Review procedure

 

All manuscripts of articles submitted to the editorial office of the journal “Transport Systems and Technologies” are registered. The chief editor or deputy chief editor gets to know them, who decide to send the manuscript of the article to one of the reviewers with whom the journal collaborates. The review procedure is organized in such a way that authors and reviewers do not interact with each other (double blind review)

Members of the editorial board review the manuscript and give their suggestions to the editor-in-chief about sending the article to reviewers - specialists in the subject of the reviewed article. The editors will usually receive feedback from two external reviewers. In some cases, the editors may also involve additional reviewers for a more qualitative evaluation of the scientific article.

Avoidance of Conflicts of Interest in Reviewer Selection

The editorial board ensures that reviewers are independent of the manuscript’s authors. Individuals affiliated with the same institution, engaged in professional collaboration, having personal relationships, or otherwise connected in a way that could affect objectivity are not invited to review. This ensures a fair and unbiased evaluation process.

The editor-in-chief and/or a member of the editorial board do not participate in the review of manuscripts if they are related to the authors personally, professionally or through a potential interest in the content or results of the publication, as well as if they are the authors of the submitted articles themselves. In such a case, the technical secretary organizes the review process without their involvement, and the duties of the editor-in-chief are performed by the deputy.

Submission of Manuscripts for Review

Once reviewers have been selected, the editorial office sends them the anonymised manuscript by email along with a standard review form. In the accompanying message, reviewers are invited to conduct a scholarly evaluation within their area of expertise. This procedure standardises the review process and helps maintain consistent evaluation criteria.

The duration of the review should not exceed one month from the receipt of the article to the reviewer.

Each review ends with a recommendation:

the possibility of publishing the article without change;
the possibility of publication, taking into account the introduction of corrections by the author (without re-reviewing or with re-reviewing);
about the refusal to authors to publish the article.

Re-review after revision

If a revised version of the article is submitted, it may be resubmitted to the reviewers for consideration. At this stage, it is assessed how fully and properly the author has taken into account the comments. At the same time, revision in itself does not mean automatic acceptance of the manuscript for publication: if the changes made prove to be insufficient, the article may be finally rejected.

Final editorial decision

The final decision on the possibility of publishing the article is made by the editorial board, taking into account the received review(s), as well as the motivated response of the author(s) of the article.

All reviews are stored by the editorial office in written/electronic form for three years. Copies of reviews are sent upon request.

 We ask authors to review the criteria for reviewing, which are based on an assessment of the relevance of the research topic, scientific novelty and the validity of the presented results.