Editors uphold the journal's quality, integrity, and reputation. They ensure that manuscripts are evaluated fairly, transparently, and according to the highest scientific and ethical standards. The following guidelines outline the responsibilities and expectations of editors.

Editorial independence and integrity

    - Editorial decisions must be based solely on the manuscript's academic merit, originality, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

    - Commercial considerations, institutional affiliations, personal relationships, or political views should not influence decisions.

    - Editors must act in the best interests of the journal and the scientific community.

Responsibilities in the peer review process

Editors are expected to:

    - Ensure that each submitted manuscript undergoes a rigorous and fair peer review process.

    - Select reviewers with appropriate expertise, avoiding individuals with potential conflicts of interest.

    - Guarantee that reviews are completed promptly and that reports are constructive and respectful.

    - Protect all submissions' confidentiality throughout the first step of the process.

Two-step evaluation of the Roads journal

The peer review process in The Roads journals consists of two stages. The first is an independent review phase, and the second is an interactive one. In the first stage, independent review, the article reviewers conduct their evaluations independently, following standard scientific rules as stated in the Reviewer guidelines. The forms have been found in the assessment system for the manuscript review. Reviewers write their views about the manuscript on these forms. In this stage, a reviewer does not see other reviewers' comments.

In the second stage of manuscript evaluation, interactive review, authors respond to the reviewers' criticisms in the boxes provided, and reviewers also state their scientific opinions about the manuscript. If deemed necessary during the author-reviewer correspondence, the review editor also participates in the discussions. When required, the editor-in-chief also expresses their opinion in the review form. This stage ended with all reviewers being satisfied with the revision of the submitted manuscript. A referee can reject or accept the manuscript during this interactive evaluation phase.

Decision-making

    - Editors should carefully evaluate reviewer reports and use their own expert judgment.

    - Decisions must be communicated clearly and promptly to authors.

    - Standard editorial decisions include Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.

    - Where necessary, editors may consult additional reviewers or editorial board members.

Ethical oversight

Editors are responsible for ensuring adherence to ethical standards, including:

    - Verification of appropriate ethical approvals for research involving humans, animals, or sensitive data.

    - Investigating concerns regarding plagiarism, data falsification, image manipulation, duplicate submission, or inappropriate authorship.

    - Following COPE flowcharts and procedures in handling suspected ethical misconduct.

    - Issuing corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern when ethical issues are confirmed.

Conflicts of interest

    - Editors must not handle manuscripts with personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest.

    - Such manuscripts should be reassigned to another editor without delay.

    - Editors should declare any potential conflicts of interest to the publisher or editorial board. The evaluation system of the Roads will ask this request. Without declaring any potential conflicts of interest to the publisher or editorial board, the system will not allow the editor and reviewers to start the evaluation processes.

Transparency and accountability

Editors are accountable for the integrity of the editorial process and must:

    - Ensure transparent communication with authors, reviewers, and readers.

    - Apply editorial policies consistently across all submissions.

    - Support initiatives that promote reproducibility, data sharing, and research transparency.

    - Take responsibility for the final editorial decisions and their consequences.

Promotion of scientific quality

Editors should encourage authors to:

    - Adhere to field-specific reporting guidelines (e.g., CONSORT, PRISMA, ARRIVE, STROBE).

    - Provide clear data availability statements and make datasets accessible when possible.

    - Use accurate citations and avoid excessive self-citation or citation manipulation.

    - Follow best practices in research design, statistical analysis, and interpretation.

Relationship with reviewers

    - Editors should treat reviewers with respect and professionalism.

    - Editors should monitor the quality of reviewer reports and provide feedback when necessary.

    - Reviewer contributions will be recognized by disclosing their names on the printed article.

Continuous improvement

Editors are expected to engage in ongoing professional development, including:

    - Staying updated on best practices in scholarly publishing and peer review.

    - Attending editorial training sessions and COPE seminars.

    - Contributing to the journal’s development through innovation, outreach, and collaboration.

Final responsibility

The Editor-in-Chief and the editorial board ensure that the journal maintains the highest standards of scientific excellence, ethical integrity, and editorial independence.