use of animals or human participants, the authors must ensure that all procedures were carried out in compliance with the relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) approved them. The manuscript must contain a statement to this effect. Authors must include a statement in the manuscript confirming that informed consent has been obtained for experiments involving human participants. It is essential always to respect the privacy rights of human participants.

Peer review

Authors are required to participate in the peer review process and cooperate fully. They should respond promptly to editors' requests for raw data, clarifications, and evidence of ethical approval, patient consent, and copyright authorisations. If the manuscript receives a 'necessary revisions' decision, authors must systematically address the reviewers' comments, point by point, and revise and resubmit their manuscript to the journal by the established deadline.

Fundamental errors in published works

When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, they must immediately notify the journal’s editors or the publisher and co-operate with them to correct the work in the form of an erratum or to withdraw it. Suppose the editors or publisher become aware, through a third party, that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy. In that case, it is the author's obligation to immediately correct or withdraw the work or provide proof to the journal's editors that the work has been corrected.

Duties of the publisher

Handling of unethical publishing behaviour

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism, the editor, in close collaboration with the publisher, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and amend the article in question. This includes the immediate publication of an erratum, a clarification, or, in the most serious case, a retraction of the affected work. In collaboration with the editors, the publisher will take appropriate measures to identify and prevent the publication of articles involving research misconduct. Under any circumstances, they will not promote such misconduct or knowingly permit it to occur.

Procedures for dealing with unethical behaviour

Identification

Misconduct and unethical behaviour can be identified and reported to the editor and publisher at any time by anyone. Those reporting such behaviour must provide sufficient information and evidence to launch an investigation. All allegations must be treated equally until a decision or conclusion is reached.

Investigation

The editor should decide who to consult or seek the publisher's advice where appropriate. Evidence should be gathered while avoiding spreading allegations beyond those who need to know.

Minor breaches

Minor faults can be dealt with without the need for a wider consultation. In any case, the author must be allowed to respond to any allegations.

Serious breaches

Serious misconduct may require the employers of the accused to be notified. In consultation with the publisher, the editor must decide whether to involve the employers, either by reviewing the available evidence or consulting a limited number of experts.