Peer review is vital to the quality of published research.
Our Review process is based on double Blind review Process
- Blind Review process is a process in which a scientific paper is evaluated by a group of experts in the same field to make sure it meets the necessary standards for acceptance and publication.
- We recommend peer double blind review for all conference papers before publication. The conference’s Technical Program Committee, nominated by the Technical Program Chair, collaborates to review and discuss submitted papers. Review occurs during a fixed window of time and all authors are notified of the decision on their paper at the same time. The Technical Program Chair is ultimately responsible for the selection of every accepted paper.
- The most common types of peer review are single-blind and double-blind review. In single-blind, the names of the reviewers are not shared with the author but the reviewers are aware of the author’s identity. In double-blind, neither the author nor the reviewers are aware of each other’s’ identity. In both models, the anonymity of the reviewer ensures that the reviewer can give an honest and impartial evaluation of the paper. We use the single-blind review format.
Peer Review/Acceptance Policy
- The practice of peer review is to ensure that only good science is published. It is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out by our Conference. Our referees play a vital role in maintaining the high standards Transport Policy and all manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below.
Initial manuscript evaluation
- The Chair TPC first evaluates all manuscripts. It is rare, but it is possible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the Conference. Those that meet the minimum criteria are normally passed on to at least 2 experts for review.
Points to be noted
- Relevance to conference
- Originality – Too often people simply redo work that has been done elsewhere, at times because they are not aware of previous work. We place an emphasis on new work (although a good survey paper is certainly acceptable).
- Clarity/Quality of English – Even the best ideas provide little benefit if no one can understand them because of the way in which they are presented. We look for papers that are well organized and well written.
- References – Papers show their value and their originality by grounding themselves in the literature. Ensure that the paper includes references appropriate for the kind of work. Major theoretical studies should have larger reference lists. Small case studies might only need references to their theoretical underpinnings and one or two related studies.
- Length of Paper – Conference papers have particular limits and benefits. You should consider whether the ideas are appropriate for the length.
- Potential Value – We hope that others will benefit from the ideas they hear about or read about at PICET. Hence, we make that benefit one of the key evaluation criteria.
- Comments & Feedback: To help the authors improve their proposal it is essential that every review includes some written comments too. Please give a written feedback to the authors (with a minimum of ten sentences).
Type of Peer Review
- Transport Policy employs double blind reviewing, where both the referee and author remain anonymous throughout the process.
How the referee is selected
- Whenever possible, referees are matched to the paper according to their expertise and our database is constantly being updated.
- Referees are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript: – Is original – Is methodologically sound – Follows appropriate ethical guidelines – Has results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions – Correctly references previous relevant work.
- Language correction is not part of the peer review process, but referees may, if so wish, suggest corrections to the manuscript.
How long does the review process take?
- The time required for the review process is dependent on the response of the referees. Should the referee’s reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed, a further expert opinion will be sought. In rare cases for which it is extremely difficult to find a second referee to review the manuscript, or when the one referee’s report has thoroughly convinced the Publication Chair / Chair TPC , decisions at this stage to accept, reject or ask the author for a revision are made on the basis of only one referee’s report. The Chair decision will be sent to the author with recommendations made by the referees, which usually includes verbatim comments by the referees. Revised manuscripts might be returned to the initial referees who may then request another revision of a manuscript.
- A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the referees, and may include verbatim comments by the referees.
Editor’s Decision is final
- Referees advise the editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.
- Becoming a referee for Transport Policy If you are not currently a referee for Transport Policy but would like to be considered as a referee, please contact the editor. The benefits of refereeing for Transport Policy include the opportunity to read see and evaluate the latest work in your research area at an early stage, and to contribute to the overall integrity of scientific research and its published documentation. You may also be able to cite your work for Transport Policy as part of your professional development requirements for various Professional Societies and Organizations.