Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The contents of the TSDR article can include theories and practices in current methodologies, technology, issues of tourism and sustainable development as well as focus and scope such as:

  1. Health Tourism
  2. Sustainable Tourism
  3. Ecosystem-based Tourism
  4. Fisheries and Marine Related Tourism
  5. Resources of Animal Husbandry Development
  6. Tourism Communication
  7. Mitigation of Natural Disaster
  8. Creative Industries
  9. Eco Tourism
  10. Community Development
  11. Creative and Cultural Economics

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

The suitability of manuscripts for publication Tourism and Sustainable Development Review (TSDR) is judged by peer reviewers and editorial board. All the review process are conducted in double blind review. Editor in Chief handles all correspondence with the author and makes the final decision as to whether the paper is recommended for acceptance, rejection, or needs to be returned to the author for revision.

Editor in Chief and Editorial Board will evaluate the submitted papers on praqualification step for suitability of further review process. The manuscripts will be evaluated by two qualified peer reviewers selected by Editor in Chief. The peer reviewers should examine the manuscript and return it with their recommendation to the Editor in Chief as soon as possible, usually within 3 weeks. The Editor in Chief decide the acceptance or rejection of the paper.

Papers needing revision will be returned to the authors, and the author must return the revised manuscript to the Editor in Chief via OJS of TSDR. Editor in Chief sends the revised manuscript to Editorial Board to check whether the manuscript is revised as suggested by peer reviewers. Editorial Board could give recommendation to Editor in Chief that the manuscript should return to authors, accept, or reject within 1 weeks. Editor in Chief would send an acceptance letter announcing the publication issue attached with manuscript reprint to authors. 

 

 

 

Publication Frequency

Tourism and Sustainable Development Review (TSDR) is a journal published online twice a year in March and August.

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...

 

Publication Ethics

The Tourism and Sustainable Development Review (TSDR in cooperation with Research Synergy Foundation is a peer-reviewed journal published by PSDKU, Universitas Padjadjaran. This statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of posting an article in this journal, including the author, the chief editor, the Editorial Board, the peer-reviewed and the publisher. This statement based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines.

Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication
The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed TSDR is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore essential to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society.

PSDKU Universitas Padjadjaran in cooperation with Research Synergy Foundation as publisher of TSDR takes its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing exceptionally seriously, and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or additional commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

Duties of Editors

  • Fair Play
    An editor at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
  • Confidentiality
    The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
  • Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
    Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.
  • Publication Decisions
    The editor board journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
  • Review of Manuscripts
    The editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. The editor should organise and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer reviewed. The editor should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers that are considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.

Duties of Reviewers

  • Contribution to Editorial Decisions
    Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also help the author in improving the paper.
  • Promptness
    Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
  • Confidentiality
    Any manuscripts received for review must treat as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
  • Standards of Objectivity
    Reviews should conduct objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
  • Acknowledgement of Sources
    Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument reported should accompany by the appropriate citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
  • Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
    Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Duties of Authors

  • Reporting standards
    Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
  • Data Access and Retention
    Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
  • Originality and Plagiarism
    The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original actions and if the authors have used the works, or words of others that this has appropriately cited or quoted.
  • Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
    An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same paper concurrently to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
  • Acknowledgement of Sources
    Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
  • Authorship of the Paper
    Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the article and have agreed to its submission for publication.
  • Fundamental errors in published works
    When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.