Peer Review Process

1. Peer Review Type
Management and Applied Learning in Local and Adventure Tourism (MALALA) applies a double-blind peer review system, in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process. This system ensures a fair, objective, and unbiased evaluation of all submitted manuscripts.

2. Editorial and Review Process

Initial Screening (Desk Evaluation)
Upon submission, manuscripts are evaluated by the Editorial Office to ensure:

  • Alignment with the journal’s scope in tourism management and applied learning
  • Compliance with the author guidelines
  • Adequate academic quality and manuscript structure

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s standards may be rejected without external review.

Plagiarism Check
All manuscripts are screened using plagiarism detection software to ensure originality and prevent academic misconduct.

Peer Review Process
Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers with expertise relevant to the submitted topic, such as tourism management, sustainable tourism, ecotourism, tourism policy, hospitality, and community-based tourism.
Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications and research experience.
The review process follows international standards of scholarly publishing.

Editorial Decision
Based on reviewers’ recommendations, the Editor may issue one of the following decisions:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

3. Review Criteria
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following aspects:

  • Relevance to tourism studies and destination development
  • Originality and contribution to knowledge
  • Methodological rigor and validity
  • Clarity of analysis and interpretation
  • Quality of writing and organization
  • Compliance with publication ethics

4. Review Timeline
MALALA is committed to maintaining an efficient peer review process:

  • Average review time: 1–3 weeks
  • First decision: approximately 2–4 weeks after submission

5. Ethical Standards and Transparency
This journal follows internationally recognized publication ethics standards and adheres to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Maintain confidentiality of manuscripts
  • Declare any conflicts of interest
  • Provide objective and constructive feedback

6. Author Revisions
Authors are required to:

  • Address all reviewer comments systematically
  • Submit a detailed response to reviewers
  • Revise manuscripts within the specified deadline

Failure to comply may result in rejection of the manuscript.

7. Final Decision
The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on:

  • Reviewer recommendations
  • Quality of revisions
  • Scientific contribution and relevance to the journal scope

8. Production and Publication
Accepted manuscripts will undergo:

  • Professional copyediting and proofreading
  • Layout editing and formatting

All published articles are freely accessible online under an open access policy.

9. Appeals and Complaints
Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a formal justification to the editorial board. All appeals will be evaluated objectively and transparently.

10. General Provisions
The journal reserves the right to assign additional reviewers when necessary. Editors may reject manuscripts at any stage if ethical or academic concerns are identified.