Turistica follows COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and Reviewers. All proposals pass through the journal’s quality control system, which entails:
 Editorial review (pre-selection screening)
 External peer review (independent experts)

Editorial validation (pre-selection screening)
Editorial review aims to ensure that the proposal follows the guidelines of the journal and is in line with the aims and scope of the publication. The Editor-in-Chief or an Associate Editor on their behalf will evaluate the proposal against the journal’s requirements. This is a list of criteria used by the Editorial Board to assess a proposal:
 Is the article written in good English?
 Does the article matches the aims and scope of the journal?
 Is the formatting correct? Are tables and graphics well-edited?
 Optional) Did the Author(s) motivate their submission with a cover letter? Are there any specific points or requests to be raised?
 Did the Author(s) provide exhaustive correspondence details and contact information for all Authors?
 Is the Abstract concise and well-written?
 Overall, is the manuscript clear and readable?
 Does the work appear to be original?
 Does the article outline its methodology?
 Is the work of potential interest to the Readers?

Plagiarism check
Once the proposal is validated by an Editor, the proposal undergoes a Similarity Check. This is necessary to prevent precious time and energy are lost by the Editorial Board and the Reviewers and avoid to have them working on a proposal that is unsuitable for the journal. As said above, Turistica publishes only original contributions that have not been published elsewhere and are not under consideration by another journal or publication.

Peer review
After editorial validation and plagiarism check, manuscripts are subjected to a double-blind peer review process, which ensures the confidentiality of Authors and Reviewers. At least two external Reviewers shall work on each manuscript, with the possibility of including other external Reviewers in case of conflicting recommendations.

Reviewers are appointed by the Editor according to the following criteria:
 They hold no conflict of interest with any of the Authors;
 They do not come from the same institution as the Authors;
 They hold appropriate qualifications to assess the merit of an academic article (e.g., PhD or other qualifications considered to be adequate by the Editorial Board);
 They have relevant experience in the field.

Upon acceptance of the appointment, Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscripts objectively, fairly, and professionally, without letting personal prejudices affect their observations and conclusions. Reviewers are required to offer concise, well-supported, and thorough reasons when expressing their recommendations and opinions about the manuscripts. Their arguments shall be supported by appropriate references to the field. In particular, Reviewers must form their opinions based on the following standards:
 Interest and relevance of the contribution;
 Originality of the contribution;
 Soundness of the contribution’s conceptual underpinnings;
 Objectivity of the contribution’s goals;
 Quality of the methodology and its implementation;
 Transparency and disclosure of potential conflicts of interests;
 Adherence to the journal’s editorial guidelines;
After highlighting the proposal’s strengths and faults, Reviewers are asked to recommend an Editorial decision:
 Accept in present form;
 Accept after minor revisions (minor errors, will not be sent again to Reviewers);
 Accept after major revisions (a new round of Review will be opened);
 Submit to another journal;
 Reject (article has serious flaws, the study is biased, research is not conducted correctly).
All the review process should be characterized by confidentiality. Reviewers are required to keep proposal’s details confidential and discuss them only with the Editor. Reviewers have also the duty to notify the Editor immediately should they suspect malpractice or conflicts of interests. By taking into account the recommendations of the Reviewers, the Editor makes a decision. In case of conflicting recommendations, the Managing Editor is consulted and a third Reviewer might be invited to the process.

Supplementary materials
Supplementary materials are not subject to peer review. However, they undergo editorial screening to ensure their validity and their correspondence with the article’s contents.

Editorials are not subject to peer review.

Authorship of the Reviews
Reviews stay anonymous, are not signed, and are not posted with articles.