Reviewer Code of Conduct and Peer Review Process

General Rules for Reviewing Articles
Core Principles of Peer Review
Peer Review Process
Additional Sources

The "Reviewer's Code of Ethics" presented on this page constitutes an integral component of the standards (policies) of the Scientific Publishing Department of RSUTS concerning ethical conduct for all parties involved in the publication process: authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher. The standards outlined below are based on generally accepted and established international practices in the policies of scientific journals and publishers, and apply to all materials published in the scientific journals issued by the Scientific Publishing Department of RSUTS.

The Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education "Russian State University of Tourism and Service," as the founder and publisher of the scientific journals "SERVICE AND TOURISM: CURRENT CHALLENGES ", "SERVICES IN RUSSIA AND ABROAD", "SERVICE PLUS," and "BULLETIN OF THE ASSOCIATION OF TOURISM AND SERVICE UNIVERSITIES" (hereinafter referred to as the Publications), assumes responsibility for monitoring all stages of the article peer review process and recognizes its ethical and other obligations associated with this process.

General Rules for Reviewing Articles

The Scientific Publishing Department of RSUTS (SPD RGUTIS) accepts scientific and practice-oriented articles on current issues in the service and tourism sectors for publication throughout the year. Materials submitted for publication must be original works that have not been published previously and are not intended for other publications.
The peer review principle adopted by the Publications is double-blind peer review. Author anonymity helps to avoid bias on the part of the reviewer. Articles are evaluated based on their content, rather than on the author's reputation.
The Editorial Office of the Publication organizes the peer review process for all submitted materials that fall within its scope, for the purpose of expert evaluation. All reviewers are recognized specialists in the subject area of the materials under review and have published articles on the topic of the reviewed manuscript within the last three years. Reviews are kept on file by the editorial office for a period of 5 years.
Upon submission, the manuscript of a scientific article is reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and/or the Scientific Editor of SPD RSUTS for compliance with the journal's scope and formatting requirements, and is checked using the "Anti-Plagiarism" software. The permissible level of plagiarism shall not exceed 10% for Candidates and Doctors of Sciences, 20% for doctoral students and degree applicants, and 50% for students. If the plagiarism level exceeds the specified limit, the article is rejected and returned to the author(s). If the indicator meets the established standard, the article is registered with an indication of the date of materials submission.
The Editor-in-Chief sends the article for review to one or, if necessary, two experts (reviewers). Experts (reviewers) for conducting peer reviews of article manuscripts may include members of the Publication's Editorial Board, as well as highly qualified scholars of the University and specialists from other organizations and higher education institutions possessing profound professional knowledge and experience in a specific scientific field, typically Candidates of Sciences, Associate Professors, Doctors of Sciences, and Professors.
Remuneration for experts (reviewers) who are not members of the Editorial Board is carried out in accordance with the current regulations of SPD RSUTS.
Any specialist involved in the peer review process must adhere to the principle of confidentiality—manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers are informed that the manuscripts sent to them are the private property of the authors and contain information that is not subject to disclosure. They are prohibited from showing or discussing the manuscripts with other persons, except for authorized persons representing the editor. Unpublished materials contained in the submitted manuscript shall not be used in the reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the author, obtained through the mediation of the editorial office. Confidential information or ideas obtained during the peer review process must not be disclosed or used by the reviewer for personal gain.
Reviewing is conducted on the basis of mutual confidentiality. The editorial offices of the journals adhere to the principle of anonymity and confidentiality in peer review and do not disclose the reviewer's identity to the author, nor the author's identity to the reviewer. The Editorial Office will send the review to the author of the publication without indicating the reviewer's details. Breach of the confidentiality principle is permissible only in the event that the reviewer reports instances of textual or ideological plagiarism, unreliability, or falsification of materials presented in the article.
The Editorial Office of the Publication sends copies of reviews or a reasoned refusal to the authors of submitted materials, and also undertakes to send copies of reviews to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (and/or its authorized structures) upon receipt of a corresponding request by the editorial office.
If the review of an article indicates the need for revision, the article is sent back to the author for refinement. In this case, the date of receipt by the editorial office is considered to be the date the revised article is returned.
An article sent to the author for revision must be returned in corrected form within the specified timeframe. The revised manuscript must be accompanied by a cover letter from the author containing responses to all comments and explanations of the changes and additions made to the article.
If, upon the reviewer's recommendation, the article has undergone significant revision by the author, it is sent for re-review to the same reviewer who made the critical comments.
The decision to accept or reject a manuscript is made based on the discussion outcomes of the Editorial Board or the Editor-in-Chief of the Publication. Before making a decision, the Editor-in-Chief analyzes all reviews and may seek the opinion of the journal's Editorial Board or a third party, and may also request that the author correct and/or supplement the article's content. The Editorial Office reserves the right to reject articles if the author is unable or unwilling to address the comments of the Editorial Office and/or the reviewer.
In the event of negative reviews on a manuscript from two different reviewers, the article is rejected for publication without consideration by other members of the Editorial Board.
In case of disagreement with the reviewer's opinion, the author of the article has the right to submit to the Editorial Board of the Publication a written, reasoned justification for the necessity of publishing the article. The article may be sent for approval to the Editorial Council.
The decision on the advisability of publication following peer review is made by the Editor-in-Chief, and if necessary, by the Editorial Board as a whole. The final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief of the Publication.
The author of the article is duly notified of the decision made regarding the manuscript concerning its publication in the Publication.
The author bears personal responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, and reliability of all information, facts, and data presented in the article. The Editorial Board does not always agree with the opinions and positions expressed by the authors of publications. Nevertheless, the Editorial Board provides an opportunity for discussion on the pages of the Publication.
References to the Publication when citing articles published therein are mandatory.
These "Review Rules..." are fundamentally based on the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), as well as the Reviewer Guidelines of Elsevier Publishing House.

Core Principles of Peer Review

The task of peer review is to facilitate the rigorous selection of author manuscripts for the Publication and to offer specific recommendations for their improvement. The review must objectively evaluate the scientific article and contain a comprehensive analysis of its scientific and methodological strengths and weaknesses.
Experts (reviewers) must:

Agree to review only those manuscripts for which they possess sufficient expertise and which they can assess in a timely manner;
Respect the confidentiality of the review and not disclose any details of the manuscript or the review during or after the review process to anyone except those persons authorized by the journal;
Not use information obtained during the peer review process for their own advantage or the advantage of other persons or organizations, nor to harm or discredit others;
Declare any potential conflicts of interest and seek advice from the Publication if they are uncertain whether a situation constitutes a conflict of interest or not;
Not allow the content of their review to be influenced by the origin of the manuscript, the nationality, religious affiliation, political or other views of its authors, or by commercial considerations;
Write the review objectively and constructively, refraining from hostile or inflammatory statements, as well as from defamatory or disparaging comments;
Understand that, as researchers themselves, they rely on the conscientious reviews of their colleagues, and therefore perform their reviewing duties in good faith;
Provide the Publication with accurate and truthful information regarding their personal and professional knowledge and experience;
Recognize that attempting to impersonate another person during the peer review process constitutes a serious breach of proper conduct.

Peer Review Process

In preparation for peer review, the expert (reviewer) must:

Respond sufficiently promptly to an invitation to write a review, especially if they do not intend to write it;
If they lack sufficient knowledge of the research subject to write the review, state this directly, and if they can only assess part of the manuscript, describe the boundaries of the area in which they possess sufficient expertise;
Agree to review a manuscript only if confident that they can prepare the review within the proposed or mutually agreed timeframe, promptly notifying the Publication if an extension is required;
Declare any potential conflicts of interest (related, for example, to personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious interests) and seek advice from the Publication if uncertain whether a given situation constitutes a conflict of interest;
Re-review any manuscript they have previously reviewed for the Publication, as its text may have changed during the revision and reworking process by the author;
Ensure that an invitation to act as an alternate reviewer is made impartially, is not the result of personal preferences, and is not made to ensure the manuscript receives a predetermined (positive or negative) evaluation;
Not agree to review a manuscript solely to read it, without the intention of preparing a review;
Decline to prepare a review if they feel unable to provide an impartial and fair assessment;
Decline to prepare a review if they have participated in any work related to the preparation of the manuscript or the research described therein;
Decline to prepare a review if they disagree with the peer review policies adopted by the Publication.

2. During the peer review process, the expert (reviewer) must:

Notify the Publication immediately and seek advice if they discover any conflict of interest that was not apparent when they agreed to review the article, or any other circumstances preventing them from forming a fair and impartial assessment of the article;
Read the manuscript and supplementary materials (e.g., appendix files) carefully, contacting the Publication with any questions and requesting any missing information necessary for composing a quality review;
Notify the Publication as soon as possible if they find they lack sufficient expertise to assess all aspects of the manuscript, without waiting until the review deadline, as this would unduly delay the review process;
Not involve anyone else in composing the review, including assistants, without obtaining consent from the Publication;
Ensure that the names of all persons who assisted the reviewers in writing the reviews are included in the text so that their participation is recorded by the Publication, and the Publication can acknowledge them;
Not disclose any details of the manuscript or the review;
Inform the Publication if circumstances arise that prevent them from preparing the review on time, providing an accurate estimate of the time required, should the Publication not appoint another reviewer instead;
In the case of "blind" peer review, if they deduce the identity of the author(s), inform the Publication if such knowledge could create a conflict of interest;
Immediately notify the Publication if they discover errors in the work, are concerned about the ethics of the work, learn of significant similarity between the manuscript and another document, or suspect unethical behavior during the research or submission process (e.g., simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to another Publication);
Not delay the review process by postponing the submission of their review or requesting unnecessary additional information from the journal or the author;
Ensure that the assessment contained in the review is based on the qualities of the work and is not influenced (either positively or negatively) by any personal, financial, or other considerations, or by scientific biases;
Not contact the authors directly without prior permission from the Publication.

3. When writing the review, the expert (reviewer) must:

Remember that the editor expects subject matter expertise, common sense, and an honest and fair assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the work and manuscript;
If the review (at the request of the Publication) covers only specific aspects of the work, indicate this at the beginning of the review and clearly state which aspects are addressed;
Follow the journal's instructions regarding the specific feedback required, and unless there are compelling reasons not to, provide such feedback accordingly;
Write an objective and constructive review that can help authors improve their manuscript;
Refrain from disparaging personal comments or unfounded accusations;
Be specific in their criticism, supporting general conclusions with sound evidence and relevant references where necessary, to assist the editor in forming accurate assessments and decisions while maintaining an objective attitude toward the author(s);
Remember that the manuscript is the author's work, and not attempt to rewrite it according to their own stylistic preferences if it is generally of good quality and written clearly; although suggestions for improving clarity of presentation are always welcome;
Clearly indicate what additional research, if proposed, could support the conclusions drawn in the reviewed manuscript and could strengthen or expand the work;
Not write the review in such a way that it could be suspected of having been written by another person;
Not portray other individuals in a negative light or unfairly in their review;
Not make unfair negative comments or unjustified criticism regarding any competing works, whether cited in the manuscript or not;
Ensure that comments and recommendations addressed to the editor are consistent with the text of the review addressed to the authors;
Ensure the main body of information is included in the report sent to the authors;
Ensure that confidential comments addressed to the editor do not contain defamation or false accusations against the authors, made in the belief that the authors will not see these comments;
Not suggest that authors include references to the reviewer's own work (or that of their colleagues) solely to increase citation counts or visibility of their own work; all suggestions to authors must be based solely on scientific or technological merit;
Have the right to use the review form recommended by the Publication. Should they wish, reviewers may compose a review in any other form, provided that the mandatory points are addressed.

4. After preparing the review, the expert (reviewer) must:

Continue to keep the details of the manuscript and its review confidential;
Respond promptly if questions arise from the Publication regarding the manuscript, and provide the necessary information;
Contact the Publication if, after submitting their review, they become aware of any important facts that could affect their original opinion and recommendations;
Read the reviews of other reviewers, if provided by the Publication, in order to improve their understanding of the subject or their conclusions regarding the work;
Fulfill requests from the Publication to review revisions made to the manuscript or a new version of the manuscript.

Additional Sources

This page is translated using AI tools.