An online peer review process is used through Manuscript
Central. The overall peer review process is summarized with the
- Author submits paper
- Administrator checks that electronic file is readable and conformal to the author's guideline and then
passes it to Editor-in-Chief
- Editor-in-Chief runs the cross-reference check via professional similarity check software, and, if passed, asks an editor to conduct review process
- The assigned editor checks for scope and conflict of interest
- The assigned editor requests reviewers
- The assigned editor passes information to reviewers that agree to
- Reviewers review paper
- The assigned editor collects reviews
- The assigned editor notifies reviewers that did not send in a review
that their help is no longer needed
- The assigned editor makes a preliminary decision
- Editor-in-chief reviews preliminary decision. If approved, a letter is sent
to author with a copy to the assigned editor. Separate emails sent
to each reviewer with decision and copies of all reviews. If preliminary
decision is not approved, the paper is returned to The assigned editor with explanation of what to do next
- If paper is accepted or rejected, then no further action needed
- If the decision is "accept with minor revisions" or
"reconsider, major revisions," then the author may submit
a revised paper, response to reviewers, and response to editor-in-chief.
When this occurs, the assigned editor is informed via an automatic
- The assigned editor decides whether second round of review is needed.
If so, the author passes information to the reviewers. For reviewers
of the original paper, step 5 is skipped. However, step 6 must be
performed (using the "agreed" button in the tool at Manuscript
- Steps 8 and 9 are repeated for the revised paper.
For a "correction" item, you may evaluate
the validity of the correction without outside review, or you may send
it out for one or more reviews. For "comments" and "reply"
items, the following apply:
- Ideally, one of the authors of the item being
commented on should be assigned as a reviewer. This author should
ideally be the submitting author of the item being commented on.
To minimize compromising the anonymity of this reviewer, at least
one independent reviewer should also be assigned.
- Once the comments item is accepted, the submitting author of
the item being commented on needs to be invited by the assigned editor to submit a reply within a reasonable amount of time (2 months).
The reply should be submitted as a correspondence item using the
online tool. The editor-in-chief will assign this reply to the same assigned editor that handled the comments item. The assigned editor should
review the reply, as well as the same independent reviewer used
for the comments item.
- The Publishing Editor will wait to publish both the comments
and the reply items together.
Note that the submitting author for the paper being
commented on can be determined from the online tool by the editor-in-chief. The submitting author may delegate responsibility
of the reply to another of the authors. The submitted author may choose
not to replay at all.
Receiving a Paper
First Review Cycle
What to Send to Reviewers
Frequently Asked Questions
The Transactions on Vehicular Technology are published by the IEEE and sponsored by VTS
To contact the editorial office, email System Administrator or Editor-in-Chief
or send correspondence to:
Professor Michael Fang, Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Florida, 435 New Engineering Building, P.O.Box 116130, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA.
Modified: April 2013