An Open Access Journal | Publisher - D-LAR Labs [Digital Library of Academic Research] |
Aim and Scope
Contact Us
Impact Factor - 1.5

Peer Review Policy

The practice of peer review is to ensure that only good science research paper is published. It is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out by all reputable scientific journals. Our reviewers 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 Editor 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 journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are normally passed on to at least 1 expert review.

Type of Peer Review Transport Policy employs double blind reviewing, where both the reviewer and author remain anonymous throughout the process.

How the reviewer is selected Whenever possible, reviewers are matched to the paper according to their expertise and our database is constantly being updated.

reviewer reports reviewers 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 reviewers 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 reviewers. In rare cases for which it is extremely difficult to find a reviewer to review the manuscript, or when the one reviewer’s report has thoroughly convinced the Editor, decisions at this stage to accept, reject or ask the author for a revision are made on the basis of only one reviewer’s report. The Editor’s decision will be sent to the author with recommendations made by the reviewers, which usually includes verbatim comments by the reviewers. Revised manuscripts might be returned to the initial reviewers who may then request another revision of a manuscript.

Final report A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the reviewers, and may include verbatim comments by the reviewers.

Editor’s Decision is final reviewers advise the editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.

Becoming a reviewer for Transport Policy If you are not currently a reviewer for Transport Policy but would like to be considered as a reviewer, please contact the editor. The benefits of reviewering 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 Organisations.