This publication ethics and malpractice statement narrates the
ethical guidelines to be followed by the Editor-in-Chief / Editors,
Authors, Reviewers and all related parties involved in publishing of
an article in Tourism Recreation Research (TRR). This
statement is based on the best practices that are designed by
and followed by journal editors world over.
1. The Editor in Chief of TRR is
responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should
be published. The Editor in Chief may be guided by the policies of the journal's
editorial board and subjected to such legal requirements regarding libel,
copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor in Chief may confer with other
editors or reviewers in making this decision.
2. Manuscripts shall be
evaluated solely on their intellectual merit without regard to authors’ race,
gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or
The Editor in Chief / editors 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.
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by
anyone who has a view of the manuscript (while handling it) in his or her own
research without the express written consent of the author.
Editor-in-Chief will be responsible:
For monitoring/safeguarding publishing ethics by editorial
board; guidelines for retracting articles; maintain the
integrity of the academic record; preclude business needs from
compromising intellectual and ethical standards; always be
willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions,
rejoinders and apologies when needed.
Authors of articles 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
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a
paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public
access to such, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared
to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original
works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others
this must be appropriately cited or quoted.
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing
essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary
publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal
concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is
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 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.
Corresponding author is the author responsible for communicating
with the journal for publication. 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 paper and have agreed to
its submission for publication.
Sources of funding for the research reported in the article should
be duly acknowleged at the end of the article.
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or
other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to
influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All
sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
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.
Peer review assists the Editor in Chief and the editorial board in
making editorial decisions while editorial communications with the
author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the assigned
manuscript or unable to provide a prompt review should notify the
editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential
documents. They must not be shown to, or discussed with, others
except as authorized by the Editor in Chief.
Reviews should be conducted objectively. There shall be no personal
criticism of the author. Reviewers should express their views
clearly with supporting arguments.
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been
cited by the authors. Any statement that had been previously
reported elsewhere should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A
reviewer should also call to the Editor in Chief's attention any
substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under
consideration and any other published paper of which they have
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be
kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Reviewers should not review 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.