Peer Review Process

The articles submitted to the journal undergo an intense, double-anonymized peer review process to ensure their quality and academic merit. The authors and reviewers will remain anonymous throughout the study to ensure impartiality and objectivity. Peer reviewers provide valuable guidance to editors regarding article enhancement and priority assessment for publication in the journal based on their expertise and technical proficiency.

After consultation with the reviewers, the editorial team will decide whether to accept or reject the articles for publication and will determine any additional requirements that may be necessary. The conditions are determined based on the technical rigour and quality of the articles under consideration.

The reviewers, who are experts in the field, provide constructive feedback and recommendations to the editors to improve the accuracy, validity, and significance of the research findings, which helps elevate the quality and preference of articles for publication in the journal.

Upon reviewing the reviewers’ comments, the editors decide to accept or reject the articles for publication and provide any prerequisites that need to be fulfilled.

The editors decide whether the articles will be published based on feedback from the peer reviewers. They also set any requirements or requirements for publishing the articles.

An external reviewer will thoroughly examine the article’s subject matter and provide formal recognition to the editor after passing the initial evaluation. The editorial board reserves the right to dismiss any article that fails to meet the standards of quality and innovation without submission for peer review. The editorial board retains the discretion to reject any article that does not fulfil the criteria of excellence and novelty without being submitted for peer review. The editor can also make recommendations from idiomatic recommendations from specialized professionals.

Step by Step process

This journal uses a double-blind review, which means that the identities of the reviewers and authors are kept secret from the reviewers and vice versa throughout the review process.
Manuscripts that do not meet the technical requirements will not be considered for review.
Authors are expected to follow the author's instructions and guidelines, as well as indicate the category in which they are publishing if it is not a research article.
The review team will also evaluate the readability and grammatical usage of the article, and if it fails to meet these standards, they may request resubmission.
Following receipt of the papers, they will be distributed to subject experts based on the topic for which the author has submitted the article.
If the expert finds any errors or irrelevant information, he will decide within a day or two and notify the Editor-in-Chief. The decision will be communicated to the appropriate author.
Authors can express dissatisfaction with editorial review comments if they provide a logical explanation that the Editor-in-Chief will consider.
On the other hand, offensive remarks in the editor's comments will result in the publication's cancellation.
All efforts will be made to complete the entire process within three months of submission, with the first decision being made within 30 days on average to inform authors of the status of their article.
The entire peer review process for papers submitted to the Journal of Mobility Technology takes place online and in digital format.
Authors must use the online submission method to submit their manuscripts. If they are unable to contact the assistant editor, they should send an email instead.
The editorial board is in charge of confirming the reviewers' competence.
Contributors will typically receive notification of the acceptance of their manuscript for the reviewing process within two weeks, followed by the first response from the reviewers within another two weeks.
The editorial board is in charge of ensuring that responses are provided as soon as possible during the double-blind review process.
Personal criticism of the author should be avoided when conducting a review. The Referee's report should contain arguments aimed at improving the manuscript's quality.
A review template is also provided to help with the review process.

Key Steps of the Peer Review Process

The journal editorial board follows a rigorous peer review process that adheres to industry standards and guidelines. The process involves systematically evaluating academic research articles by subject matter experts in the relevant field. The reviewers assess the research work’s quality, originality, clarity, and significance before recommending its acceptance or rejection to the board. The journal’s peer review process ensures the reliability and credibility of published articles to maintain the highest standards of academic excellence:

The article undergoes a thorough editorial review to meet content quality and scope criteria. The journal uses a reliable tool like iThenticate to detect and prevent potential plagiarism in an article.
The submitted article is reviewed by the editor(s) to see if it fits the journal's broad scope and has adequate value.
After submitting an article to the Journal, the Associate Editor and Assistant Editor will assess the quality and novelty of the article to determine its suitability for peer review.
Before considering formally initiating the review process, the editor(s) also pay attention to the readability, grammar and usage. If a work is rejected at this level, the author will be notified promptly.
The article will be rejected from the peer review process if it lacks the required quality and innovation. In addition, the Authors will also receive a notification of the rejection of the article with reasonable justifications. If accepted, the article will proceed to the next phase of the peer review process.
There will also be a technical rejection if the authors include their names and affiliations in the main document, if the tables and figures that are mentioned in the text are absent, or if the authors do not follow the guidelines.
The Assistant Editor will delegate the power to select external reviewers to the Associate Editor. Additionally, the Associate Editor will make the appropriate decision to accept or reject the submission based on the review comments provided by the reviewer.
If the reviewer fails to submit the review report of the article within the prescribed time limit of 3 to 4 weeks, the Assistant Editor will either select a replacement reviewer or request the Associate Editor to summarize the article. A single negative comment from an Associate Editor is enough to cause article rejection.
The reviewer or referee is to review the article within the suggested time frame of 3 to 4 weeks. The journal is committed to providing article review reports within a specified timeframe so that authors can receive timely updates regarding their articles as soon as possible. The review report should not exceed 500 words.
The Assistant Editor has the power to decide on the article based on the reviewers’ comments. The decision can take one of the following forms:

Accepted: does not require any changes.

Accepted if Modified Minor: The article requires small changes. The authors should amend the article to address the stated concerns.

Accepted if Modified Major: The article requires significant revisions. The authors should amend the article to address the stated concerns.

Disapprove: Unfortunately, the article has been rejected due to the unavailability of innovative approaches, technical errors, or advancements.

In the case of a revision request from the editor, authors must enhance the quality of the initial submission according to the revision comments provided by the editor in the letter.
The authors should note the deadline for resubmission, as stated in the notification letter. When submitting a revised article, follow the guidelines for resubmitting the journal (available in the notification letter) and provide comprehensive review comments to the referee.
Refrain from submitting the revised manuscript as a new article. The revised article can be evaluated by an original reviewer or a new reviewer with technical proficiency. However, in most cases, the Referee or Associate Editor will assess a reviewed article. The Editor-in-Chief uninterruptedly observe and evaluates the efficiency of the entire peer review process.
The Editor-in-Chief will examine the competencies of the Associate Editor team to ensure optimal quality assurance and to uphold high standards in the business or academic setting.

Paper Reviews Criteria

1. Long-term reference value

Is the content of this paper relevant and likely to be cited in future work?
Do the findings and interpretations have long-term scientific value?
Is the subject relevant to the field?
Does the paper improve or advance the state of the art?

2. Concepts & Organisation

Does the introductory section explain motivation and help the reader get oriented?
Does the paper explain what was done, how it was done, and what the main results were?
Does the paper remain focused on its topic?
Are the tables and figures clear, relevant, and accurate?
Are the concepts presented clearly?
Is the paper organised logically?
Is the use of titles and keywords appropriate?
Is the length of the paper appropriate for its scope?
Does the author demonstrate knowledge of fundamental composition skills such as word choice, sentence structure, paragraph development, grammar, punctuation, spelling, and reference citation?

3. Professional integrity

Is there any commercialization in the paper?
Is the paper free of bias and personalities?
Is the paper well-structured and balanced?
Is prior work by others properly credited?
Is the author careful not to criticise competitors' methods or products?
Are references to previous work presented constructively, fairly, and evenly?

4. Innovation

Is there a current audience for the subject matter?
Are the ideas/information/methods valuable, novel, or creative?
Is the author the originator of new information?
Are the analytical, numerical, or experimental results, as well as their interpretation, original?
Is the impact of the results stated clearly?

5. Quality & Validation

Does the paper have a solid technical framework?
Does the paper evaluate the work's strengths and limitations?
Are performance metrics stated clearly?
Are the outcomes described in detail?
Is relevant prior research adequately discussed?
Are all assumptions supported by prior proven works?

6. Soundness of conclusions

Are the paper's claims firmly established?
Are the conclusions theoretically or experimentally sound?
Are the facts presented sufficient to support the conclusions?

Rating Score

Sl. No.	Particulars	Score (1-10)
1	Long-Term Reference Value
2	Concepts & Organization
3	Professional Integrity
4	Innovation
5	Quality & Validation
6	Soundness of Conclusion
	Total out of 60

Scores range from 1 to 10, with 1 being the lowest and 10 being the highest.

Whether Recommended for Journal (Please √ mark)

Approved

Approved if Modified-Minor

Approved if Modified – Major

Disapproved

Comments & Corrective Actions: (Why it is Approved / Disapproved?, What corrections are required?)

COPE Guidelines References

About Journal