Peer Review Process

A transparent overview of our rigorous double-blind peer review process, covering evaluation stages, reviewer standards, and editorial decision-making.

Stages of Review

The article review process will consist of the following stages:

Initial screening. Editors evaluate the compliance of the articles submitted for publication with the formal criteria of the journal. Each submission is checked by the editorial team for: - Template and formatting compliance (required sections, references, figures/tables clarity) - Double-blind readiness (no author names/affiliations or identifying acknowledgements in the manuscript file) - Completeness of required documents (e.g., Declaration of Originality, where applicable) - Ethics and integrity signals, including similarity/plagiarism screening via the institutional system and checks against journal integrity requirements - Policy compliance, including preprint restrictions and AI disclosure requirements (when relevant) - Manuscripts may be returned for correction or declined at this stage if they do not meet basic requirements.

Suitability check. The editor-in-chief makes sure the articles fit the thematic focus of the review.

Double-blind peer review. Manuscripts that pass the initial checks are evaluated through a double-blind peer review process. Each paper is sent to at least two independent external reviewers, appointed by the editorial board based on their expertise in the relevant subject area. The expected timeframe for completing the review is normally 4–6 weeks from the date of reviewer invitation.

Decision and publication. Editors analyze the articles that received favorable reviews according to their thematic focus. Editors make the final recommendation regarding publication to the editor-in-chief who decides on the issue and section in which the article will be published.

Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer conflicts of interest

Before accepting an invitation to review, all reviewers must declare a possible conflict of interest (financial, professional, personal or a recent collaboration with the authors). If a conflict of interest is identified, the reviewer will be replaced by another specialist. Editors are responsible for avoiding such situations and ensuring an independent and objective evaluation of manuscripts.

Standard review form

Reviewer Guidelines: CACTUS – Journal of Tourism Business, Management and Economics

As a reviewer for CACTUS, your role is to ensure the scientific quality, originality, and technical compliance of the submissions. Please evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria aligned with our 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 (max 250 words), italicized, and provides a clear summary of the research.
Metadata: Check for the presence of at least two JEL codes and up to five keywords that do not repeat the title.

2. Structural Evaluation

Introduction: Does it clearly state the research objectives and provide sufficient context without summarizing the results?
Methodology: Are the research methods, sample size, application period, and data collection tools described in enough detail to allow for reproduction?
Results: Are the findings presented in a structured and logical manner?
Conclusions: Does the author answer the research questions, discuss study limitations, and address theoretical/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 provided in brackets (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 authors have not included identifying information (Authorship contribution, Funding, and Acknowledgments should be placeholders for the first submission).
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 small changes (mostly formatting or minor clarifications).
Major Revisions: Significant scientific or structural changes are needed before reconsideration.
Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's quality or scope requirements.

All reviewers fill in a standardized form containing clear criteria. In addition to this form, reviewers can add free comments, but the final recommendations must fall into one of the following categories:

Accept in present formAccept with minor revisionsReconsider after major revisionReject.

Disagreements between reviewers

In situations where the reviewers' reports differ significantly (e.g., one reviewer recommends acceptance and another rejection), the editor may request a third independent review. The final decision will be made by the Editor-in-Chief based on all available reports.