Peer Review Process
A transparent overview of the double-blind peer review process at CACTUS – Journal of Tourism Business, Management and Economics, including the main stages of manuscript evaluation, reviewer standards, and editorial decision-making.
Stages of Review
At this stage, the editorial team checks whether submitted manuscripts meet the journal’s formal, ethical, and technical requirements before they are considered for peer review.
Each submission is checked by the editorial team for:
- compliance with the journal template and formatting requirements, including required sections, references, and the clarity of tables and figures;
- readiness for double-blind peer review, meaning that the manuscript file should not include author names, affiliations, or acknowledgements that may reveal identity;
- completeness of required documents, including the Declaration of Originality, where applicable;
- ethics and research integrity signals, including similarity or plagiarism screening through the institutional system and checks against the journal’s integrity standards;
- compliance with the journal’s policies, including preprint restrictions and AI disclosure requirements, where relevant.
Manuscripts that do not meet these basic requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or may be declined at this stage.
The Editor-in-Chief evaluates whether the manuscript fits the thematic focus, scholarly direction, and aims and scope of the journal.
Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial checks enter the double-blind peer review process. Each paper is sent to at least two independent external reviewers, selected by the Editorial Board on the basis of their expertise in the relevant subject area.
Reviewers are asked to declare any conflict of interest before accepting the review invitation. Where a conflict is identified, another reviewer is appointed in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of the evaluation.
The expected timeframe for completing the review is normally 4–6 weeks from the date of reviewer invitation.
Editors consider the reports received from reviewers together with the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s thematic focus and academic standards. Based on these elements, the editors make a publication recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief, who makes the final decision and determines the issue and section in which the article may be published.
Reviewer Guidelines
Before accepting an invitation to review, reviewers are kindly asked to declare any potential conflict of interest, whether financial, professional, institutional, personal, or arising from recent collaboration with the authors.
Where a conflict of interest is identified, the reviewer will be replaced by another specialist. Editors are responsible for avoiding such situations and for ensuring an independent, fair, and objective peer review process.
As a reviewer for CACTUS – Journal of Tourism Business, Management and Economics, your role is to support the scientific quality, originality, clarity, and formal compliance of submitted manuscripts. Please evaluate the manuscript in relation to the following criteria, aligned with the 2026 Author Template.
1. General Technical Compliance
Formatting: Verify if the manuscript follows the standard layout: TNR 11, Regular, Justified, with 6 pt spacing.
Abstract: Ensure the abstract is concise, does not exceed 250 words, italicized, and provides a clear summary of the research.
Metadata: Check whether the manuscript includes at least two JEL codes and up to five keywords, and whether the keywords complement rather than repeat the title.
2. Structural Evaluation
Introduction: Does the introduction clearly state the research objectives and provide sufficient context without unnecessarily summarizing the results?
Methodology: Are the research methods, sample, application period, and data collection tools described in sufficient detail to allow for understanding and, where appropriate, reproducibility?
Results: Are the findings presented in a clear, structured, and logical manner?
Conclusions: Does the manuscript answer the research questions, discuss limitations, and address relevant theoretical and/or practical implications?
3. Visuals and Documentation
Tables & Figures: Are table captions placed above the table?
Are figure captions placed below the illustration?
Is the source clearly indicated for every visual element in TNR 10, Italic?
Citations & References: Are in-text citations presented in APA author-date style?
Does the reference list follow APA style and include DOIs where applicable?
Is there a 1:1 match between in-text citations and the reference list?.
4. Ethical Standards & Transparency
Anonymity: Ensure that the manuscript does not contain identifying information. For the first submission, authorship contribution, funding, and acknowledgements should appear as placeholders.
Data Availability: Confirm the inclusion of a Data Availability Statement.
Conflicts of Interest: Check if the authors have declared any potential conflicts.
Ethics: Verify the statement of compliance with ethical standards.
5. Review Recommendation
Reviewers are asked to provide one of the following recommendations:
Accept: the manuscript is ready for publication.
Minor Revisions: the manuscript requires limited changes, such as small clarifications or formatting improvements.
Major Revisions: the manuscript requires substantial scientific, structural, or analytical revision before it can be reconsidered.
Reject: the manuscript does not meet the journal’s quality standards or falls outside the scope of the journal.
All reviewers complete a standardized review form containing clear evaluation criteria. In addition to the structured form, reviewers may also provide free comments to support the authors and editors. Final recommendations should fall within one of the following categories:
Where reviewer reports differ substantially, for example when one reviewer recommends acceptance and another recommends rejection, the editor may invite a third independent review. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief, taking into account all available reports and the overall scholarly merit of the submission.