Ethics policy

Journal of Tourism and Services is committed to meeting high standards of ethical behavior at all stages of the publication process. 
The Editorial Board, office and reviewers’ team are doing their best to duly follow the Guidelines on good publication practice of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in all editorial proceedings. We strongly recommend to all our current and potential authors, prior to submitting the text for blind review, to visit this site and get acquainted with the internationally acknowledged rules and best practices:
We expect that all parties involved in the act of publishing will present ethical behavior conformed with the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing and other Guidelines approved by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
The Editorial Board of the Journal of Tourism and Services follows the rules on academic writing and academic ethics, according to the work by Miguel Roig (2003, 2006): Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing, available online at

AI tools

JOTS supports the position statement concerning the utilization of AI tools, e.g. ChatGPT, in the origin of academic papers issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). According to the statement, AI tools should not be attributed authorship of a paper since they are not accountable for the content produced. Moreover, the use of AI tools must be disclosed in respect of transparency standards.

The use of AI tools cannot meet the set criteria for authorship since they are not able to take on responsibility for the work submitted. Lacking legal status, AI tools cannot manage copyright and licensing agreements, and do not bear responsibility for the presence or absence of transparency.

Authors using AI tools in manuscript, image creation, creating graphical elements, or data collection and analysis must transparently disclose the use of AI in the Materials and Methods section of the presented work. Regardless of AI involvement, authors bear full responsibility for their manuscript content and take on responsibility for publication ethics.

Research Ethics Policies Regarding Human Participants and Participant Approval:

  • Manuscripts reporting studies involving human participants and data, covering studies that entail the primary acquisition of personal data, such as surveys or interviews, must indicate whether the relevant authorized body dealing with research ethics issues (further referred to as the ethics committee) approval was obtained (or waived).
  • The declaration should include the approving ethics committee(s) name(s), approval date, and reference number, if available. It should be positioned on the final page of the submission, above the References section, to facilitate anonymous peer review.
  • If the exemption was granted, provide the ethics committee(s) name(s) and rationale for the exemption.
  • If research ethics approval does not pertain to your study/article, provide a statement at submission supported by relevant evidence (e.g., institutional policy or legal framework indicating exemption), where applicable, to benefit an international readership. A standard declaration such as "This study did not require research ethics approval" can be utilized.
  • Authors of empirical research articles involving human participants and data, covering studies that entail the primary acquisition of personal data, such as surveys or interviews, should expressly state whether the participants provided informed consent and specify its form (written or verbal). The participant approval statement may be described in the section related to the Data and/or Methods or in the separate declaration above the References section.

Above that, the manuscripts presenting the results of medical research involving human participants or data should comply with:

These manuscripts must include information on informed consent for publishing patient data and images and specify if written consent was obtained.

How to raise a concern
Anyone who believes that research published by the Journal of Tourism and Services has not been carried out in line with the Guidelines on good publication practice and Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing should raise their concerns with the relevant editor or email
Retraction guidelines
The International Journal of Entrepreneurial Knowledge follows the Retraction guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Editors should consider retracting a publication if:
  • They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of a significant error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error) or as a result of fabrication (e.g., of data) or falsification (e.g., image manipulation).
  • It constitutes plagiarism.
  • The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification (i.e., cases of redundant publication)
  • It contains material or data without authorization for use.
  • Copyright has been infringed, or other serious legal issues exist (e.g., libel, privacy).
  • It reports unethical research.
  • It has been published solely based on a compromised or manipulated peer review process.
  • The author(s) failed to disclose a significant competing interest (a.k.a. conflict of interest) that, in the editor's view, would have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers.
Post-publication discussions and corrections policy
Journal of Tourism and Services allows debate post-publication through letters to the editors at Possible corrections will be made after careful consideration by the editors to ensure any necessary changes are made following the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidance. The editors will apply mechanisms for correcting, revising, or retracting articles after publication, following the Retraction guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Authors' duties and responsibilities
Authors should ensure that:
  • the paper is original and written by them;
  • the paper has not been published in any other journal and has been submitted for consideration to this journal only;
  • the data has been obtained by the authors directly, or they have all legal permissions to use the data obtained from private businesses or other independent sources;
  • the data is original and not manipulated;
  • all sources used in the paper are clearly cited;
  • the paper does not break any copyrights of others;
  • the paper includes funding acknowledgment in case an institution or grant supported the paper;
  • the paper includes a declaration about research ethics approval or a statement that the study did not require research ethics approval;
  • there is no conflict of interest between the co-authors or with third parties;
  • addition, deletion, or order rearrangement of the authors’ names in the authorship list are approved in advance by the whole team;
  • they contact the Editor to correct any errors upon their discovery immediately, no later than the text is published online;
  • authorship of the paper is accurately stated, all authors must sign the statement as their agreement to publication of the paper in this particular journal;
  • they are obliged to participate in the peer-review process, responding timely and politely to all comments of the reviewers; if the authors agree to make changes – they must provide the corrections promptly; if the authors do not agree with reviewers’ recommendations or other remarks – objections with a detailed explanation must be provided;
  • they agree with minor corrections to the contents, including the title, phrasing, style, etc.;
  • they accept the publishing rights to use the paper transferred to the publisher (according to CC BY 4.0).
Editors’ and the editing team’s duties and responsibilities
All team members:
• must use CrossCheck to screen for unoriginal material before the peer-review process and at any point during the peer-review process;
• keep and promote ethical policies of the journal;
• ensure the confidentiality of the review process for both sides involved;
• do not disclose any information regarding a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding Author, Reviewers, potential Reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the Publisher when appropriate;
• decide on publication or rejecting the paper according to the scientific importance/quality, interest to readers, Reviewers’ comments, and the related legal requirements (i.e., plagiarism, breach of copyright, etc.);
• communicate politely with the authors about their paper;
• preserve the anonymity of reviewers;
• remove an identification of the authorship before the manuscripts are submitted for a critical review process;
• reserve the right to make minor amendments to the text or return it to the author for further revision;
• reserve the right to refuse the manuscript without the review process due to inappropriate quality of the manuscript, a different focus, or violation of legal requirements (i.e., plagiarism, breach of copyright, etc.).
Reviewers are obligated:
  • to maintain the confidentiality of the review process;
  • to have the objective judgment about any paper suggested for their review;
  • to have no conflict of interest with respect to the research, authors, and/or research funders;
  • to alert immediately the journal editor about any real or potential competing interest that could affect the independence of the review itself;
  • not to use any part of the material obtained for blind review in their own publications or unpublished research studies without proper citing;
  • to have no attempts to look for or contact the potential authors of the papers suggested for review.