Peer-review process

Peer review is an essential part of the publication process at Traffic Safety Research, helping to safeguard the quality of the journal's contents. It is carried out jointly by the handling editor and external reviewers.

In a nutshell...

Based on the NISO's ‘Standard terminology for peer review’, the review process at the TSR can be described as:

Identity transparency: single anonymized
Reviewer interacts with: editor
Review information published: reviewer identity, editor identity
Post-publication commenting: none.

...and in more detail

Editorial workflow

After submission, the following happens:

The editor-in-chief screens the submission and assigns a handling editor.
The handling editor performs a plagiarism check and editorial triage.
The handling editor initiates external peer review and communicates the results to the authors.
The authors make revisions based on the comments received.
The handling editor decides whether the paper should be accepted, declined, or undergo another round of peer review.

The submission can be declined at any stage. Most rejections occur during editorial triage. Proceeding to external peer review significantly improves the chances of acceptance, but does not guarantee it.

Handling editor assignment

The process starts with the editor-in-chief conducting the initial screening and assigning a handling editor from the regular editorial team to handle the manuscript. An effort is made to match the subject of the submission with the editor’s core expertise. Occasionally, a guest editor may be appointed (e.g. when regular editors have competing interests).

Editorial triage

The handling editor reads the submission and performs the editorial triage based on the quality criteria jointly developed and agreed by the editorial team. The purpose of this procedure is to filter out submissions that are unlikely to be accepted even after revision. Editorial triage saves external reviewers from reading and commenting on papers that are unlikely to meet the journal's criteria for publication; it also allows the authors of rejected papers to receive feedback quickly, and improve and resubmit their work elsewhere.

For a submission that passes the editorial triage, the handling editor may request minor changes before it is sent to external reviewers. It is also common for the handling editor to provide their own comments, acting de facto as an additional peer reviewer.

If a submission is rejected, the editor provides a brief explanation of the reasons for the decision.

External peer review and revisions

Manuscripts that passed editorial triage are sent to at least two independent external reviewers, experts in the subject. Based on reviewers' recommendations, the editor decides whether the manuscript should be Accepted, Revised, or Rejected. In case of doubts or contradicting reviews, the editor may approach an additional reviewer. The reviewers' comments are sent to the authors together with the editorial decision.

The handling editor has the facilitating role, but also the final decision power. He/she may override some of the reviewer's recommendations. Neither is there an ambition to force the authors to strictly follow each of the reviewers' suggestions; rather, the general spirit of improving the scientific quality by taking into consideration constructive comments from peers is pursued.

The detailed instructions provided to the external reviewers can be found here. The handling editor is considered to be a part of the reviewing process, thus the ethical guidelines for reviewers (competing interests, confidentiality, accountability, etc.) apply to the editor to the same extent.

Final decision

The TSR aims at the final decision to be taken after the first round of revisions. It is expected that by then it becomes evident for the editor whether the paper is ‘publishable in general’ (despite minor imperfections) or it is not likely to ever improve to meet the quality standards of the journal. In both cases, little is to be gained by extending the process with additional review rounds. In some cases, for example if substantial changes have been made to the original text, the follow-up review rounds might be motivated.

Editor and reviewer acknowledgments

Published papers reveal the identities of the handling editor and the reviewers. In addition, reviews can be registered in reviewers' ORCID profiles. Further information about reviewer recognition at the TSR and instructions for setting up ORCID integration are available here.

Complaints and appeals

In case the authors suspect some misconduct during the reviewing process or disagree with the editor's decision, they may lodge an appeal and request the situation to be investigated. Read more about the procedures for complaints and appeals here.