Editorial Decision Policy

ARISTHA: Ar-Risalah Journal of Islamic Tourism and Hospitality

1. Purpose and Scope

ARISTHA is committed to maintaining a transparent, fair, independent, and academically rigorous editorial decision-making process. This policy establishes the principles and procedures governing the evaluation, selection, acceptance, and rejection of manuscripts submitted to the journal.

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, originality, methodological rigor, relevance to the journal's focus and scope, ethical compliance, and the potential contribution of the manuscript to knowledge in Islamic tourism, halal tourism, hospitality, sharia tourism law, and related interdisciplinary fields.

2. Editorial Independence

The Editor-in-Chief holds final responsibility for editorial decisions regarding submitted manuscripts. Such decisions must be made independently of commercial interests, institutional influence, personal relationships, or other inappropriate external pressures.

The journal's publisher, Sekolah Tinggi Agama Islam (STAI) Ar-Risalah Sumatera Barat, Indonesia, supports editorial independence and the integrity of scholarly publishing.

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by an author's nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, religious background, political beliefs, or other characteristics unrelated to the scholarly quality of the submitted work.

3. Criteria for Editorial Decisions

Manuscripts are evaluated according to the following criteria:

Relevance and Scope: Alignment with the journal's aims, scope, and intended scholarly audience.
Originality and Contribution: Novelty, significance, and contribution to existing knowledge.
Scientific and Methodological Quality: Appropriateness of research design, data collection, analytical methods, and interpretation of findings.
Theoretical and Practical Relevance: Contribution to scholarly discourse, professional practice, policy development, or interdisciplinary understanding.
Clarity and Organization: Quality of academic writing, logical structure, and consistency of argumentation.
Research and Publication Ethics: Compliance with applicable ethical standards, appropriate attribution, disclosure of conflicts of interest, and responsible research reporting.
Response to Peer Review: Adequacy and quality of the author's revisions and responses to substantive reviewer and editor comments.

4. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment before being considered for external peer review.

During this stage, the editorial team examines the manuscript's relevance to the journal, compliance with submission requirements, academic quality, originality, and potential ethical concerns.

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope, substantially fail to meet scholarly standards, or contain serious ethical concerns may be rejected without external peer review (desk rejection).

Where appropriate, authors may be invited to address preliminary editorial concerns before further consideration.

5. Peer Review and Editorial Evaluation

Manuscripts that pass initial screening are evaluated through the journal's peer-review process.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, evidence-based, and confidential assessments. Their recommendations inform editorial decisions but do not automatically determine the final outcome.

Editors consider reviewer reports alongside their own assessment of the manuscript's scholarly quality, ethical compliance, and suitability for publication.

Where reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may seek additional expert evaluation or request further clarification before reaching a decision.

6. Types of Editorial Decisions

Following editorial evaluation, a manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:

Accept Submission: The manuscript is considered suitable for publication, subject to any necessary final editorial or production requirements.
Revisions Required: The manuscript requires specified revisions before further editorial consideration.
Resubmit for Review: Substantial revisions are required, and the revised manuscript may undergo another round of peer review.
Decline Submission: The manuscript does not meet the journal's publication requirements or scholarly standards.

An invitation to revise does not guarantee eventual acceptance. Revised manuscripts are assessed according to the extent to which authors have addressed the identified concerns.

7. Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that could compromise their impartiality.

An editor with a relevant conflict of interest must withdraw from the decision-making process for the affected manuscript. Editorial responsibility should then be assigned to another qualified editor without the identified conflict.

Submissions involving editorial board members or individuals affiliated with the publisher must be evaluated according to the same scholarly and ethical standards applied to other submissions.

8. Ethical Concerns and Research Integrity

The editorial team reserves the right to investigate concerns regarding plagiarism, duplicate submission, fabricated or falsified data, inappropriate authorship, undisclosed conflicts of interest, unethical research practices, and other forms of publication misconduct.

Where concerns arise, the journal may request clarification, supporting documentation, or additional information from the authors.

Editorial action will be proportionate to the available evidence and the seriousness of the concern. Where applicable, the journal may consult relevant institutional authorities or established publication ethics guidance.

9. Communication of Editorial Decisions

Editorial decisions are communicated to the corresponding author through the journal's Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform.

Where appropriate, decision letters include editorial comments, reviewer feedback, revision requirements, or reasons for rejection.

Authors are expected to respond professionally to editorial correspondence and provide a clear explanation of changes made during revision.

10. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal when they believe that an editorial decision involved a significant procedural error, factual misunderstanding, or potential conflict of interest.

Appeals should identify the manuscript concerned, explain the grounds for reconsideration, and provide relevant supporting information.

The Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated independent editor will assess the appeal. An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision.

Complaints involving editorial misconduct or conflicts of interest should be handled through an impartial process that avoids assigning the complaint to the individual concerned.

11. Final Editorial Authority

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final editorial decision, taking into account peer-review recommendations, editorial assessments, ethical considerations, and the journal's scholarly objectives.

Acceptance of a manuscript does not imply endorsement of its findings or opinions by the journal, editorial board, or publisher.

The journal reserves the right to request additional clarification or take appropriate editorial action if significant ethical or scholarly concerns are identified before publication.

12. Policy Review and Updates

ARISTHA may periodically review and update this policy to reflect developments in scholarly publishing standards, publication ethics, and journal management practices.

Any substantive changes should be communicated transparently through the journal's official website.

Publisher: Sekolah Tinggi Agama Islam (STAI) Ar-Risalah Sumatera Barat, Indonesia

Journal: ARISTHA: Ar-Risalah Journal of Islamic Tourism and Hospitality

Publication Platform: Open Journal Systems (OJS)