Request Username
Can't sign in? Forgot your username?
Enter your email address below and we will send you your username
Transportation Science Reviewer Guidelines January 2025
A few years ago, we engaged the Transportation Science & Logistics community in a discussion of the future of the journal. We posed the following question: What topics / papers would like to see featured more in the journal? Responses showed a broad range of topics, including emerging modes of transportation, automation, and a focus on work with societal impact. Responses also showed a range in terms of the key contributions of a paper, including those promoting conceptual novelty, implementation in practice, in addition to advances in methods and models. This call for a broader definition of “what makes a Transportation Science” paper is in line with the vision of the editorial board to publish research that combines innovative quantitative methodologies with important applications in the realm of transportation, logistics and related areas. Translating this vision to practice within the confines of the review process is a challenge. We asked a follow up question in the community discussion: Why aren’t we seeing those submissions at Transportation Science? A large number of responses focused on the review process, including concerns that “classical papers” fare better in the review process compared with novel and/or practice-oriented papers. This document is intended to provide guidance to referees in the review process.
Research in transportation and logistics is based on developing innovative ideas to solve problems. Some papers present solution ideas for new problems, such as those motivated by new technology, new challenges, or simply new and different ways to do things. Some papers may introduce a new problem area or research area with an ambitious agenda for future research to be conducted by our community. Some papers present solution ideas for problems that are not new but remain difficult to solve for large data sets or when certain complexities are considered. Similarly, the proposed solutions for these problems can represent ideas that are relatively simple to implement and effective in practice or more sophisticated ideas that advance the state-of-the-art and may offer better performance guarantees. A successful paper does not need to be outstanding in all dimensions but should be outstanding in at least one of them. For example, a paper proposing a new model for an innovative transportation application does not need to advance the state-of-the-art in optimization to solve it. A paper could propose a more abstract model and perform deeper theoretical and computational analysis on it, leaving application specifics out. There is more than one way to write and structure a successful Transportation Science paper, and a successful paper does not have a set list of ingredients. All of this research is important, but it is often hard for reviewers to evaluate papers when they can be so different. Our experience at Transportation Science suggests that this can lead reviewers to be more negative towards newer problems and simpler solution methods, and more positive towards existing problems and sophisticated solution methods. Our intent with this document is to help reviewers set expectations relative to a paper’s intended contributions
Templates
We encourage reviewers to use templates to help standardize the review process.
First-round reviews (updated in 2025)
A LaTeX template for reviewers is available here.
A Microsoft Word template is available here.
Revision reviews (new in 2025)
A LaTeX template for reviewers is available here
A Microsoft Word template is available here.
Reviewer Guidelines
First time review guidelines
Reviewers are asked to address the following in their review to standardize the review process and provide useful feedback to authors. The questions below are used for the first time a paper is reviewed. You can find the template for revisions using the links above.
1. What is the paper about?
Provide a brief summary of the paper.
2. What are the main contributions of the paper?
Briefly state the main contributions of the paper in terms of problem novelty, scientific methodology, technical results, and/or practical implications. Note: a paper does not need to contribute in all of these ways; please clearly specify the areas of contributions.
3. What are the main strengths and weaknesses of the paper?
Identify strengths and weaknesses relative to (1) advancing the science of transportation and logistics; (2) the rigor of the work, including the extent to which the conclusions are supported by the results; (3) the originality of the work and (4) the clarity of presentation.
4. What, if any, are the major areas of potential improvement?
Identify key issues/suggestions that, if appropriately addressed, may make the paper publishable. Describe any issues that may be insurmountable in a revision. Keep comments specific and constructive, related to the most critical issues.
5. What, if any, are the minor areas of potential improvement?
Provide specific ways in which the authors can improve the paper but should not be the main focus on a revision.
6. What is your recommendation - Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject?
(Note: The reviewer's opinion is advisory only.)
Revision guidelines
1. Briefly restate the main contributions of the paper and if they have changed from the prior submission
This may be a repeat from your prior review. Briefly state the main contributions of the paper in terms of problem novelty, scientific methodology, technical results, and/or practical implications. Note: a paper does not need to contribute in all of these ways; please clearly specify the areas of contributions.
2. Changes to the paper’s strengths and weaknesses
Please consider the strengths and weaknesses you identified in your prior review. Are the weaknesses identified in the prior review still relevant, and if so, are they outweighed by the paper’s strengths.
3. Responses to the major areas of potential improvement
Please evaluate the extent to which the authors have addressed the key issues/suggestions raised in the prior round of review. If new issues have emerged that may be insurmountable in a revision, please include them here.
4. What, if any, are the minor areas of potential improvement?
Provide specific ways in which the authors can improve the paper but should not be the main focus on a revision
5. What is your recommendation - Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject? (Note: The reviewer's opinion is advisory only.)
Our aim is to have only one round of major revision. A second round of major revision may be appropriate if (1) the paper has potential but the current revision requires significant work to address the remaining major issues and (2) there is a clear, actionable plan for the authors to address these issues.