The European Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems (EJITS) is committed to ensuring the quality, integrity, and rigor of the research it publishes. All manuscripts submitted to EJITS undergo a thorough double-blind peer review process, where the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review. This process ensures objective and unbiased evaluation of submitted work.

1. Initial Submission and Editorial Review

1.1. Submission:
Authors submit their manuscripts through the journal's online submission system, adhering to the submission guidelines. The submitted manuscript is checked for completeness, adherence to the journal’s format, and compliance with ethical standards (e.g., plagiarism screening).

1.2. Editorial Assessment:
The Editor-in-Chief or handling editor conducts an initial assessment to determine if the manuscript fits the scope of the journal and meets basic quality standards. At this stage, the editor evaluates the manuscript’s originality, relevance to the field of Intelligent Transportation Systems, and overall clarity.

• If the manuscript is deemed unsuitable for further consideration, it may be rejected without review.
• If the manuscript is suitable, it moves forward to the peer review stage.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Once a manuscript passes the initial editorial assessment, it is sent to at least two independent expert reviewers for evaluation. The double-blind process ensures that:

• Reviewers are not aware of the authors’ identities.
• Authors do not know the reviewers' identities.

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and knowledge in the subject matter of the submitted manuscript. The review process is guided by the following evaluation criteria:

• Relevance: Does the manuscript address important questions in the field of Intelligent Transportation Systems?
• Originality: Is the research novel, and does it make a significant contribution to the field?
• Methodology: Are the research design, methods, and analysis appropriate, thorough, and replicable?
• Data Presentation: Are the results clearly presented and supported by the data?
• Conclusions: Are the conclusions supported by the results and do they add value to the ITS field?
• Ethics: Does the manuscript adhere to ethical standards, including the proper handling of data and acknowledgment of conflicts of interest?

3. Reviewer Reports

Reviewers are asked to provide constructive and detailed feedback to help authors improve their manuscript. Each reviewer submits a report with the following recommendations:

• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without any revisions.
• Minor Revisions: The manuscript is acceptable but requires minor changes to improve clarity or correct minor errors.
• Major Revisions: The manuscript has potential, but substantial changes are necessary in areas such as methodology, analysis, or data presentation.
• Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication, either due to significant flaws or because it does not meet the journal's standards.

Reviewers are encouraged to use the EJITS Review Report Template to ensure consistency in the feedback provided.

4. Decision and Revisions

Based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the editor makes one of the following decisions:

• Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication as is.
• Minor Revisions: The authors are asked to revise the manuscript according to the reviewers’ feedback. The revised manuscript is usually reviewed by the editor, though it may be returned to the reviewers for verification.
• Major Revisions: The authors are asked to make substantial changes. The revised manuscript will typically undergo a second round of peer review to ensure that all concerns have been adequately addressed.
• Reject: The manuscript is rejected due to critical flaws or because it does not fit the journal’s scope.

Authors will receive detailed feedback from the reviewers and editor, highlighting areas for improvement. Authors are expected to respond to each point raised by the reviewers when submitting their revised manuscript.

5. Resubmission After Revisions

When resubmitting a revised manuscript, authors must include a detailed Response to Reviewers document that addresses each comment made by the reviewers. The revised manuscript, along with the responses, is then re-evaluated by the editorial team and, if necessary, by the original reviewers.

6. Final Decision

After the final round of revisions (if applicable), the editor will make a final decision on the manuscript. Once accepted, the manuscript moves to the production stage for formatting and final approval by the authors before publication.

7. Timeline for Peer Review

EJITS aims to complete the peer review process within 6–8 weeks from the date of submission. However, this timeline may vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript, the availability of reviewers, and the extent of revisions required.

8. Continuous Article Publishing (CAP)

EJITS follows a Continuous Article Publishing (CAP) model, meaning that accepted articles are published online as soon as they are ready, rather than waiting for the completion of an entire issue. This ensures that research findings are disseminated quickly.

9. Appeals Process

Authors who believe that their manuscript was rejected unfairly may appeal the decision. Appeals must be submitted in writing and include a detailed explanation of why the authors believe the decision should be reconsidered. The appeal will be reviewed by the editor-in-chief, and if necessary, an independent expert. The decision following the appeal is final.

10. Ethical Considerations

EJITS follows ethical guidelines outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Reviewers and authors must adhere to high standards of research integrity and transparency. Any concerns about misconduct, such as plagiarism or data fabrication, will be investigated thoroughly by the editorial team.