Reviewers Guideline

English and Tourism Studies (ETS) Reviewers Guideline Double-Blind Review

Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

ETS uses a double-blind peer review. Reviewers must keep the manuscript and the review process strictly confidential and must not attempt to identify, contact, or communicate with the authors outside the journal system.

Read This First
  • Confidentiality: do not share the manuscript, data, or ideas.
  • No author contact: never attempt to identify or reach the authors.
  • Conflict of interest: declare and decline if conflicted.
  • Constructive review: be specific, evidence-based, and actionable.

1) Reviewer’s Role & Scope Fit

  • Assess scope fit for ETS: English, tourism, and relevant interdisciplinary studies.
  • Provide constructive, impartial, and evidence-based critique to support editorial decisions.
  • Declare any conflict of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative, or personal). If a conflict exists, decline.
  • Identify major strengths, key weaknesses, and feasibility of revisions.

2) Confidentiality & Ethics

  • Do not share, discuss, or use any part of the manuscript outside the review process.
  • If you suspect ethics issues (plagiarism, redundant publication, fabricated data, missing approvals/permissions), alert the editor privately.
  • Maintain double-blind integrity: avoid self-identifying remarks. If citing your work, use third-person language.
  • Do not request authors to cite your work unless it is genuinely essential for scholarly completeness.

3) What to Evaluate (Manuscript Checklist)

  1. Title & Abstract: accurate, clear, aligned with content; abstract concise and informative (≤ 250 words recommended).
  2. Introduction: strong background, clear research gap, objectives, and relevance to ETS scope.
  3. Method: design, data sources, instruments, procedure, and analysis are appropriate, transparent, and replicable.
  4. Results & Discussion: findings are clearly presented; interpretation is coherent and linked to literature; contribution is explicit.
  5. Conclusion: consistent with findings; no over-claim; states implications and limitations.
  6. References (IEEE): numeric citations [1], [2]; list ordered by first appearance; include DOI/URL where available; page numbers for direct quotes (e.g., [7, p. 78]).
  7. Recency & quality of sources: prioritize peer-reviewed primary sources; check relevance and currency (as applicable to topic).
  8. Presentation & format: clarity of English, organization, tables/figures, and adherence to ETS formatting requirements.
  9. Originality & significance: novelty, rigor, and practical/theoretical value to English and Tourism Studies.

4) Scoring Rubric

Score each criterion from 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent). Editors consider both the numeric scores and your narrative justification.

Criterion 1 (Poor) 3 (Adequate) 5 (Excellent)
Scope Fit & Relevance Out of scope; weak relevance Generally relevant; minor scope issues Directly within ETS scope; strong relevance
Originality & Contribution Little/no novelty Some new angle Clear, meaningful contribution
Methodological Rigor Inadequate/unclear methods Acceptable but limited detail Appropriate, transparent, replicable
Analysis & Discussion Descriptive; weak reasoning Reasonable analysis Insightful, literature-grounded, well-argued
Writing & Organization Poor clarity/structure Mostly clear; some issues Clear, concise, well-structured
References (IEEE) Wrong style; incomplete Mostly correct; minor gaps Strict IEEE; complete; traceable sources
Decision Guide (overall)
  • Accept — average ≥ 4.5 (≈ ≥ 90%)
  • Minor Revision — average 3.5–4.4 (≈ 70–89%)
  • Major Revision — average 2.5–3.4 (≈ 50–69%)
  • Reject — average < 2.5 (≈ < 50%)

Editors may exercise judgment considering narrative review quality, ethics concerns, and the journal’s scope and capacity.

5) How to Write Your Review

  1. Summary (1–3 sentences): state the purpose and contribution in your own words.
  2. Major comments: issues affecting validity, originality, clarity, or interpretation. Number each point and cite specific sections/tables/figures.
  3. Minor comments: language clarity, formatting, missing citations, figure/table labeling, small clarifications.
  4. Confidential comments to editor (optional): ethics/overlap/scope concerns or context not suitable to share with authors.
  5. Recommendation: choose one outcome and ensure it aligns with your narrative.
Language & Tone
  • Be professional, specific, and constructive; avoid personal remarks.
  • Make actionable suggestions (e.g., “Add sampling strategy details in Method, p. 6”).
  • Respect double-blind review; do not insert identifying information.

6) IEEE Citation Checks (Quick)

  • In-text citations are numeric in square brackets: [1], [2], [3]–[5].
  • References are listed in order of first appearance (not alphabetical) and reused consistently.
  • Ensure completeness: authors, title, source, vol./no., pages, year, DOI/URL (if available).
  • Direct quotes should include page numbers (e.g., [7, p. 78]).

7) Timelines & Workflow

  • Invitation response: within 5 days (Accept/Decline). If declining, you may suggest alternative reviewers.
  • Review deadline: 14–21 days from acceptance (extensions may be requested).
  • Revision rounds: reviewers may be invited to re-review revised versions (commonly 1–2 rounds).

8) Suggested Review Form (copy-paste)

SUMMARY
- (2–3 sentences)

MAJOR COMMENTS
1) ...
2) ...
3) ...

MINOR COMMENTS
1) ...
2) ...
3) ...

ETHICS / INTEGRITY (if any)
- Similarity concerns, permissions, data transparency, COI, etc.

IEEE CHECK
- Numeric in-text citations [ ] ordered by appearance
- Reference list in IEEE format (complete; DOI/URL where possible)
- Page numbers for direct quotes (e.g., [7, p. 78])

CONFIDENTIAL COMMENTS TO EDITOR (optional)
- ...

RECOMMENDATION
- Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject

9) Common Red Flags

  • Out of scope for ETS; limited scholarly contribution.
  • Methods are unclear (missing design/participants/instruments/analysis details).
  • Claims are not supported by data or literature.
  • Major citation problems (non-IEEE), missing key references, or inadequate traceability of sources.
  • Ethics concerns: plagiarism, redundant publication, undisclosed conflicts, missing permissions/approvals.
Questions / Ethics reporting: Please contact the editorial office via the journal system or the Editorial Team .