Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
The publication ethics and malpractice statement of the Society is based on the guidelines for journal editors developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Manuscripts submitted to the journal are evaluated entirely on the basis of their scientific content. There are nominal publication charges. All possible measures are taken to uphold the highest standards of publication ethics and to prevent malpractices. Authors who submit papers to our Journal have to submit a certificate.
Duties/Responsibilities of Editors
The Editorial Team of the journal including the Editorial Board and the Publication Committee is responsible for taking a decision as to which of the articles submitted to the journal are to be published. The Editors have complete discretion to reject/accept an article. The Editorial Team may confer/deliberate with other reviewers/editors in arriving at its decisions. The evaluation of manuscripts is made on the basis of merit without having regard to the nature of the authors or the institution including gender, race, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. The journal follows a policy of fair play in its editorial evaluation. The editors are expected to exercise caution and ensure that they have no conflict of interest with respect to the articles they accept/reject. Strict confidentiality is maintained by the Editorial Team and are required not to disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers and the publisher. Authors are asked to correct the errors found during the process of review while preserving the anonymity of the reviewers.
Duties/Responsibilities of Reviewers
Editorial decisions are based on peer review. The reviewers are expected to maintain absolute confidentiality with regard to the contents of manuscripts. The reviews are to be conducted objectively and the referees are expected to express their views clearly with supporting reasons. The reviewers should have no conflict of interest with the authors and the subject matter of the research. The reviewers are required to identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any observation or argument which has been previously reported should also be accompanied along with the relevant citation. Similarities or overlaps between the manuscripts under review and any other published paper of which the reviewer may have personal knowledge, may also be brought to be attention of the editors. The information or ideas obtained through peer review are of a privileged nature and must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative or other relationship with any of authors or institutions connected to the papers.
Duties/Responsibilities of the Authors
Authors are required to present an accurate account of the original research work and also an objective discussion of its significance. The paper should contain sufficient details of the literature and references. It is expected that all the authors have significantly contributed to the research. Fraudulent and knowingly made inaccurate statement constitutes unethical behavior and would be unacceptable. Authors are required to ensure that the submitted work is original and has not been published elsewhere, and if the authors have used the work of others the same has been appropriately cited or quoted. Applicable copyright laws and conventions are required to be followed. Copyright materials should be reproduced only with permission and due acknowledgement. Authors are not expected to submit manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently would constitute unethical practice and would be unacceptable. Proper acknowledgement of the work of others must always be made. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the paper which is submitted for publication. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Others who have participated in certain substantive aspects in the development of the paper should also be acknowledged. The corresponding author is required to ensure that all co-authors are included in the paper, and that the co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. All sources of financial support should also be disclosed. Upon discovery of any significant error in the published work, it is the responsibility of the authors to promptly notify the editors and cooperate in the retraction or correction of the paper.
Peer Review Policy Statement
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 all reputable scientific journals. 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 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 an expert for review.
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.
Referee Reports: 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 Editor, 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 Editor's 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.
Final Report: 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.