1. This journal uses 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.

2. Manuscripts that do not meet the technical requirements will not be considered for review.

3. Authors are expected to follow the author instructions and guidelines, as well as indicate the category in which they are publishing if it is not a research article.

4. 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.

5. Following receipt of the papers, they will be distributed to subject experts based on the topic for which the author has submitted the article.

6. If the expert finds any errors or irrelevant information, he will make a decision within a day or two and notify the Editor-in-Chief. The decision will be communicated to the appropriate author.

7. Authors can express their dissatisfaction with editorial review comments if they provide a logical explanation that the Editor-in-Chief will consider.

8. Offensive remarks in the editor's comments, on the other hand, 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.

9. The entire peer review process for papers submitted to the Journal of Mobility Technology takes place online and in digital format.

10. 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.

11. The editorial board is in charge of confirming the reviewers' competence.

12. 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.

13. The editorial board is in charge of ensuring that responses are provided as soon as possible during the double-blind review process.

14. Personal criticism of the author should be avoided when conducting a review. The Referee's report should clearly contain arguments aimed at improving the manuscript's quality.

15. A review template is also provided to help with the review process.

Key Steps of Peer Review Process

a) The submitted article is reviewed by the editor(s) to see if it fits the journal's broad scope and has adequate value.

b) Before considering for 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.

c) 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.

d) Following the editor's first clearance, the article is sent to two or three subject editorial reviewers.

e) Editorial Reviewers evaluate the article and return it to the editorial office for processing.

f) Following the initial review, the Editor-in-Chief sends reviews to authors.

g) Authors are expected to react to reviewers and make any required changes.

h) The article may re-reviewed if necessary.

i) The Editor-in-Chief has the option of accepting, rejecting, accepting with minor changes, or sending it out for a third review.

j) If the proposal is approved, the author should submit the final version of the paper with all corrections. The version will be put to the publisher's "in-press" queue.

k) The final article will be published in journal issue and intimate to the author.