Code of Ethics

The Journal of Arctic Tourism (ArcTour) is published by the Icelandic Tourism Research Centre (ITRC). The publication is a collaborative project between the University of Iceland, Hólar University, the University of Akureyri and the Icelandic Tourist Board. The Journal's Code of Ethics is based on the guidelines of the International Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The ArcTour’s Code of Ethics takes notice in the Publishing Ethics of Elsevier (see here) as well as the journal Orð og Tunga (see here), published by Árnastofnun (The Árni Magnússon Institute for Icelandic Studies).

The tasks and role of the publisher

The ITRC’s role is to support the editors and the editorial board by e.g.:

  • ensure the independence of the editorial board and staff
  • promote responsible and transparent procedures
  • support the editorial staff in their communication with other journals and publishers and provide appropriate advice and assistance
  • support doctoral students and postdocs with instruction and advice regarding publication

Responsibility of authors´

Authors who submit a scholarly article to the journal are to ensure the following:

  • An academic article must be the original work of the author(s) and should not have been sent to other journals for publication
  • Only those who play an important role in the preparation, execution, interpretation of research or writing the article or other work can qualify as authors of an article
  • The author taking on the corresponding role with the ArcToure journal is responsible for ensuring that all those listed as co-authors are so indeed, and that they have approved the final edition of the manuscript before the article is sent to publication.
  • Authors are responsible for compliance with Icelandic privacy laws, incl. appropriate obtaining of necessary permission for the collection and processing of data
  • Authors should refer to all works that have had a formative effect on the study
  • Optimization, manipulation, or deliberate falsification of results is strictly prohibited
  • Information should be provided on funding and support of research. Authors should furthermore declare possible conflicts of interest that might be interpreted as having influenced the research
  • Information on funding for projects where applicable, as well as possible interests behind research should be provided.
  • Displaying images, edited further than adjustment of brightness, colour, or sharpness, is highly inappropriate

Editorial responsibility

Decision making process

The ArcTour’s editorial board is responsible for selecting material for publication in accordance with the journal´s policies and code of ethics. The editorial board assesses whether the submitted articles fall within the scope of the journal and whether they are acceptable for peer review. Each article is peer-reviewed by two reviewers. The editorial board selects reviewers with relevant expertise in the appropriate field. Reviewers do not receive information about the author(s) of articles and authors do not know who is reviewing their work. The editorial board receives reviews from reviewers and sends the comments and instructions on how to proceed to the author(s). Evaluation of publication of an article is determined by peer review. In case of disputes where peer reviewers do not agree, the final decision on publication is made by the editorial board. The decision of the editorial board shall always be made with reference to the publication policy of the journal and the theoretical contribution of the article. The editorial board may seek the opinion of a scholar on the journal's advisory committee or other experts. The editorial board strives to ensure that the peer reviewing process is fair, impartial and does not take too long.


The editorial board must maintain confidentiality towards authors and reviewers. The editorial board shall not provide any information on submitted material or information on communication with reviewers unless otherwise specifically agreed on by the authors and reviewers.

The editorial board may not use or refer to unpublished material it has been commissioned to evaluate for publication without a written permission of the author.

Conflicts of interest

Editorial staff should not be involved in any decisions regarding material in which they have been involved in writing. The same applies for material of their close family members and close associates.


The editorial board should take seriously and address all allegations of breaches of the Code of Ethics. The main rule is that the authors are contacted for providing them the opportunity to respond to accusations made against them. In some cases, this may mean that the journal may have to publish a correction or even withdraw published article.

The editorial board must inform peer reviewers should major changes be needed to be made to their peer review. Comments on peer-reviewing process should only derive from the journal's policy, tone, and rhythm in peer-review, and not on the content of the peer-review nor its professional evaluation. Reviewers are always given the opportunity to respond to the editor's comments.

Responsibility of reviewers

Contribution of peer review

Peer review helps editors make editorial decisions. In communication with authors, the review results are used to assist authors in refining their texts. Reviewers discuss the pros and cons of articles and take a stand on the content and finishing of the texts. Reviewers should be alert to ethical issues and submit them to the editorial board as appropriate. This applies to issues such as (but not limited to) to direct authors to sources the reviewers believe are missing from manuscripts, or if they become aware of the obvious similarities between the relevant manuscript and previously published material.


Reviewers should always be objective and base their critique on clear arguments. Comments about the author's character or attributes or contemptuous comments are highly inappropriate.

Reviewers may not use or refer to unpublished material they have been assigned to review, without a written permission of the author.

Objectivity and conflicts of interest

Reviewers should always be objective and base their critique on clear arguments. Comments about the author's character or attributes or contemptuous comments are highly inappropriate.

Reviewers should consult with the editorial board, should they consider themselves unfit to evaluate the scientific value of manuscripts (e.g. due to their affiliation or due to other conflicts of interest). If the reviewers do not consider themselves to have time to submit their review on time, they should resign from the project as soon as possible or request additional time.