Editorial and Peer-Review Procedures.
The Peer-Review Model
The review procedures are formalized in order to ensure transparency, reviewer independence, and the absence of conflicts of interest.
Manuscripts submitted for publication in the Dottrina section (Articles and Notes) undergo a blind peer-review process carried out by the Editorial Board, which reserves the right to reject them.
For manuscripts submitted for publication in sections other than Dottrina (Articles and Notes), the evaluation – not subject to peer review – is conducted directly by the Editor-in-Chief or by the Editorial Committee.
To ensure a high standard of scientific quality, the Journal adopts a review model for manuscripts submitted for publication that is structured in two phases:
- preliminary assessment;
- double-blind peer review.
Preliminary Assessment of the Submission and Peer Review
The Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Committee conducts a preliminary assessment of all submitted manuscripts. This assessment aims to verify both the relevance of the topic to the field of transport studies and the conformity of the text with the Journal’s editorial requirements.
A positive preliminary assessment leads to the initiation of the peer-review process in the strict sense. The Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Committee, also through the Editorial Office, submits the anonymized manuscripts to the evaluation of anonymous experts (reviewers; referees). Reviewers – external to the Journal’s bodies and selected by the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Committee based on subject-matter expertise and according to a rotation principle – are invited via email to evaluate the manuscript. Reviewers must decline or indicate unavailability within three business days. Otherwise, the reviewer confirms acceptance of the assignment and undertakes to return the designated form (the “report”) containing the evaluation of the manuscript. The report must be completed within twenty days from the request. The reviewer sends the report via email to the Editor-in-Chief, the Editorial Committee, or the Editorial Office. The report is retained in the Journal’s archive. If a reasonable extension is needed, a specific request shall be sent to the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Committee. In any case, if the delay exceeds twenty days, the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Committee withdraws the invitation and appoints a different reviewer.
The Journal follows a double-blind peer-review system, meaning that the author is not informed of the reviewer’s identity, nor is the reviewer informed of the author’s identity.
To facilitate and expedite the peer-review process, the author shall ensure that the manuscript is anonymized and in any case free from direct or indirect references that may reveal the author’s identity.
Criteria Applied by Reviewers
In their evaluation, reviewers verify that the manuscripts demonstrate:
- clarity of presentation;
- the author’s scientific contribution with reference to the level of analysis already achieved by the scholarly community and/or relevant case law on the subject;
- adequacy of the bibliography.
It is possible that a manuscript is intentionally submitted without bibliographic references; in such cases, the last criterion does not apply.
Conclusion of the Peer Review
The reviewers’ evaluation may result in:
- acceptance of the manuscript for publication without revisions;
- acceptance subject to revisions specified by the reviewer;
- rejection of the manuscript.
Specifically, once the report is received from the reviewer, the Editor-in-Chief, the Editorial Committee, or the Editorial Office promptly communicates the outcome of the peer review to the author via email and transmits the report containing the anonymous opinion of the referee. If the reviewer considers the manuscript publishable without modifications, the contribution proceeds to publication. If the reviewer recommends publication contingent upon certain suggested revisions, the author may choose whether or not to implement them. In the former case, the revised manuscript is resubmitted to the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Committee, who may decide to forward it again to the reviewer or proceed directly to publication. If the final evaluation is positive, the contribution is published; otherwise, the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Committee decides whether to reject the manuscript or initiate an additional review phase. If the reviewer recommends rejection, the manuscript is not published.
In cases where a member of the Editorial Committee is an author or co-author of a submitted manuscript, the standard procedures are followed. In such instances, the management of the peer review is entrusted to a member of the Editorial Committee who is not an author or co-author. If a member of the Editorial Board submits a manuscript, the peer-review process is managed by the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Committee.
If a re-evaluation of review decisions is requested, the decision rests with the Editorial Committee, which may also consult members of the Scientific Committee. Any member of the Editorial Committee who is an author or co-author of a submitted manuscript does not participate in the voting.
The names of the reviewers consulted for the evaluation of works published in the Journal are published in a dedicated list on the Journal’s website.
Exceptions to the Review Model
For manuscripts submitted by authors of established prestige or international reputation, the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Committee may assume responsibility for publication without peer review. In such cases, a note on the first page of the manuscript will indicate this circumstance.
Management of Disputes Concerning the Application of the Model
Any disputes concerning the application of the peer-review procedures and/or the outcome of decisions related to the preliminary assessment and/or the peer review are discussed by the Editorial Committee with the parties directly involved.