Anatolia: Journal of Tourism Research is a scientific journal that publishes theoretical, conceptual, and applied studies in the field of tourism. The journal publishes original research and review articles in areas closely related to tourism, such as accommodation, travel, and gastronomy, among other fields within the tourism discipline. The editorial and publication processes are conducted in accordance with the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The articles submitted to the journal undergo a three-stage process: "Pre-Review," "Scientific Evaluation," and "Publication Preparation," after which the decision regarding publication is made. These processes are planned, implemented, and monitored by the chief editors.

Articles proposed for publication in Anatolia: Journal of Tourism Research undergo a three-stage pre-review process: "Format Review," "Language Review," and "Editorial Preliminary Evaluation." Articles that pass these stages are sent for peer review.

1. Format Review:
In this stage, each article proposed for publication is reviewed by the assistant editor in terms of its conformity with the journal’s subject matter, the appropriateness of the originality (plagiarism) report, the existence and validity of the ethics committee approval, the presence and proper completion of the copyright form, the existence of an author contribution statement, the completeness of author contact information, the inclusion of authors' photo biographies, the adherence to the article preparation template, and the proper referencing and source format.

Any deficiencies observed during the format review are reported to the author(s) within one week. Articles that do not meet the required standards in the format review may be rejected or may be asked to submit corrections/additional documents.

2. Language Review:
Articles are reviewed by the Language Editor in terms of academic language and expression. The language and expression level of the article are assessed, and the language review results are communicated to the authors through a Language Review Report.

3. Editorial Preliminary Evaluation:
In this process, the introduction, literature review, methodology, findings, and discussion sections of the articles are evaluated in terms of their alignment with the journal’s objectives. The editorial preliminary evaluation assesses the suitability of the articles for the journal's scope, originality, innovation, importance, the design and methodology of the study (statistics, models, analysis), and the contributions to the literature and/or practice.

Articles that pass the editorial preliminary evaluation without the need for corrections are forwarded to the relevant area editor. Articles that pass but require corrections are sent to the authors for revisions at this stage. Articles that do not pass the editorial preliminary evaluation are rejected with a reasoned letter.

At this stage, the articles must meet the following criteria: a maximum of 9,000 words, at least 20 and a maximum of 80 references, a maximum of seven tables and/or figures, a similarity rate (excluding references) of no more than 15%, a title no longer than eight words or 50 characters (including spaces), and an abstract (separate for both Turkish and English) of at least 140 and at most 150 words. Furthermore, the keywords must be appropriate for the article's content and consist of at least four and no more than six keywords.

Articles that pass the preliminary review process are sent for scientific evaluation. At this stage, the chief editors assign the article to one of the area editors, based on the article’s topic. Anatolia: Journal of Tourism Research has three area editors. After the preliminary review, the chief editors assign the article to one of the area editors for the peer review process.

The area editor initiates the peer review process for the article assigned by the chief editors and invites experts in the article’s field to serve as reviewers. Initially, invitations are sent to individuals listed in the journal’s editorial board. If no suitable academic reviewers are found among the editorial board members, external reviewers may be invited. Each article is reviewed by at least two (2), and at most three (3) reviewers. It is important that reviewers are selected who have no conflicts of interest with the authors (such as thesis supervision, co-authoring papers, joint project work, family relations, etc.). When sending the article to reviewers, the identities and institutional affiliations of the authors and their institutions are kept anonymous to prevent bias.

The invitation letter to the reviewers includes the acceptance request and the deadline for the review. If a reviewer does not respond within seven days, the invitation is withdrawn.

Once enough positive responses are received from potential reviewers, the reviewers are sent a letter with the link to the article on the Dergipark.com platform. The letter contains the deadline for reviewing the article. The identities and institutional affiliations of the authors are not included in the letter or the links.

Reviewers are given a maximum of 30 days to complete the evaluation. If the review is not completed within this period, reminder messages are sent every five days. If no additional time is requested by the reviewer, or the review is not completed, the reviewer’s task is canceled. If the reviewers request additional time, the editors may grant an extension based on the article's evaluation process.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the article based on the following criteria: the alignment between the title and content, the extent and quality of literature usage, adherence to citation and referencing ethics, the presentation of the problem and purpose of the study, the adequacy of the research methodology, the contributions and benefits of the article, and the sufficiency of findings and/or conclusions.

Suggestions, criticisms, and contributions from reviewers are reviewed by the area editor and, if found adequate, are forwarded to the author(s). If necessary, the area editor may send the article to additional reviewers for evaluation. While forwarding these suggestions, the identities of the reviewers are kept anonymous. This ensures that the articles are evaluated in an unbiased and objective manner using a double-blind review process.

After the authors make the necessary revisions, the article is sent back to the area editor and, if necessary, to the reviewers for further evaluation. Authors are requested to complete revisions and upload the revised article to the journal’s system within 15 days. If the revised manuscript is not uploaded within the specified time, reminder messages are sent twice, five days apart. If authors request an extension, an extension may be granted based on the editor’s decision. If there is no response after two reminder messages, the article may be rejected by the editorial board.

When the authors provide corrections for the article, the revised article is sent to the reviewers for reevaluation if necessary. After the reevaluation, the reviewers' requested corrections are compiled into a "Review Response Form," where the authors explain the changes they made or provide reasons for not making the requested changes.

The revised article, along with the Review Response Form, is uploaded to the journal system. Once the area editor reviews the evaluations and finalizes the publication decision, the article is sent to the chief editors for the final decision. The area editor cannot provide any information to the authors regarding the publication decision.

After reviewing the peer review reports from the area editor, the chief editors discuss the article and make a final decision regarding its publication or rejection. The chief editors and area editors evaluate the articles impartially, without regard to the authors' age, ethnicity, gender, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, or political views.

For articles rejected after the peer review process, the chief editors send a comprehensive rejection letter to the authors, including an explanation of the article's weaknesses and the reviewer comments. Authors of rejected articles may revise and resubmit their work to other journals for evaluation. Accepted articles are sent a formal acceptance letter by the chief editors, and the publication preparation process begins. Once the peer review process is completed, the reviewers receive a "Reviewer Acknowledgment Certificate" from the journal editors.

Accepted articles are reviewed once more for format by the journal’s secretariat. After addressing any minor formatting issues, the article is formatted by the technical director using InDesign. The final page layout of the article is sent to the authors in PDF format for final approval. Once the article is ready for publication, it is uploaded to the journal’s Dergipark.com platform (https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/atad) and published online.