Information for Reviewers

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.

Check out the new 2025 Transportation Science Review Guidelines, created by our editorial board to assist reviewers in using the templates, which can be found  here.

Review Metrics

(as of April 2025)

Average number of days to first decision for all manuscripts decided in 2025 and submitted at any date (includes papers not sent out for external review): 45

Average number of days to first decision for all manuscripts decided in 2025 and submitted at any date (includes only papers sent out for external review): 100

Average number of days for reviewers to complete reviews: 45

Reviewing and Generative Artificial Intelligence Policy

Reviewing a technical manuscript implies responsibilities that can only be attributed to humans. The critical thinking and assessment required for peer-review are outside the scope of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies, and there is a risk that the technology will generate incorrect, incomplete, or biased outcomes. These considerations, together with the principle that submitted manuscripts are to be treated as confidential documents, results in the Transportation Science Generative AI policies for reviewers and editors: Generative AI should not be used to assist in the review, evaluation, or decision-making process of a manuscript. Some specific examples are below but these are not comprehensive: Reviewers or editors should not upload the manuscript or any part of it into a Generative AI tool, as there is no guarantee of where materials are being sent, saved, or viewed, or how they may be used in the future to train the model, and this may violate author confidentiality.

This confidentiality requirement extends to the peer review report and any other communication about the manuscript, such as the notification or decision letters, as they may also contain confidential information about the manuscript and/or the authors. For this reason, they should not be uploaded into a Generative AI tool, even if it is just for the purpose of improving language and readability.
If an editor or reviewer suspects Generative AI has been used in the paper under review which has resulted in improper aspects such as bogus references, nonsensible reasoning, or misinformation that person should report the matter to the editor in charge, normally the area editor.

Meritorious Service Awards