Archives of Transport is dedicated to upholding the highest standards of quality and academic rigor in the review process. Reviewers play a pivotal role in ensuring the scholarly excellence of the manuscripts considered for publication. This document outlines specific guidelines for reviewers participating in the double-blind peer review process for Archives of Transport.
Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest
- Confidentiality: Reviewers must strictly maintain confidentiality throughout the review process. Under no circumstances should reviewers disclose any information about the manuscript or their review to any third party.
- Conflict of Interest: Reviewers affirm that they have no conflicts of interest (that could affect their impartiality in reviewing a manuscript) when agreeing to undertake the review. The double-blind review process further ensures the integrity of the evaluation. If any conflicts exist, reviewers should abstain from participating in the review process.
- Relevance: Evaluate whether the study's topic is pertinent and merits further investigation in the fields of transport, logistics, supply chain, and related areas.
- Title and Abstract Alignment: Assess whether the title and abstract accurately align with the content of the study, providing a clear representation of its core focus.
- Completeness and Clarity: Examine the article to ascertain if it includes all necessary content and provides a well-defined aim and research theses.
- Appropriateness of Research Methods: Evaluate the appropriateness of the chosen research methods in the context of the subject matter under investigation.
- Adequacy of Research Material: Determine if the presented research material is sufficient to support the study's objectives effectively.
- Relevance and Sufficiency of Bibliography: Review the bibliography to ensure it is not only relevant but also comprehensive, taking into account the scope and depth of the study.
- Data-Driven Conclusions: Analyze whether the conclusions drawn in the article are robustly supported by the presented data and analysis.
- Language and Scholarly Standards: Scrutinize the language used in the work, ensuring correctness, clarity, and adherence to rigorous scholarly standards.
Additional Reviewer Fields
- Necessity of Further Review Rounds: Consider whether an additional review round is required to address major concerns or revisions.
- Comments to the Author: Provide constructive comments and feedback to the author to help improve the quality and clarity of the manuscript.
- Confidential Comments to the Editorial Team: Include any confidential comments or suggestions for the editorial team's consideration.
- Reviewer's Recommendation: Choose from the following options when making a recommendation: Accept Submission, Revisions Required, Resubmit for review (major revision required), Resubmit Elsewhere, Decline Submission, or See Comments (write your recommendation in comments to the editor).
We appreciate your dedication to maintaining the high standards of Archives of Transport and thank you for your valuable contribution as a reviewer. Your expertise and commitment to scholarly excellence are crucial to the success of our publication.