2.1 Original content/requirement of originality

Consistently with the requirement of originality, manuscripts should not have been published previously in any copyright form (print or electronic/online) to be part of an ET issue.

2.2 Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its contents on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

More info at:

DULCINEA: https://www.accesoabierto.net/dulcinea/ficha2244

SHERPA/RoMEO: http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/search.php?issn=2174-548X

2.3 Section Policies


  • Alfonso Vargas-Sánchez
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


  • Alfonso Vargas-Sánchez
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed


Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed


  • Alfonso Vargas-Sánchez
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

2.4 Copyright Notice

Authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms:
*Authors retain the copyright of their work and grant the journal right of its first publication under a Creative Commons License, in the following terms: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
This allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of its authorship and initial publication in this journal.
*Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (e.g., post it in an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

*Once published in this journal, authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in academic/scientific repositories or in their websites), as this can lead to a greater number of citations.

2.5 Peer Review Process

Manuscripts submitted to ET journal must be original and unpublished, and they cannot have been accepted or be in the process of evaluation by any other outlet. Under these conditions, all manuscripts received will be subject to a double-blind peer review process. The arbitration system uses two reviewers, which can be both external and internal to the publishing institution of this journal. In case of a profound discrepancy between the two referees, another review can be asked for by the editor to a third expert. Based on them, the final decision made by the editor is unappealable.

Editors will avoid conflict of interests and take care that reviewed manuscripts are treated confidentially.

We do our best to provide constructive feedback to our contributors in the shortest possible time, but there is no a predefined time to do it in each review round.

The number of review rounds is not predetermined neither. They will be the necessary until a definitive decision is reached.

Although the variation can be significant among articles, at the end of each one published readers can find the dates on which the manuscript was received and accepted. Obviously, this time span does not depend on us only, but also on the authors’ time responses. We would expect to receive their responses to a review round in a period no longer than four (4) months. In case of unjustified too long delays, according to the editor criterion, the corresponding submission can be canceled.

Evaluation process and selection of manuscripts

The general criteria for the acceptance of papers are: contribution to the promotion of scientific knowledge in the multi-disciplinary field of tourism; adequate and relevant literature review; scientifically valid and reliable methodology; clarity of writing; fostering knowledge for decision-making in tourism..

More specifically, to guarantee the objectivity of the judgements, the evaluation of the manuscripts will be done based on the following dimensions: importance and novelty of issues raised; accuracy of the title; abstract and keywords; introduction; literature review and theoretical framework; methodology; collection and analysis of data and/or evidence; discussion and conclusions; contributions to the study of tourism (in theory and practice); references and citations; suitability of illustrations (figures, tables, etc.); clarity of writing (the manuscript is written in a correct British or American English).

The overall recommendation regarding the submitted manuscript can be:

-Accept as is.

-Accept with minor revisions.

-Accept with major revisions (re-review).

-Reject but encourage re-submission after the work is more developed.


There is not a specific number of review rounds.

The authors accept the introduction of changes to the content, if necessary, subsequent to review, with due justification in an extra file annexed to the manuscript; and of changes to the style of the manuscript by the journal's editorial staff.

2.6 Editorial Aperture

Assuming the guidelines of different national and international evaluation agencies:

*At least two thirds of the members of the collegiate editorial bodies of ET journal belong to institutions other than the University of Huelva.

*At least half of the works published in ET journal come from authors external to the publishing entity and its editorial bodies.

2.7 Digital preservation

The University of Huelva, publisher of this journal, through digital preservation methods, ensures the intellectual content of electronic archival documents for long periods of time, maintaining their attributes such as integrity, authenticity, inalterability, originality , reliability and accessibility. accesibilidad.

Preservation procedures

Enlightening Tourism journal, in compliance with its Preservation Policies, is governed by the following procedures under implementation:

*The storage of digital resources with great care.
*Assessments in the use of preservation strategies such as data rejuvenation, data consistency checks, migration, emulation, technology preservation, and digital archaeology.
*The encapsulation of the information to be preserved along with descriptive metadata.
*Self-documentation, understanding and encoding the information preserved without reference to external documentation.
*Self-sufficiency, minimizing dependencies on systems, data or documentation.
*And the documentation of the type of content, with a view to a future user can find or implement software that allows viewing the preserved information.

Enlightening Tourism journal follows a policy of storing information in formats that are widely used today, which increases the probability that when a format becomes obsolete there will still be programs for its conversion (XML, HTML and PDF are examples of these formats).

Enlightening Tourism is part of the Public Knowledge Project’s Private LOCKSS Network (PKP-PLN), which generates a decentralized file system, distributed among collaborating libraries, in order to create permanent archives of the journal for the conservation of original content and its restoration if necessary.

Editorial manifiesto of Enlightening Tourism journal.

2.8 Publication Ethics and Malpractice

Duties of Editors

Fair play and editorial independence

Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit (importance, originality, study’s validity, clarity) and its relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation. Decisions to edit and publish are determined only by the policies of the journal itself. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content.


Editors and editorial staff will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes without the authors’ explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained by editors as a result of handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used for their personal advantage. Editors will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the papers; instead, they will ask another member of the editorial board to handle the manuscript.

Publication decisions

The editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer-review by at least two reviewers who are expert in the field. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published, based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, the reviewers’ comments, and such legal requirements as are currently in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations

Editors (in conjunction with the publisher and/or society) will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised with regard to a submitted manuscript or published paper. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour will be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication. If, on investigation, the ethical concern is well-founded, a correction, retraction, expression of concern or other note as may be relevant, will be published in the journal.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of scientific endeavour.


Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.


Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript (e.g. pointing out relevant published works which are not yet cited, suggestions for improving the methodological approach or the data analysis utilized, etc.). Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards

Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and the results, followed by an objective discussion of the significance of the work. The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Review articles should be accurate, objective and comprehensive, while editorial 'opinion' or perspective pieces should be clearly identified as such. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

Data access and retention

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the manuscript for editorial review and should be prepared to make the data publicly available if practicable. In any event, authors should ensure accessibility of such data to other competent professionals for at least 10 years after publication (preferably via an institutional or subject-based data repository or other data centre), provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release.

Originality and plagiarism

Authors should ensure that they have written and submit only entirely original works, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported in the manuscript should also be cited. Plagiarism takes many forms, from "passing off" another's paper as the author's own, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

Multiple, duplicate, redundant or concurrent submission/publication

Papers describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal or primary publication. Hence, authors should not submit for consideration a manuscript that has already been published in another journal. Submission of a manuscript concurrently to more than one journal is unethical publishing behaviour and unacceptable.

The publication of some kinds of articles (such as translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided that certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.

Authorship of the manuscript

Only persons who meet the following authorship criteria should be listed as authors in the manuscript as they must be able to take public responsibility for the content: (i) made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study; and (ii) drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content; and (iii) have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication. All persons who made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (such as technical help, writing and editing assistance, general support) but who do not meet the criteria for authorship must not be listed as an author, but should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section after their written permission to be named as been obtained. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate coauthors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate coauthors are included in the author list and verify that all coauthors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Authors should—at the earliest stage possible (generally by submitting a disclosure form at the time of submission and including a statement in the manuscript)—disclose any conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include financial ones such as honoraria, educational grants or other funding, participation in speakers’ bureaus, membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest, and paid expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements, as well as non-financial ones such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed (including the grant number or other reference number if any).

Acknowledgement of sources

Authors should ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others, and should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately (from conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties) must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Authors should not use information obtained in the course of providing confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, unless they have obtained the explicit written permission of the author(s) of the work involved in these services.

Hazards and human or animal subjects

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animals or human participants, the authors should ensure that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them; the manuscript should contain a statement to this effect. Authors should also include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human participants. The privacy rights of human participants must always be observed.

Peer review

Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors’ requests for raw data, clarifications, and proof of ethics approval, patient consents and copyright permissions. In the case of a first decision of "revisions necessary", authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline given.

Fundamental errors in published works

When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, it is their obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editors or publisher and cooperate with them to either correct the paper in the form of an erratum or to retract the paper. If the editors or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then it is the authors’ obligation to promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the journal editors of the correctness of the paper.

Duties of the Publisher

Handling of unethical publishing behaviour

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum, clarification or, in the most severe case, the retraction of the affected work. The publisher, together with the editors, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.

Procedures for dealing with unethical behaviour

Identification of unethical behaviour

Misconduct and unethical behaviour may be identified and brought to the attention of the editor and publisher at any time, by anyone.
Whoever informs the editor or publisher of such conduct should provide sufficient information and evidence in order for an investigation to be initiated. All allegations should be taken seriously and treated in the same way, until a successful decision or conclusion is reached.


An initial decision should be taken by the editor, who should consult with or seek advice from the publisher, if appropriate.
Evidence should be gathered, while avoiding spreading any allegations beyond those who need to know.

Minor breaches

Minor misconduct might be dealt with without the need to consult more widely. In any event, the author should be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations.

Serious breaches

Serious misconduct might require that the employers of the accused be notified. The editor, in consultation with the publisher, should make the decision whether or not to involve the employers, either by examining the available evidence themselves or by further consultation with a limited number of experts.

Outcomes (in increasing order of severity; they may be applied separately or in conjunction)

*Informing or educating the author or reviewer where there appears to be a misunderstanding or misapplication of acceptable standards.
*A more strongly worded letter to the author or reviewer covering the misconduct and as a warning to future behaviour.
*Publication of a formal notice detailing the misconduct.
*Publication of an editorial detailing the misconduct.
*A formal letter to the head of the author's or reviewer's department or funding agency.
*Formal retraction or withdrawal of a publication from the journal, in conjunction with informing the head of the author or reviewer's department, Abstracting & Indexing services and the readership of the publication.
*Imposition of a formal embargo on contributions from an individual for a defined period.
*Reporting the case and outcome to a professional organisation or higher authority for further investigation and action.

2.9 Archiving

This journal uses the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archive among the participating libraries, allowing these libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for preservation and restoration purposes.

In addition, and for the preservation of access to its content in the event the journal is no longer published, the Huelva University's ARIAS MONTANO repository hosts all the documents published in this journal: http://rabida.uhu.es/dspace/handle/10272/5232?locale-attribute=en

2.10 Anti-plagiarism

Enlightening Tourism makes available to the evaluators of scientific articles proposed for publication, the following systems for the detection of plagiarism of the articles under review:

To ensure the originality of the manuscripts, the journal will use the Turnitin anti-plagiarism tool. Usually, this control will take place before the peer review begins, although it can be repeated at any moment during the review process. The similarity assessment criteria will always be subject to the decision of the Editor.

2.11 Interoperability protocols

Enlightening Tourism provides an OAI-PMH (Open Archives Initiative - Protocol for Metadata Harvesting) interface that allows other portals and information services to access metadata of published content.

Specifications: OAI-PMH Protocol 2.0 - Dublin Core Metadata

Internet route: http://uhu.es/publicaciones/ojs/index.php/et/oai

2.12 Privacy Statement

ET's publisher is committed to maintaining your confidence and trust with respect to the privacy of the personally identifiable information we collect from you.